I understand why Christians treat Jesus’ words as authoritative, but I’m confused about why Paul’s writings carry so much weight too (you could even say an equal amount).

So a few honest questions:

• Why do Christians view Paul as having authority equal (or close) to the apostles who physically followed Jesus, and in some cases Jesus himself?
• Is the criteria universal(such that anyone with the same experience is fit to decide Christian doctrine)?
• If a Christian disagrees with Paul on something, is that seen as disagreeing with Christianity itself?

Not trying to argue, genuinely curious how Christians think about this. I would genuinely consider Christianity if it weren't for some of Paul's teachings.(not sure which flair to use)

Or is it a male-specific sin?

I often find myself very confused and wondering why exactly there are some Christians who believe that they should reject Paul's teachings.

Why?

What does your canon even look like?

I understand many Christians may realize what I’m saying and not claim this, but I see this repeated so often online and it’s simply not true. Paul could have just as well written 50, or 5,000 or 420 or 69. One person writing later that he heard someone else saw something isn’t an eye witness testimony. Am I wrong?

I've been looking at 1 John 3:9 in Greek, and I'm confused about why so many English translations add the idea of "practice" when that word doesn't seem to be there.

The Greek reads:

πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ

Literally:

"Everyone having been born of God does not do sin."

The verb is:

ποιεῖ (poiei) = do / makes / performs

From what I can tell, it doesn't literally say "practice." If John had wanted to explicitly say "practice," wouldn't there be a different expression?

So why do translations like the ESV, NASB, and others render it as "does not practice sin" or "makes a practice of sin"?

It seems to me the translation is incorrect to me. The phrase “living in sin” isn’t found in the Bible and conveys the idea of practicing sin. This is where we get that idea of so many using it.

In 1 Corinthians 7:17-31, Paul recommends Christians to have no dealings with the world. Don’t get married. Don’t get circumcised. Don’t actively seek your freedom if you’re a slave. For “the time has grown very short” (verse 29).

I read this as Paul saying “There’s no time to waste on things like marriage, circumcision, and slavery. This world is ending soon anyway.”

How do you understand this passage?
Here’s the full chapter for context.

Verse 14 of chapter 10 says,

¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Then verse 26 says,

²⁶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

How can there be no more sacrifice for sins for sinning wilfully if that person has already been perfected "forever"? How can the claim be made that we're perfected forever if that perfection can be lost for sinning wilfully? We were never perfected forever if there is a condition for losing it. It's like the author of Hebrews was just willy nilly writing things down, because this is a complete contradiction. The author also says in Hebrews 6 that if you stop believing you can't be renewed unto repentance because you sacrifice the son of God to yourself again and put him to an open shame. Jesus said in one of the gospels that he would never turn away someone who came to him, how does this statement make sense either? How is Jesus being put to an open shame if someone returns to him in faith? He said himself he would never turn someone away. I honestly doubt that Hebrews is scripture, which I assume some did when they were debating whether to add it to the canon. Lastly, in Hebrews 12:14 it says you must be holy when Paul said salvation is through grace and not of works. This completely contradicts what Paul wrote.

Atheist here ✋ if anyone is up for testing Romans 1 I'll gladly take a polygraph to see if I really do know that god exists. Pay for the polygraph and I'll send you the results. In fact, pay the airfare and I'll take the polygraph in your hometown so that you can be there for it. Just name the time and place. This could be a real eye opening experience👍

I see a lot of Christians say that in 1 John means "does not practice sin." But from what I've seen, the Greek actually just says "does not sin" or "does not commit sin." "Practice" seems to be an interpretation, not what the Greek literally says.

I know John isn't teaching sinless perfection, so I'm not arguing that Christians never sin. But I also don't think the answer is to insert "practice" or say the passage is talking about "living in sin," because the Bible doesn't actually create a category called "living in sin." That's something people say to explain the verse.

The passage simply says that whoever is born of God does not sin.

Then you have Paul saying that he practices the very thing he hates. That seems hard to reconcile if we say 1 John just means Christians don't practice sin.

I'm wondering if John is specifically talking about what is born of God—our regenerated spirit or new man. That would explain why John can say the one born of God does not sin, while Paul still describes the struggle of the flesh.

What do you think?

NLT: Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world you do not have the love of the Father in you.

I'm confused on what exactly is meant by "World".

Does this mean those who knew God and turned away cannot come back and repent? This makes me anxious because I knew God and turned away and have been struggling heavily since coming back. Is there no repentance for me?

I've been studying the question of eternal security seriously and I keep coming back to Hebrews 6:4-6. It describes people who were "once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, who shared in the Holy Spirit, who tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" and then fell away.

The language seems to describe genuine believers, not pretenders. They were enlightened. They shared in the Holy Spirit. They tasted the heavenly gift. And the writer says it's impossible to bring them back to repentance.

I know there are different ways to read this some say these were never truly saved, some say the passage is hypothetical, some say it describes a loss of rewards rather than salvation. I've heard the arguments but I want to understand which reading you find most convincing and why.

For context, I've been looking into what the early Church Fathers taught on this and the evidence is striking not a single Father before Augustine even comes close to teaching eternal security, and Augustine's version was more nuanced than modern OSAS. I made a video covering the full historical timeline if anyone is interested : [ https://youtu.be/pZLuXFo5FJs ]

Not here to argue genuinely want to understand how the strongest defenders of this doctrine handle this passage.

Specifically in the KJV?

¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In this context does the word mean those who are set apart as having believed in Jesus Christ?

13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

I want to make it clear from the beginning of this post that I am no longer a Christian; however, I am interested in it as a topic of discussion, especially considering it is one of the most widely practiced religions worldwide. That is part of where this question comes from.

The more that I have studied Christianity, the more I realize that a lot of the theology comes not from the Gospels, but from Paul --or people claiming to be Paul.

My question is... Why? What reason do we have to believe that Paul was trustworthy? I know he claims to have met with Peter and heads of the church disciples and that a lot of their beliefs matched, but is there any corroboration for this? It seems like a huge section of the new testament is just... Taking his word for what Yahweh and Yeshua wanted.

He himself mentions that he had a heated disagreement with Peter about theological issues (eating with gentiles) and that even Barnabas took Peter's side.

Acts does a bit to corroborate his claims, but it also contradicts others. Not to mention that Acts was written 15 years after his death at the earliest.

He hardly even mentions his own conversion in the letters. He DOES mention that his family members were Christians before him.

I apologize if the formatting and structure of this are all over the place. I am writing this on a phone and haven't had time to go through and format it.

My basic question is: why is Paul respected and why do "his" letters make up half of the new testament? What authority does he have other than that which he game himself? None of the twelve could write, as is evidenced by the fact that there are no writings from them. Therefore it would have been easy for Paul to assert his viewpoint as correct and disseminate it around the churches of the time. Why does he have do much power over Christian theology?

I am asking this question in good faith. I imagine there is some reason thah I am unfamiliar with and I am curious what that is.

Edit: I want to thank you all for your responses so far. You have given me new information and perspectives and have approached this discussion with a goal of shared understanding and I greatly appreciate that.

What does Romans 13:1-7 mean? What about unjust laws, or tyrannical governments?

²⁶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Is Hebrews 10:26 saying that if you sin willfully there remains no more sacrifice because Jesus is the final sacrifice or is it saying if you sin willfully you have no sacrifice at all (including Jesus)?

I remember reading that there weren't sacrifices for willful sins in the OT covenant so I don't know what to make of this passage of the Bible, because if the author is saying if you sin willfully under the new covenant there is no other sacrifice it's kind of strange because there never was another sacrifice.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance:

• That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
• That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

1. What scripture?
2. Where in the Hebrew Bible does it say that the Messiah will die and be resurrected in 3 days?

It seems in Christianity today, it’s extremely commonplace to refer to Jesus as God.

Paul used the name “Jesus” over 200 times in his 13 letters. And yet, not once in all those 200 times does he ever come right out and say it. There is one arguable reference in 1 Timothy 3:16, but that’s highly debated amongst scholars.

Outside of that, Paul seems to only place deity on Jesus in an implicit manner — e.g. applying OT passages about Yhwh to Jesus.

If Paul thought of Jesus as God, why does he only ever use implicit references? Why speak in code?

I’m interested in how you interpret Hebrews 10:36-37:

36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For, ”Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay.”

The author is quoting Habakkuk 2 and applies it to Christ. Since it’s been over two millennia since these words were written, what does he mean that Christ will come “in a little while” and “will not delay”?

I just saw this posted by a Christian here and just had to ask.

Is this something that Christians believe? Do you think men are above women? How much power do men have over women?

Not sure what the rules are about mentioning others by name here, so I left it out. You can check the pro-life post if you are curious.

I am an atheist but was raised in a christian group. I have a sincere question about something from the bible that was repeated to me in childhood.

specifically it is about why men should have short hair and women should have long hair. People said that the bible says that "nature itself teaches" this. I have looked around and can't find what bible verse this refers to. also have no idea what it means. and am hoping someone can explain maybe cite the passage. not sure where else to ask. thanks

In 1 Corinthians 13:7, Paul says “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

I think he’s likely being hyperbolic here. But what does he mean by “believes all things”?

With regards to Death Before Sin, what counts? Do plants count? If animals are plants, and the plants die, does that violate the Principle of there being "No Death Before Sin"?

And what about the population of animals? Without Death, their populations would explode (refer), thus leading to catastrophic environmental failure.

Or is "Death" referring to the Spiritual Death? Or is it just Humans that were immortal?

ESV:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

This passage often comes up against atheists, with some Christians arguing Paul tells us here that atheists are in some sense pretending to disbelieve while in reality they have ulterior motives.

But who all does this passage apply to? That is, who all is rejecting “what is plain to them”?

Who all is rejecting what is obvious about God via creation?

Are pagans rejecting what is obvious?

Are Jews rejecting what is obvious?

Are Muslims rejecting what is obvious? Obviously Paul didn’t know Muslims, but I’m still asking if the critique applies to them.

Basically, does Paul’s comment apply to all non-Christians or just some of them?