did the apostle paul really know jesus ?

by mP 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • mP
    mP

    i made a statement to tec, that paul did not know jesus. in fact i challenge anyone to show from his writings, that he knew about the christ presented in the gospels. i believe it is fair to say the lord or christ of paul is only mentioned as a spirit being who was ressurrected for us. never do we hear paul talk about jesus birth, life, ministry and so on. i am not questioning pauls sincereity, and will not deny that he probably truely believed and was wholeheartedly committed. however those facts do not show he was preaching about the same jesus.

    how can we be sure paul spoke of the same jesus that we know?

    is it possible that paul was talking about someone else, someone, or something very different?

    many might not be aware but the savior god theme was very much a popular theme. horus, hercules, dionysuis, mithra etc all share many similarities in their religious systems. if anyone wants references i can provide.

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    I started a thread about this a while ago, but I think I was misled. Because Paul's letters were written before the Gospels, it is tempting to believe that Paul was writing about a theoretical Christ figure; but Paul knew about a ‘Jesus Christ’ who had died and been resurrected, and the Last Supper which he referred to at 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; but that was pretty much all he knew about Jesus….

    Here's a link I posted before: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

  • No Room For George
    No Room For George

    Paul's arguments in Acts chapter 15 which deals with the resurrection of Christ you alluded to, is sufficient enough for me. History bears out that there were a few pretenders around the same time as Jesus death, but none of their legacies stood the test of time, unlike that of Jesus. I find it highly unlikely that Paul either had his personal Jesus(great song btw) misconstrued by accident, nor blatantly attempted to create a Jesus altogether different from the true Son of Man.

    Not to mention, Paul linked up with both Peter and Luke, the former being a VERY close disciple of Jesus, and Luke a respected researcher on Christ's life. I imagine that regardless of what Paul omitted from his own ministry regarding certain details of the Christ's life wasn't for lack of knowledge, but rather had to do with the agenda set in front of him by his own revelation personally delivered by Jesus. You mentioned that Paul didn't focus on Jesus life, but his agenda included the very necessary preaching of not only Christ's death and what it meant for mankind, but also what lead up to it. Paul's thoughts on faith as described in Hebrews, his thoughts on the fruitages of the spirit and flesh as discussed in Galatians, or even his thoughts on the second coming of Christ as mentioned in his first letter to the Thessalonians illustrate that Pauls intent was indeed focused on the example that Christ left for us by his actions throughout his life and up to his death.

    As far Jesus birth is concerned, and his childhood, while I'll admit it's somewhat flimsy, it really wouldn't have provided much for the person in need of faith, nor set a sold example for the basis of developing attititudes or actions that would be in harmony with the spirt. In other words, his youth was largely irrelevant. The meat of his life was his ministry and his death, and Paul by his own example provided ample testimony for Christ's ministry and was completely in harmony with Jesus command to make disciples, probably more in harmony than Christ's own initial 12 disciples.

  • glenster
  • mP
    mP

    glenstar:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/How_On_Earth_Did_Jesus_Become_A_God.html?id=Xi5xIxgnNgcC
    http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Jesus-Christ-Devotion-Christianity/dp/0802831672
    http://www.amazon.com/Christ-among-Messiahs-Language-Messiah/dp/0199844577

    mP:

    Can you give a summary of the key thoughts of the books that you link. Without reading the entire books, what exactly do we learn from those authors ?

  • mP
    mP

    @transhuman68

    I started a thread about this a while ago, but I think I was misled. Because Paul's letters were written before the Gospels, it is tempting to believe that Paul was writing about a theoretical Christ figure; but Paul knew about a ‘Jesus Christ’ who had died and been resurrected, and the Last Supper which he referred to at 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; but that was pretty much all he knew about Jesus….

    Here's a link I posted before: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

    MP:

    Before i reply i will include the scripture that you quote for a reference.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/1co/chapter_011.htm

    For I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to YOU , that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf 24 and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.

    27 Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.

    This does not prove that Paul knew Jesus. This custom can be found in many other religions and ceremonies to other gods. Before i show some links, i will still like to state that no where does Paul say something that is undeniably unique to the Jesus story.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus

    Scholars of comparative mythology identify both Dionysus and Jesus with the dying-and-returning god mythological archetype . [7] Other elements, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, also have parallels. [46] Powell, in particular, argues precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion. [46]

    Google > mithra bread wine <

    http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/mithraismorigin.htm

    The list of similarities reaches every aspect of both religions. Mithran people were known to wash up as a part of their worship. Christians only washed up once and called it "baptism." Mithra was born of a mother-rock by a river under a tree. Jesus was born of a mother as well, and though she was not a rock, he was born in a stable carved out of a rock and the manger was a tree byproduct. Mithra first gives battle to the sun, conquers him, crowns him with rays and makes him his eternal friend and fellow; nay, the sun becomes in a sense Mithra's double, or again his father. Jesus, early in his ministry, confronts Peter, crowns him fisher of men, and makes him his brother. Mithra sacrifices a bull and from its body makes wine and animals and stuff. Jesus sacrifices himself, makes wine out of water, and being a carpenter, made stuff. Most Mithrans were Roman soldiers. Christianity has a hymn called "Onward Christian Soldiers." Mithra has a god friend named Ahura Mazda. Many Christians drive a Mazda. Mithra was born with the Phrygian cap on his head. The pope also wears a funny hat. Coincidence? I don't think so!

    Another problem is that Jesus and Christ are not really names, they are titles, Jesus means "saviour" and Christ means annoited one as in leader. This anyone special is probably going to be called one or both. All kings and priests were messiahs in the OT, we have many occassions of some being called this. Given we do not have Paul discussing his knowledge of JC the son of Mary from Nazareth, we have no way of knowing if he was talking about the same person. He could have been talking about one of the other saviour gods.

    The story of the saviour god, is the sun. Every day the sun gives us light, warmth, goodness and life and then dies in the evening when darkness or evil wins. The same cycle is repeated between the seasons of summer and winter. The saviour portions is that the sun saves us from the cold and death of winter when it returns in the spring. This is the reason everybody celebrates easter, passover and the memorial. At this time, the sun has defeated the cold, as the days get longer than night. An interesting point is all saviour gods die for 3 days, as this is what happens in the middle of winter in the winter solstice. For three days when the Sun is in the souther crux it stays stationary.

    If we examine the symbology of Paul or the Gospels we see a lot of sun language there. If we substitute LORD for SUN a lot of scriptures simply became man admiring the power and glory of the sun.

  • mP
    mP

    @NoRoomForGeorge

    Im sorry Acts was not written by Paul. Acts has a lot of basic mistakes.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ac/chapter_009.htm

    . 6 Nevertheless, rise and enter into the city, and what you must do will be told you.” 7 Now the men that were journeying with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man. 8 But Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were opened he was seeing nothing. So they led him by the hand and conducted him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he did not see anything, and he neither ate nor drank.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ac/chapter_022.htm

    6 “But as I was journeying and drawing close to Damascus, about midday, suddenly out of heaven a great light flashed all around me, 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Naz·a·rene´, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now the men that were with me beheld, indeed, the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me.

    Lastly Jesus was not a nazarene he was from Nazareth the town according to Mt. A nazarene is a religious order and has nothing to do with the town. Samson from the OT for example was a Nazarene. The town Nazareth is not to be found in the OT.

    How do we reconcile these errors ? Does the author of Acts really know what he is talking about ?

    -

    When mentioning scriptures can you please include a link and the verses so we can see them here. Again i would be interested in any thoughts direct from Paul. The benefit of Paul is we have his words, rather than accounts from 30-50 years later.

    The main objective of Acts, is to show that the church of Paul and the Apostles are united in the same religion. Paul wrote a lot of books, its only fair that he also tells us what he believes. Many times he does, such as his stance on various aspects of circumcision and the Moasic law. Yet we do not hear of Jesus the man anywhere. We also have the books supposedly from the Apostles and none mention Paul. If i am wrong feel free to show me.

  • mP
    mP

    NoRoomForGeorge

    As far Jesus birth is concerned, and his childhood, while I'll admit it's somewhat flimsy, it really wouldn't have provided much for the person in need of faith, nor set a sold example for the basis of developing attititudes or actions that would be in harmony with the spirt. In other words, his youth was largely irrelevant. The meat of his life was his ministry and his death, and Paul by his own example provided ample testimony for Christ's ministry and was completely in harmony with Jesus command to make disciples, probably more in harmony than Christ's own initial 12 disciples.

    MP

    My point is we have little knowledge of WHAT paul preached. From the scriptures that he wrote we have no way of knowing if he taught about Jesus Christ or some other saviour. If yo have proof that Paul knew about jesus provide scriptures. Dont just mention them in passing, you are assuming religion has taught you the truth, look at what the book says for itself dont rely on fabrications or what man has told you... show it from scripture.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    There's no way to say for sure that Paul ever met the human/historical Jesus. My hunch is that he never did meet him and likely didn't care much about what the earliest apostles had to say about Jesus.

    He makes claims of being granted revelations and appearances directly from the being he calls the heavenly Christ, including what transpired at the Last Supper. But not everything he taught was created entirely by him, since a couple of his letters seems to include already accepted christological hyms or statements of faith. ( 1 Corinthian 15:3-7, Phil 2: 6-11)

    Unintentionally, or not , he most certainly mutated the early Jesus movement into something more like Myth-raism.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Paul became involved after Jesus crucifixion and alleged ressurection. He wrote before the gospels we call canonical were written. I personally believe he had access to some written and oral sources. Paul stresses that he was not born to Christ in a timely way. He was a miscarriage. Paul's whole reference and theology is the Risen Christ. He encountered Christ, not Jesus of Nazareth.

    He showed you need not be an original disciple to be Christian and have authority. Paul argues too much about his legitimacy. It is clear other Christians came and said his gospel had no validity. If he was fully accepted as a Christian, he would not protest so much.

    There is no way of knowing. James and Peter in Jerusalem were not overawed. His brand of Christianity had practical legs. I wonder how valid his teachings were when Jersualem still existed. It is hard to beat James, often considered Jesus' brother or a very close relative. How do you top Peter for credentials.

    Paul made the church universal rather than a Jewish subsect.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit