Paul may have gotten his authority from Jesus but he is the only one who knows that. My immediate concern - which has grown as I get older - is why most of Paul’s pronouncements are made on his own and are not made in conjunction with Peter and the other apostles; and why are many of his pronouncements so at odds with the mercy evident in the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. E.g., his statement on sacrilege seems quite contrary to the teaching and actions of Christ who made it quite clear that he came FOR sinners, not for the righteous. Even the prayers of the church at communion reflect this - Lord I am not worthy…say but the word and my soul shall be healed. At the elevation of the chalice, the prayer I was taught by the Church is “May the blood of Christ wash away my sins and bring me to eternal life.” To argue that one must be cleansed of what we call “actual” sin before Christ can come into one’s soul seems contrary to the very heart of why Christ came as well as to the implications of the prayers the Church uses. Scripture does not record a baptism of any of the Apostles (OR Paul, though one could presume a baptism of fire - an idea which did not come into the church until later) so unless one presumes that Christ wiped their souls clean of original sin (which is not addressed in Scripture) they received the Body and Blood of Christ in sacrilege - AND Peter went on to deny Christ, a good indication that he was still subject to the penalties of original sin!
On only one occasion in Scripture is a meeting recorded between Paul and Peter – the council in Jerusalem, Acts 15:1-29. At that council it was affirmed that the issue of circumcision of the Gentiles and the eating of “unclean” meat were not requirements to be imposed upon the Gentile converts. However, after Acts, the remainder of the documents of the New Testament do not record any communication between Paul and Peter sufficient to indicate that Paul made decisions consistent with any acknowledgment of Peter as head of the Church or in conjunction with Peter. The pronouncements of Paul - which seem to make up a tremendous amount of the Church’s teaching and doctrine and dogma today - are more consistent with the harsh, even brash, attitude of the Jews with the Ten Commandments. Christ admonished the Jews for having taken His Father’s commandments and expanding them into thousands of nit-picky rules. Paul, in his letters, has laid the foundation for the Church to do the same thing.
I would like to see more about the relationship between Paul and Peter and why the Church seems to use and to rely on so much of Paul’s teachings rather than those of Peter and the Apostles. It is all well and good to SAY that Paul received his authority from the risen Christ but Christ gave the keys to His Church to Peter, not Paul. I would like to understand more of Paul’s authority as an independent apostle of Christ to the Gentiles, why he had an independent authority to make decisions of apparent doctrine and/or dogma to HIS churches, and why that does not make him any less a renegade than Martin Luther or John Smith or any of the others who claim to have received revelation and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Sign me …
