The flashing light and visitation story of Paul has surfaced again in some sort of litmus test for being 'called', can't just go to church like the old days, uk11 says that's all hogwash, only abracadabra with lots of POOF makes the grade these days.
Thoughts on Jesus' Resurrection
by Perry 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
rawe
Hi mP,
"The argument that P didn't mention facts about J makes no sense. He often gives other mundane facts that we can assume they already knew. He repeats personal details about himself which they already knew. The easier to believe or ponder fact is that P didn't know our J. If you read the text J exists on a different spiritual plane. P's Judaism is different from that of the apostles."
Alas, we can't go back in time and interview Paul or Jesus. Probably the best we can do is get a sense or feeling about what Paul knew about Jesus and what he didn't based on the material we have. As per the record in Acts, Paul, in fact did not know Jesus personally, so I would argue that favors the idea he wouldn't reflect on specific details from the historical life of Jesus.
Consider Paul's words a Colossians 2: " See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces [ a ] of this world rather than on Christ. "
I think the mention of "philosophy" is key to understanding Paul. The Roman world of his day, was influenced by Greek philosophy. Paul even quotes from the Stoic Philosopher Aratus at Acts 17:28 " For we are also His offspring ." Paul viewed knowledge about the Christ as the answer to competing philosophy of his day. Also notice when Paul make these sort of arguments his stress on "Christ" rather than "Jesus."
Even many modern preachers of Christianity talk very little about the historical details of Jesus life.
In summary my argument is, given that Paul did not know Jesus personally and his style was to focus on philosophical aspects of belief, we should not expect him to comment on many historical details of Jesus life. Even so, there is at least one case of historical reflection. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, reflects on the last supper event.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
mP
rawe:
As per the record in Acts, Paul, in fact did not know Jesus personally, so I would argue that favors the idea he wouldn't reflect on specific details from the historical life of Jesus.
mP:
You dont know have to know someone personally to know basic facts about them. I dont know george Washington, but i know a few elementary facts. The problem is Paul knows none. Surely he should be able to repeat something about the ministry, miracles and so on. He did after all spend 2 weeks in jerusalem with Cephas etc.
Rawe:
Consider Paul's words a Colossians 2: " See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy , which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces [ a ] of this world rather than on Christ. "
mP:
How exactly does that make my assertion wrong ? The gospels talk about Jesus does that make them *wrong* for the same reason because they talk about mundane and grander things ?
-
mP
RAWE:
Even many modern preachers of Christianity talk very little about the historical details of Jesus life.
mP:
Thats because theres little material to use. Anyone who tries will quickly run out of things to say in a short time, not to mention the rediculous aspects. -
rawe
Hi mP,
How exactly does that make my assertion wrong ? The gospels talk about Jesus does that make them *wrong* for the same reason because they talk about mundane and grander things ?
(disclaimer: In case someone sees just single posts of mine, you should know I an atheist and am not arguing for the idea Jesus was God, rather just exploring what reasonable conclusions can we reach from NT material).
I probably wouldn't say Paul's comment philosophy makes your assertion wrong. I would say we don't have enough information to make strong right vs wrong declarations. I went back a few posts to grab what you said...
Even Paul knows nothing about Jesus the man. scan thru all his writings and write down the facts you learn about jesus. stop when you get to 5. You wont learn about his family, where he went, what miracles he did, when he lived, who his apostles were and so on.
First, I think that is a great challenge for any Christian to under take. When I ran across this in the Brian Flemming film it really struck my how obvious things can be in the Bible, but unless you're doing critical analysis you'll miss it. The other alternative is to have someone point this out to you. Now of course Flemming asserts Paul's lack of commentary is part of the proof the historical Jesus did not exist. Your assertion is more mild, just that Paul knows nothing about Jesus. And my assertion is even more mild, that all we can say is if Paul did know specific details of the life of the historical Jesus he didn't report on them.
To use your George Washington example, if you referenced GW with nearly every post to point out what an important man he was to your philosophy, should we find it odd, that you refrain from citing any specific about the life of GW? Maybe. But I'm not sure that could be used as proof that you didn't really know any about GW.
In regards to the gospels, my feelings are they are different than Paul's writings for two reasons. The obvious is different authors have different styles. But I think the biggest difference is in purpose -- the intent of the gospels (esp the synoptic ones) was the capture a life-story of Jesus. Likely the ones selected for the Bible canon were the most popular and most trusted of their day. One of the challenges a friend of mine who was in the process of leaving the faith, while I was still strongly in, gave me was to reconcile the resurrection accounts. I thought no problem, pulled out the Greatest Man book and The Bible and started. Alas, I don't think it can be done. The accounts have serious and not so easy to dismiss contraditions.
Cheers,
-Randy
-
tec
I like both of those articles, Perry and Vander. I would not say they are proofs (then, yes of course; for people today not so much)... but definitely they are arguments that can lead one to reason toward the likelihood of the resurrection. Certainly, the apostles believed it, because few people are willing to die for something that they know is a lie that they told.
These are not the reasons upon which to base one's faith... that would be Christ, Truth, the Living One... but they are good arguments to at least make one think.
Peace,
tammy
-
tec
If Jesus were alive he did nothing to stop the wholesale slaughter of Jews by Christians.
Nor the jews by the jews. Nor the church by the jews.
Man does what man chooses to do. Unfortunately, his choices too often pit brother against brother, and friend against foe.
No 'Christian' was following Christ by slaughtering anyone, Jew or not. They might call themselves christian, but they were following someone/something else. Their actions would have been going AGAINST Christ, who did not lift a hand to harm a single Jewish person (his brothers), and neither did his apostles. So where they got it in them to start persecuting or killing or forcing conversions... rather than BEING the persecuted... well, they did not get that from Christ. That is not what he said would happen to those who followed Him.
Peace,
tammy
-
OnTheWayOut
I am confident that this example of re-writing of Israeli history will help you understand how it happened, then apply that to Judiasm morphing into Christianity to understand that it happened again.
-
unstopableravens
cold steel: i say that because a ressurection is: that which has died coming back again . to literally stand back up. if jesus died as a man than he was ressurected as a man. that is a resurrection. reincarnation would be to die as one thing and come back as another. if jesus died as a man and came back as an angel that is not a resurrection. that is reincarnation. which the jw teach they say jesus the man died and micheal the angel was raised.
-
mP
Rawe:
Your assertion is more mild, just that Paul knows nothing about Jesus. And my assertion is even more mild, that all we can say is if Paul did know specific details of the life of the historical Jesus he didn't report on them.
mP:
Actually i think it can be argued that Paul never existed either. Many aspects of his story are also miraculous and super human. i have raised in other threads that i think the chrch network and communications between them and Paul is impossible.
There is no historical account i have seen that mentions a Paul or Saul call him what you will doing any of the things he claims. Given it was a Roman world who would have given him authority to persecute lets call them non beliving jews ? WOuld Rome allow one religious group to lynch another ? WOuld the USA gov allow mulsims to lynch jews or some other group today ? The answer to both is of course not. This sort of religious hatreds is bad for business, Rome couldnt allow this to happen because it destroyed their tax base. Its this sort of religious hatreds that created the atmosphere that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad etc.
RAWE:
To use your George Washington example, if you referenced GW with nearly every post to point out what an important man he was to your philosophy, should we find it odd, that you refrain from citing any specific about the life of GW? Maybe. But I'm not sure that could be used as proof that you didn't really know any about GW.
mP:
But Paul never discusses any of jesus ministry once. He also uses the wrong name for Peter. How come he didnt know Cephas had a name change to Peter ?
RAWE:
In regards to the gospels, my feelings are they are different than Paul's writings for two reasons. The obvious is different authors have different styles. But I think the biggest difference is in purpose -- the intent of the gospels (esp the synoptic ones) was the capture a life-story of Jesus. Likely the ones selected for the Bible canon were the most popular and most trusted of their day.
mP:
I think theres merit in saying that Paul believed in totally different religion compared to modern xianity. I dont believe xianity started about 30ad. I have yet to see any proof. I think the dating of authorship of the gospels is a strong case for this. If there were lots of believers, surely some should have written something immediately after Jesus death rather than waiting 40+ years.
RAWE:
One of the challenges a friend of mine who was in the process of leaving the faith, while I was still strongly in, gave me was to reconcile the resurrection accounts. I thought no problem, pulled out the Greatest Man book and The Bible and started. Alas, I don't think it can be done. The accounts have serious and not so easy to dismiss contraditions.
mP:
Firstly let me say i dont bleieve the author mk believed in such account. Most bibles tell us the resurrection part is an addition. The style of Mat & Lk quite clearly show they are adding to Mk, and simply making up stuff. Many times their accounts conflict with each other because they were not aware of the other. There was no attempt to be honest. Whether the writer or the third hand accounts they are using are wrong doesnt matter, they just write whatever they wish.
Just lies cant keep a story straight, the same is true of the gospels. Basically teh authors are liars, or the ones telling them the story are inventive. take your pick.