did the apostle paul really know jesus ?

by mP 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  Paul writes that they are perceived pillars b/c he wants legitimacy for himself. It is clear to me that the apostles, the twelve, were not thrilled with his claims. It shows that in order to do his ministry, he needed at least nominal support from Jerusalem. Paul is not a neutral journalist or historian. He is advocating for his side.

  I think you are going out of your way to negate Paul .James and Peter were leaders of the church. Altho they were common names, it is easy to infer that they are the same James and Peter. All three were martyrs to the faith. People did not use last names. We don't have a DNA graphic. It is not folly to accept that they are men who led the church in Jerusalem. This links Paul in some way to the Jerusalem church. Whatever his message, he could not carry on his mission without their approval. Jerusalem was central at this point. Rome was not.

  You clearly want to see Paul a fool who knew nothing about Jesus. He did not know Jesus but he did know about Jesus. I don't see what your point is so important. Arguing with me, won't lead me to agree with you. Agree to disagree. Most people on this thread do not agree with you. We don't have detailed documents about what happened. This is church tradition. Tradition usually has some basis in fact.

  This reminds me of the jesus never existed school. We can never now the details of what happened. Paul is not around to be cross-examined. Paul's audience thought his credentials were valid. Do you suggest that Paul and the Twelve are completely unrealted. Was Paul talking about Jesus Smith and the apostle Jesus Doe?
• 

  mP

  BandOnTheRun

  It is clear to me that the apostles, the twelve, were not thrilled with his claims.

  MP

  The scriptures we have been reviewing only give 3 names, you are assuming the twelve were involved, they are never mentioned by name, as a group, or as in some other form like the apostles of Jesus or similar term. If you have a scripture that corrects my statement please show and quote.

  Band:

  it is easy to infer that they are the same James and Peter. All three were martyrs to the faith

  MP

  Im sorry we only know this because of tradition from the Catholic church. Do you honestly believe that Peter was in Rome and died on an upside down cross. Many frauds have been committed in prooving this tradition with evidence, like saying some bones found under teh vatican were those of Peter.

  BAND

  Tradition usually has some basis in fact.

  MP

  Church tradition also likes to stretch thte truth to proove itself. The classic example are relics, there are dozens of crucification crosses, hundreds of fingers of the apostles and so on.

  BAND:

  Do you suggest that Paul and the Twelve are completely unrealted. Was Paul talking about Jesus Smith and the apostle Jesus Doe?

  MP

  Jesus is also a title it means Saviour. There were many savior god religions, feel free to do a search. If we read the text with the word of "savior" you cannot just assume that means Jesus of Nazareth. You are completely ignoring others like Horus who was also a savior god. We could easily substitute Horus into the Paul story in Galatians. His own conversion itself was because the light or sun spoke to him.
• 

  No Room For George

  Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
• 

  Philadelphia Ponos

  @Band On The Run

  The idea that Paul's letters were written after the gospel is just an opinon. There is no evidence to back that claim and it also doesn't make sense. You're suggesting that there were congregations of Christians all over Asia and Europe who believed in Christ before anything was ever written down about him, which doesn't make any sense. Jesus also said his salvation would be extened to the Gentiles when he told the disciples he had other sheep that would soon join them, and in many parables where he stated the blessings from Israel will be extended to the Gentiles because the nation of Israel have rejected him.

  @transhuman68

  That a ridiculous argument. You're saying anything in Paul's letters that indicate it was written after the gospels is an interpolation? Based on what? The fact that you don't agree with it?
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Some of MP's points of contention remind me of ideas from authors like Acharya S. That the Jesus story was entirely mythical, and based on the Sun and the Zodiac. Maybe thats why he's stressing a non literal understanding of the Twelve.

  Now I certainly acknowledge the amount of myth and fabrication thats gone into the Gospels, but I think there was an actual Galilean preacher that served as the basis for the earliest, and very Jewish, Jesus Movement. Paul just had a different take on the meaning of Jesus' death, and came up with a more marketable hybrid cult which drew heavily on both Jewish elements and of the pagan mystery religions.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Only a fundamentalist scholar would believe Paul had access to the canoncial gospels. Vast numbers of scholars agree they were written later. If you could cite some academic sources, I might be swayed. You would have to cite many. I have never read an academic or journal where Paul is given credit for writing after the gospels. I read a lot of academic books. It has been a keen interest since college. The popular writers also believe Paul wrote first. He may have had access to an oral tradition that preceded the gospels or an earlier written gospel that has since disappeared. Perhaps it will be found as archaeology has produced many ancient writings.

  Crossan, Pagels, N.T. Wright, and Marcus Borg are all popular writers who are convinced that Paul wrote first. If I recall correctly, he references historical events that occurred before the gospels.

  I do not know whether all of the twelve were in Jerusalem. Again, scholars do believe that Paul and James were church leaders. James is cited especially. My professional scope is a specialty within law. In fact, I have never heard a single minister who believes Paul wrote later in time. You may have a vested interest but I do not. Unlike the Witnesses, the fact that the gospels come first in the Bible does not mean they were written first. I have no clue what the WT states. What I reveal is not radical news. It has been the establishment fact for a long, long time. I am not that creative.
• 

  transhuman68

  That a ridiculous argument. You're saying anything in Paul's letters that indicate it was written after the gospels is an interpolation? Based on what?

  I think it is a realistic possibility- the New Testament is a bit of a mess, really. It is easy to see where letter have been joined together, and which letters are an obvious forgery, and what has been plagiarized- once these things have been pointed out to you. But it’s not my problem- you can argue with Burton L. Mack if you want.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_L._Mack
• 

  Band on the Run

  JOurnalists should have three sources. Three. Not one.

  See what info wikipedia has. There must be scholarly encylcopedias for New Testament matters.
• 

  Philadelphia Ponos

  @Band On The Run

  I t doesn't matter if every "scholar" on the planet believes the Gospels were written after Paul's letter, they have absolutely no evidence to back up their claim. When people make a claim that goes against logic and common sense, they need to present evidence to proove why there theory is right and the most likey scenario is wrong. The fact that Paul quotes Jesus and alludes to many of his teachings and the fact that there was 10s many even 100s of thousands of believers in Christ by the time Paul started writing his letters is more than sufficient proof for me to conclude that prior to Paul writing his letter there were documents containing Jesus' words and details about his life. If you have any real evidence to suggest that the Gospels were written after Paul's letters other than "the 'scholars' told me so", I would be more than happy to hear them.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Philadelphia Ponos

  You make a good point about there being many christians before Paul came onto the scene. But John, even from early tradition, was said to be written decades after Paul (in the 90s). No doubt christians had oral traditions of different sayings of Jesus that likely were incorporated into the Gospels. But elements like the accurate prediction of the destruction of the Temple point to later times of writing.