Books of the New Testament written by Paul

Post Reply New Topic

Now here is an unusual theological question that's to do with the modern interpretation of the new testament.
Now I am not sure what backgrounds people are from, as i understand different "Christian" denominations interpret the Bible including the new testament differently.

New Testament as you likely know, is a collection of books. This collection was put together by several factions over roughly 250 years. It was put together because during the early Christian movement, there were many different versions of the Jesus story, but no unified movement.

Thus, over time a collection of versions were put together so that Christians could have a copy of all the most popular books, so they could then read all versions and make up there mind for themselves.

Now, some of the gospel (accounts of Jesus's ministry and life etc) were written by people who were there.
However, not all of the books were.

Books written by Paul for example, which were written by Paul, were written later on after Paul, formerly known as Saul, converted to Christianity after having a premonition while travelling on the road to Damascus.

Prior to converting, Saul was actually a Christian hater, and professed to be one of the people who openly persecuted.
Still, Paul's contribution to the Bible is considered perhaps the most valuable.

However, i was thinking about his story and was contemplating what if Paul was bogus, and someone who
simply caught on to a craze of his time. i.e. Christianity. What if he was simply a con artist, who portrayed himself as
a Christian so as to attract funding from the people of his time for what he called his pilgrimage and ministry.

Now, please if this is your faith, please do not be offended by what i have written.
I was just wondering if this speculation, what impact it would have on Christianity.
As if Paul was bogus, then so could much of that which he has written which has been accepted by many as
Gods word.

If my speculation is true, it would mean that Paul's accounts of everything were also discredited.
and thus would mean that all that he condoned was also bogus. Even the Christian Church for example.

Just a speculation. Personally i do not hate Christians nor Christianity, i have some good friends who are good Christians. I just wonder though when reading how these historical accounts translate in modern times, if it is possible to translate such things that is.

I’m not a big fan of Paul (I like Paul McCartney, though).

Much of the sexism in the New Testament stems from him.

I would compare what he wrote to what's in the rest of the Bible and see if it works together. Does it work with the other epistles?

The thing with Paul is Luke wrote all about him in the book of Acts. So if one is going to conclude what Luke wrote about Paul is bogus, then it seems one would also have to also conclude what Luke wrote about Christ is bogus.

Also Peter endorsed Paul's writings. I don't think one at the time could get a better refferece for being legitimate than from the chief apostle of Christ.

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:14-16

Last edited by EzraS on 12 Jun 2019, 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

I believe that the bible contradicts itself a lot.

I think that you will find that the new testament is written from various points of view.
Points of view that inevitably contradict each other in many places.

Some are written from Jewish christian, others written from Gentile christian perspective.
And the books were put together to make a "universal" of Catholic Bible (Catholic translated means including a wide variety of things; all-embracing. or universal).

I understand what you are saying and sure, i think your approach sounds very rational and healthy.
There are of course some who will try and use the Bible to approve of all sorts of behaviour or prophecy
from all sorts of bizarre fragments of information.

My other question was however, what if Paul was bogus. Then Paul perhaps was not the rock that JC said to build his church and thus the christian church was set up based on a false premise.

I think the Paul as referred to in Luke, was a different one.
If you look at the time line of when the books were written and by whom. You would have seen that Paul, the author of many of the books never even met Jesus and lived later on after his death.

Apparently, Paul the Apostle was born 4 BC.
So he would have been too young to have been an eye witness of Jesus's ministry, death and rebirth.
He was old enough to have lead the movement after Jesus's death.
With him dying in 62 / 64 CE.

He could have been bogus, even if he had been known of by other people who were sincere.
After all, in today's world, how many of us know of world leaders.
How many of these people only speak 100% truth and how many of them have manipulated themsleves
into power for self gain?

I am not saying that Paul is definitely bogus, i am just saying what impact would that have on this big religion if Paul had made up all the stuff about meeting Jesus in a dream in order to manipulate himself into power over a growing movement.

Saint Paul the Apostle

I don't get your math. If Paul was born in 4 BC that means he was 4 years older than Chist. Paul died arround 64 CE and Peter died around 68 CE.

Wrong. Jesus did not say that Paul was the rock that He would build His church upon...

Matthew 16:13-20 (NIV) -- Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah

[13] When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

[14] They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

[15] "But what about you?" He asked. "Who do you say I am?"

[16] Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

[17] Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

[18] And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[20] Then He ordered His disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Messiah.


It might help for you to actually read the Bible.

As was Jesus.Wrong again. They were approximately the same age, so Paul could very well have been a witness to Jesus' ministry and crucifixion.

Do you ever actually read the Bible?

Exactly which version of the bible? The original text or the purposely mistranslated King James version that was designed to oppress certain people?

The NAS and NIV are both more carefully translated than the KJV. You might try those.

I'll take your word for it, maybe I will if I can find them someday.

What do those abbreviations stand for?

A lot of people prefer the NRSV.

I’ve heard mixed reviews about the NIV.

You can use lots of different Bibles online for free.

https://biblehub.com/
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/N ... RSV-Bible/

NIV - New International Version
NASB - New American Standard Bible
NRSV - New Revised Standard Version