Some people here continue to say Paul knew the gospels. He could not b/c the earliest and most apocalyptic, Mark, was written after Paul's deatrh. It is a fact that anyone in diverse religions believe. It is fact. Paul may have had access to a hypothetical Q, which was the source of the synotpic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The similaries are too great to be based on independent sources. Q probably contained sayings of Jesus, handed down orally and finally written. For some reason, there is no narrative. Maybe people already knew the narrative but wanted the precise words of Jesus before the oral tradition degraded them. There is no miraculous birth or even Passion in Q.
Paul had to rely on what he was taught by oral tradition or perahps some fragmented writings that are now lost. Clearly, his view of Jesus differs from that of James and Peter. There is no scripture that conclusively settles the Christological debate. To me, it matters deeply whether Jesus was adopted by God, is highly evolved, or is God. For some reason, it did not consume early Christians. Perhaps certain cities had different views.
When I read a critical biography of Augustine recently, I was shocked at the diversity of scripture during Jesus; life and Augustine's. Different cities considered different books holy. One city might have no knowledge of another gospel. Many Christians only had one gospel. Sometimes the writings considered scripture can be traced to the historical tradition that linked a particular apostle with the founding of the local church. Every little church was founded by one of the Twelve or Paul. They all had relics, too. The canonization of the gospels and the development of orthodoxy only happened after Constantine's conversion. Constantine ordered local bishops to gather and define belief. The result was many disputes. The historical records can be easily found online. Once Constantine converted, what Christian bishops decided was important to everyone in the Roman Empire. Time and time again, Constantine interferes for political reasons. He wants one united church. His legitmacy as a Roman Emperor was sullied. A cohesive church increased his personal legitimacy.
I thought that the Trinitarian view was decided by the Nicene Creed. Presently, I am reading a historical novel about a young woman who poses as a man to have a place among Christian intellects. Arianism lasted for a long time in Europe. There were military battles and suppression deep into the MIddle Ages. Predictably, there was not widespread debate among Christians. What view of Jesus you held mostly depended upon where you lived in a geographical region. Your war lord determined what you would believe.
This is a rich history, full of contradictions. Within mainstream denominations, even those that recite the Nicene Creed during every service, few would claim it is absolute. A sophisticated view that I endorse is that God acts in people's lives in sundry ways. Each person has a range of experiences. The Trnity is best viewed as a clumsy attempt to describe the manifest ways we view God. No one would be defrocked for this view.
The same is true of American history. Few Americans have a clue how sexy, interesting, and personal it is. Rather than tarnish it with the great American myths that are total lies, why not embrace it. We comes across as a far better nation with the truth. Any time scripture or supposed history, selected and misconstrued as in the WT manner, fits neatly into a framework, the result is fraud on a large scale.
I don't know the truth. The first century actors disagreed. I can only quote my readings and personal insights. Others may have other views, just as legitimate. I do know utter junk and bunk when I read it. Were this not the exWT world, I would ignore it. Eden One completely and totally misrepresented the Gnostic scriptures. Total misrepresentation. He writes boldy but he knows very little. In his mind, he is a giant and we are little itsby nothings. Well, I know better and will proclaim it. I am sorry if I get carried away but I despise a supposed teacher claiming truth that isn ot truth in any fashion. All my higher education moves me to call bunk.
When someone proclaims something shockingly different from accepted norms, the person should cite extensive sources and the process by which they reached their conclusions. Many an academic field has improved by such action. Eden One could be right. I highly doubt it. Conclusory statements are not enough. I recall being impressed by shoddy scholarship when I was a teenager. The WT was the only truth. Well, I am much older and wiser now.
