Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� or blind-faith?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

Said as if it was a given truth. It wasn't, and it isn't.

It is an unfair claim that cannot be substantiated.

I and other posters have shown how it did not start with Paul but was the basic position of the resurrected Jesus and of the early church.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

Could it be that the plan of salvation changed after the first Easter? A pre-Easter plan preached by Jesus and the prophets, and a post-Easter plan preached by Paul.

If so, they are indeed "different Gospels".

Could it be that you are mistaken?

Could it be that any change that may have taken place came from the resurrected Christ and from the early church as they faced new situations?

If so, they are not "different Gospels" but a clarification of the commonly understood way of salvation.

Jude 3:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Of course I could be mistaken. Seems it's a matter of a difference in approach. The Church puts more stock in what they believe a "resurrected Jesus" may have said, and historical Jesus scholars put more stock in what the flesh and blood Jesus probably said when he actually walked the earth.

I favor the HJ scholars and their approach.

You favor their approach, one that gives freedom to accept or question and/or reject what Jesus said by making it "may have said" or "probably said".

I do not favor that approach because it is one that sows doubt, uncertainty, and confusion, rather than faith and hope.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

Said as if it was a given truth. It wasn't, and it isn't.

It is an unfair claim that cannot be substantiated.

I and other posters have shown how it did not start with Paul but was the basic position of the resurrected Jesus and of the early church.

It did start with Paul...do you want to keep going back and forth ?

This is not a case of "Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it". But even if (big "IF") what Paul said here is true, that one must "believe in one's heart that God raised Jesus from the dead in order to be saved" That is something new.

Jonah, John the Baptist and Jesus preached simple repentance, faith and obedience in order to be saved, not Jesus' (the Messiah's) eventual resurrection.

Paul added that condition, to Scripture anyway. It could have been an early belief, circulated orally, but it did not originate with Jesus teachings.

Even the resurrected Jesus never taught belief in his resurrection as a condition for salvation. The closest he came was to call those who believed without seeing "blessed".

[onewithhim]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

No, Paul did not base anything on "mystery" and did not espouse blind faith. I see Paul as being very reasonable, and he had no interest in "bringing anyone under his control." I agree that true Religion is not about blind faith. There are real, true things that are the basis for faith.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

It is evident that all things were created by Someone or some Intelligence. As verse 3 goes on to say: "By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."

Reason is involved, is it not? Paul never encouraged blind faith.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

I understand that even Paul did not see Jesus going up on the skies. Did he. please?

Regards

No, Paul was not with the disciples when they observed Jesus ascending to heaven. He was "Saul," and still persecuting the followers of Jesus. As he was on the road to Damascus, to further persecute believers, Jesus spoke to him from "a light from heaven" that "flashed around him." (Acts 9:3)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

Exactly. If someone were to ask me about Jesus and Redemption, I'd say it in my own words but the message will be the same as recorded in the NT.

Not one phrase/book makes same impact on everybody. For me, I seem to understand the Gospel of Mark the best where I find things most suitable for my spiritual growth. Next year it might be Mark or John.

Not one phrase/book makes same impact on everybody.

Is it for this that the Pauline Christianity has 32000+ sects/denominations, all losing grounds in the West vis-a-vis Atheism etc, please?

Regards

It is not "Pauline" Christianity or "Johannine" Christianity---Paul and John and all the rest of the Apostles taught the same things, as I have posted before. Shall I post again what I had researched previously?

All of the sects and denominations are not the fault of any of the Bible writers. It is certain men who have taken the original Hebrew and Greek and twisted the meanings into things that the Bible writers wouldn't recognize! It started with the Jews forbidding the pronunciation of God's own name, which led to actually taking His name right out of the English-translation Scriptures! Then nefarious men continued to disfigure the scriptures, misrepresenting many passages with twisted versions for their own surreptitious and devious designs.

Most of the denominations follow the same basic doctrines. They just assert their independence for their own greed. Anyone can become a pastor of his own church. He gets free food and housing, and mostly everything he wants (even though the Bible does not teach that one man should lord it over the church, and without doing any work to support himself). People are willing to believe anything, if they like the person. Great, charming personalities can get a lot from people. Have you noticed men like Joel Osteen? There are many more that I can't even bring their names to mind, who are all smooth talkers with huge smiles---that they have all the way to the bank.

Years ago it was Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, and others that I have forgotten. Even the major denominations do not differ all that much. The only thing that Protestants have against Catholics is the additional rules that were not always a part of the Church, the Pope, and other political matters. The basic doctrines are the same, and they do not come from the actual Bible teachings.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

No, it was not an "added condition" that Paul introduced. It has been explained that Paul was merely reiterating what Jesus had said previously, e.g., at John 3:16.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

No, it was not an "added condition" that Paul introduced. It has been explained that Paul was merely reiterating what Jesus had said previously, e.g., at John 3:16.

How's that? Seems a stretch to say the least...I don't see the connection. Jesus resurrection is not even mentioned in that verse.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

No, it was not an "added condition" that Paul introduced. It has been explained that Paul was merely reiterating what Jesus had said previously, e.g., at John 3:16.

How's that? Seems a stretch to say the least...I don't see the connection. Jesus resurrection is not even mentioned in that verse.

Does it not say that we must "believe in him [God's only-begotten Son]," and if we believe in him we will not perish but have everlasting life?

What does "believing in him" include? Wouldn't it be whatever he said and did and whatever he stood for? It would, basically, be everything about him, right?

Didn't he say that he would be killed and "the third day will be raised up"? (Matthew 17:23)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards

True, but still, an encounter with the "Risen Christ" gives him an unfair advantage over the rest of us, who have not been so fortunate.

So it is easy for Paul to say "believe in your heart that God raised him (Christ) from the dead, and you will be saved".

That is an added condition for salvation that Paul introduced. A condition for salvation that Jesus never made. Very unfair of Paul to have done this, I doubt very much that God would be unfair like that.

No, it was not an "added condition" that Paul introduced. It has been explained that Paul was merely reiterating what Jesus had said previously, e.g., at John 3:16.

How's that? Seems a stretch to say the least...I don't see the connection. Jesus resurrection is not even mentioned in that verse.

Does it not say that we must "believe in him [God's only-begotten Son]," and if we believe in him we will not perish but have everlasting life?

What does "believing in him" include? Wouldn't it be whatever he said and did and whatever he stood for? It would, basically, be everything about him, right?

Didn't he say that he would be killed and "the third day will be raised up"? (Matthew 17:23)

According to Matthew he did, but did not specify believing that as a condition for salvation.

How are you so sure that "believing in him" doesn't mean believing in his teaching?

Accepting HIS God, YHVH, turning to God for forgiveness, (repentance) and being willing to forgive others, praying the way HE prayed, and abiding by HIS Golden Rule of love of God and neighbor.

None of these essential teachings of Jesus have anything to do with whether he was to rise or not.

How come in Jesus most important Sermon, (Matthew 5-7) he makes no mention of the importance of believing in his impending death and resurrection, for forgiveness or salvation? Not mention there....at all.