PDA

View Full Version : What Did Paul Know?



Granite
November 22nd, 2005, 01:49 PM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?

paulpeterson83
November 22nd, 2005, 02:13 PM
Paul was Gods ordained minister, he was called on the road to Damascus, thats all that is important, its from his teachings that we Christians draw much of our theology. It is possible that Paul was not in Jerusalem at that time, or that he arived shortly after the Resurection.

God_Is_Truth
November 22nd, 2005, 02:24 PM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?

I think he probably heard of Jesus before his death, but had never listened to him speak first hand. That would have made the encounter on damascus even more amazing to him.

The Berean
November 22nd, 2005, 02:26 PM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?
It depends on how fast "news" in the ancient world of Isreal traveled. It's not like they had CNN back then. Paul's vision of Jesus Christ must have been a powerful one indeed to have so utterly changed his life.

allsmiles
November 22nd, 2005, 02:50 PM
Berean, what about the triumphant entry of christ? doesn't sound like a last minute pep rally to me. point is, according to the bible, jesus was big news. the idea saul would be ignorant of the ministry of christ is ludicrous.

there are some really good questions to be raised here:

why did no one else witness saul's miraculous conversion, even the people who were traveling side by side with him?

why did he change his name?

why did he lie about his nationality and status? (in acts he claims to be a roman, a pharisee, etc. to save himself from persecution)

why the lack of reference to the words and works of the earthly jesus?

why the lack of biographical information in the epistles?

luke was paul's side kick, a gentile he converted. what effect would paul's new gospel of salvation through faith have on the writing of luke's gospel?

why did it take paul 14 years to go to jerusalem to meet with peter and james?

what was with paul's obsession with the post-resurrection jesus christ and completely disinterested with the earthly ministry of jesus the man? why the distinction if paul had knowledge of the earthly man? why the distinction if he didn't? did paul even believe in a literal jesus the man?

paulpeterson83
November 22nd, 2005, 02:54 PM
What are you trying to get at here Granite?

God_Is_Truth
November 22nd, 2005, 02:59 PM
Allsmiles, why do you wish to know the answers to these kind of questions? are you looking for reasons to believe? or are you trying to find reasons to support your not believing?


Berean, what about the triumphant entry of christ? doesn't sound like a last minute pep rally to me. point is, according to the bible, jesus was big news. the idea saul would be ignorant of the ministry of christ is ludicrous.

Jesus wasn't the only one who claimed to be the Messiah.



there are some really good questions to be raised here:

why did no one else witness saul's miraculous conversion, even the people who were traveling side by side with him?

They were blinded, and that's the way God wanted it.



why did he change his name?

because people would remember how he persecuted the church if his name remained saul. he wanted them to think positively of Christ, so he changed his name.



why did he lie about his nationality and status? (in acts he claims to be a roman, a pharisee, etc. to save himself from persecution)

not a lie so far as i know.



why the lack of reference to the words and works of the earthly jesus?

different dispensation.



why the lack of biographical information in the epistles?

for Paul or Jesus? for Paul because it wasn't important. for Jesus because it wasn't as important either.



luke was paul's side kick, a gentile he converted. what effect would paul's new gospel of salvation through faith have on the writing of luke's gospel?

Luke's "gospel" was an account of what happened during the life of Christ. It was not part of the present dispensation which includes salvation by grace through faith.



why did it take paul 14 years to go to jerusalem to meet with peter and james?

Perhaps he sought to establish himself independently first, as evidence of his validity.



what was with paul's obsession with the post-resurrection jesus christ and completely disinterested with the earthly ministry of jesus the man? why the distinction if paul had knowledge of the earthly man? why the distinction if he didn't? did paul even believe in a literal jesus the man?

Different dispensation, different program, different priority, differnt rules. quite simple really.

allsmiles
November 22nd, 2005, 03:24 PM
Allsmiles, why do you wish to know the answers to these kind of questions? are you looking for reasons to believe? or are you trying to find reasons to support your not believing?

no, i'm trying find reasons for why you believe it.


Jesus wasn't the only one who claimed to be the Messiah.

true, but according to the bible the triumphant entry was a huge event, or am i wrong? was the triumphant entry not a huge event? did only a handful of people show up? i could be totally wrong about the scope, let me know. were the pharisees not afriad of the following jesus was accumulating? were they not intimidated or at least put out?


They were blinded, and that's the way God wanted it.

first of all, that's according to paul, and if you're going to have faith in him too, you first need to establish that he was trustworthy. why don't you set up a premise to support your conclusion? please establish that paul was trustworthy.


because people would remember how he persecuted the church if his name remained saul. he wanted them to think positively of Christ, so he changed his name.

yeah, but they figured it out anyway. and what a change! a whole letter!:chuckle: sorry man, no offense, i wasn't mocking you.


not a lie so far as i know.

i'll have to find the chapters and verses, we can talk about it then:)


for Paul or Jesus? for Paul because it wasn't important. for Jesus because it wasn't as important either.

the life and ministry, indeed the entire career of jesus wasn't important to paul? this is the point i was driving at in my Butting Heads thread.


Luke's "gospel" was an account of what happened during the life of Christ. It was not part of the present dispensation which includes salvation by grace through faith.

:thumb:


Perhaps he sought to establish himself independently first, as evidence of his validity.

i've thought of that too and i agree.


Different dispensation, different program, different priority, differnt rules. quite simple really.

not quite as simple as you'd like to think. paul was teaching about a different jesus than the one the apostles knew and were taught by and watched die and ascend.

you must first demonstrate the reliability and trustworthiness of paul before you can rely on his theology of a new dispensation. paul didn't teach about the earthly career of jesus, he was concerned strictly with the resurrected god-man, the cosmic being. he taught of belief in the action of the death and resurrection for salvation and never reconciled faith based salvation with the doctrine of salvation by works. James reconciled the two: faith without works is dead. paul never did.

paul taught heresy.

he taught of a new, alien jesus that the apostles did not recognize.

it was impossible for them to verify his reliability then just as it is for you now.

Turbo
November 22nd, 2005, 03:56 PM
why did no one else witness saul's miraculous conversion, even the people who were traveling side by side with him?They did witness his conversion. Do you mean, why didn't they see the vision that he saw? Because God wasn't calling them to be his apostle to the Gentiles; he was calling Saul.


why did he change his name?Because as God's apostle to the Gentiles, he was now to be identified as a Gentile rather than an Israelite. Saul is a Hebrew name; Paul is a Gentile (Roman) name.

(This wasn't the first time God changed somebody's name.)


why did he lie about his nationality and status? (in acts he claims to be a roman, a pharisee, etc. to save himself from persecution)What makes you think he was lying?


why the lack of reference to the words and works of the earthly jesus?Paul's epistles were not directed at the same audience nor was the Gospel that he received from Christ the same as Jesus' during His earthly ministry.


why the lack of biographical information in the epistles? Why the lack in Peter's? Or James'? Or Jude's?


luke was paul's side kick, a gentile he converted. what effect would paul's new gospel of salvation through faith have on the writing of luke's gospel?Being that Luke was a historian writing a historical account, I would say none. What, are you assuming Luke was a revisionist historian?

(By the way, the very fact that Luke and Paul were so close should be enough to discount the idea that Paul was ignorant regarding Christ's earthly life and ministry even among skeptics.)


why did it take paul 14 years to go to jerusalem to meet with peter and james?Actually, he had met with them after three years (Gal 1:18)

Why is it surprising that Paul had minimal contact with the twelve? Paul did not receive his authority or his message from them or any other men, but from Christ himself.

Why then, after 14 years, did Paul go back to meet with them? To settle a doctrinal dispute and to put a stop to the false teachers among them.


And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. Acts 15:1-2


what was with paul's obsession with the post-resurrection jesus christ...Belief in the risen Christ is absolutely essential to the Gospel of uncircumcision that was revealed to Paul.

and completely disinterested with the earthly ministry of jesus the man? why the distinction if paul had knowledge of the earthly man? why the distinction if he didn't? During His earthly ministry Jesus taught Israel the Gospel of circumcision.
did paul even believe in a literal jesus the man?Of course.

Granite
November 22nd, 2005, 04:02 PM
I ask because I find it very hard to believe that a zealous Pharisee in Jerusalem seemed so ignorant of Jesus and never once appears to have encountered him in person (pre-resurrection). This is, shall we say, a stretch.

The Berean
November 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM
They did witness his conversion. Do you mean, why didn't they see the vision that he saw? Because God wasn't calling them to be his apostle to the Gentiles; he was calling Saul.

Because as God's apostle to the Gentiles, he was now to be identified as a Gentile rather than an Israelite. Saul is a Hebrew name; Paul is a Gentile (Roman) name.

(This wasn't the first time God changed somebody's name.)

What makes you think he was lying?

Paul's epistles were not directed at the same audience nor was the Gospel that he received from Christ the same as Jesus' during His earthly ministry.

Why the lack in Peter's? Or James'? Or Jude's?

Being that Luke was a historian writing a historical account, I would say none. What, are you assuming Luke was a revisionist historian?

(By the way, the very fact that Luke and Paul were so close should be enough to discount the idea that Paul was ignorant regarding Christ's earthly life and ministry even among skeptics.)

Actually, he had met with them after three years (Gal 1:18)

Why is it surprising that Paul had minimal contact with the twelve? Paul did not receive his authority or his message from them or any other men, but from Christ himself.

Why then, after 14 years, did Paul go back to meet with them? To settle a doctrinal dispute and to put a stop to the false teachers among them.


And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. Acts 15:1-2

Belief in the risen Christ is absolutely essential to the Gospel of uncircumcision that was revealed to Paul.
During His earthly ministry Jesus taught Israel the Gospel of circumcision.Of course.
dang!

Turbo you beat me to it. Great post :first:

allsmiles
November 22nd, 2005, 04:06 PM
They did witness his conversion. Do you mean, why didn't they see the vision that he saw? Because God wasn't calling them to be his apostle to the Gentiles; he was calling Saul.

i'm sure they saw saul freaking out, but a little bit more than the word of a persecutor of christians would be nice:thumb: once again, right now all i'm interested in is the premise, we can tackle the conclusion later. i'd like to hear/read a good case for the trustworthiness of paul.


Because as God's apostle to the Gentiles, he was now to be identified as a Gentile rather than an Israelite. Saul is a Hebrew name; Paul is a Gentile (Roman) name.

thanks, that's a good answer.


What makes you think he was lying?

what makes you think he wasn't? like i said to GIT, i'll get the scriptures together and we'll talk about it then.


Paul's epistles were not directed at the same audience nor was the Gospel that he received from Christ the same as Jesus' during His earthly ministry.

:doh: which is the point! he starts his career as a persecutor of christians, no one can corroborate his conversion experience, he teaches a radically different doctrine of a radically different jesus... please demonstrate why paul should be taken at his word. please provide a solid basis for why the conclusion is correct before expecting anyone to accept it.


Why the lack in Peter's? Or James'? Or Jude's?

because they weren't teaching anything contrary to what jesus taught i would assume.


Being that Luke was a historian writing a historical account, I would say none. What, are you assuming Luke was a revisionist historian?

i don't know for a fact so anything's a possibility.


(By the way, the very fact that Luke and Paul were so close should be enough to discount the idea that Paul was ignorant regarding Christ's earthly life and ministry even among skeptics.)

except for paul's personal testimony, which would be nice to have.


Actually, he had met with them after three years (Gal 1:18)

Why is it surprising that Paul had minimal contact with the twelve? Paul did not receive his authority or his message from them or any other men, but from Christ himself.

Why then, after 14 years, did Paul go back to meet with them? To settle a doctrinal dispute and to put a stop to the false teachers among them.

nothing was stopped... james reconciled the two gospels... faith without works is dead. paul never does.


Belief in the risen Christ is absolutely essential to the Gospel of uncircumcision that was revealed to Paul.

During His earthly ministry Jesus taught Israel the Gospel of circumcision.Of course.

once again, establish that paul is a reliable, trustworthy source and then we can discuss the conclusion. until a solid premise is presented the conclusion can't be trusted.

define a "solid premise", says he.

that, i'll get into tomorrow.

peace TOL.

AS

:)

Turbo
November 22nd, 2005, 05:01 PM
i'm sure they saw saul freaking out, but a little bit more than the word of a persecutor of christians would be nice:thumb: once again, right now all i'm interested in is the premise, we can tackle the conclusion later. i'd like to hear/read a good case for the trustworthiness of paul.
...

:doh: which is the point! he starts his career as a persecutor of christians, no one can corroborate his conversion experience, he teaches a radically different doctrine of a radically different jesus... please demonstrate why paul should be taken at his word. please provide a solid basis for why the conclusion is correct before expecting anyone to accept it.
...

once again, establish that paul is a reliable, trustworthy source and then we can discuss the conclusion. until a solid premise is presented the conclusion can't be trusted.

In a nutshell:
The twelve apostles wrote Paul a letter endorsing his ministry and his unique gospel. (Acts 15)

Peter referred to Paul as his "beloved brother" and counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Recommended reading: MacArthur Rant (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12952)

Also, there's the fact that after Paul's conversion he totally changed. He was no longer a persecutor of Christians, but often times he himself suffered persecution because he was a Christian.


nothing was stopped... james reconciled the two gospels... faith without works is dead. paul never does. No, James was simply teaching the gospel of circumcision to fellow Israelites who were under circumcision, just as he had agreed to do:


7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:7-9

God_Is_Truth
November 22nd, 2005, 11:22 PM
no, i'm trying find reasons for why you believe it.

Why? To persuade us?



true, but according to the bible the triumphant entry was a huge event, or am i wrong? was the triumphant entry not a huge event? did only a handful of people show up? i could be totally wrong about the scope, let me know. were the pharisees not afriad of the following jesus was accumulating? were they not intimidated or at least put out?


It was a big event, yes.



first of all, that's according to paul, and if you're going to have faith in him too, you first need to establish that he was trustworthy. why don't you set up a premise to support your conclusion? please establish that paul was trustworthy.

shouldn't we assume he was trustworthy until we have reason otherwise?



i'll have to find the chapters and verses, we can talk about it then:)

okay



the life and ministry, indeed the entire career of jesus wasn't important to paul? this is the point i was driving at in my Butting Heads thread.

Paul was much more concerned with what happened at his death and resurrection than those things. Dispensationalism has absolutely no problem with this. If you look at the big picture, it's not a problem either.



not quite as simple as you'd like to think. paul was teaching about a different jesus than the one the apostles knew and were taught by and watched die and ascend.

what do you mean a different Jesus?



you must first demonstrate the reliability and trustworthiness of paul before you can rely on his theology of a new dispensation. paul didn't teach about the earthly career of jesus, he was concerned strictly with the resurrected god-man, the cosmic being. he taught of belief in the action of the death and resurrection for salvation and never reconciled faith based salvation with the doctrine of salvation by works. James reconciled the two: faith without works is dead. paul never did.

paul taught heresy.

he taught of a new, alien jesus that the apostles did not recognize.

it was impossible for them to verify his reliability then just as it is for you now.

Paul's trustworthiness, his reliability, his evidence of being a true apostle was doing signs and wonders, namely miracles. Luke speaks of this in his book called Acts.

allsmiles
November 23rd, 2005, 08:03 AM
In a nutshell:
The twelve apostles wrote Paul a letter endorsing his ministry and his unique gospel. (Acts 15)

yeah, good stuff. kind of makes me wonder what happened with Mark near the end of the chapter:think:


Peter referred to Paul as his "beloved brother" and counted Paul's epistles among the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.[/quote]

the part i emphasized... what does that mean? and also, beloved brother is a pleasantry... that doesn't really imply an endorsement. no where does peter say that paul's teaching was inspired by christ in this passage.


Also, there's the fact that after Paul's conversion he totally changed. He was no longer a persecutor of Christians, but often times he himself suffered persecution because he was a Christian.

yeah, and joseph smith was persecuted too after he hijacked your faith, and so was Muhammed after he hijacked your faith.

all in all i see where you're coming from, thanks.

allsmiles
November 23rd, 2005, 08:16 AM
Why? To persuade us?

to satisfy my curiosity.


It was a big event, yes.

so saul hearing of jesus' earthly career isn't out of the question?


shouldn't we assume he was trustworthy until we have reason otherwise?

since when do christians start presuming people innocent before guilty? do you build houses from the top down? plus, you guys have been assuming his trustworthiness for 2000 years... why don't you shake it up for a change and try something new? oh wait... that's against the rules... :nono:


Paul was much more concerned with what happened at his death and resurrection than those things. Dispensationalism has absolutely no problem with this. If you look at the big picture, it's not a problem either.

saying that it's not a problem is fine.


what do you mean a different Jesus?

a cosmic jesus christ, the god man, the post resurrection divine being, not the earthly man.


Paul's trustworthiness, his reliability, his evidence of being a true apostle was doing signs and wonders, namely miracles. Luke speaks of this in his book called Acts.

luke was paul's boy, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Aimiel
November 23rd, 2005, 08:33 AM
It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.I don't think that we're told that Saul was ignorant of Jesus. I can't see how he could have been, as studious and well-connected as he was. Perhaps the reason we're not told anything is that he hadn't yet made up his mind as to Jesus' guilt or where he would 'place' Jesus in his thinking. We're not told about other Jewish leaders of the time who were converted, perhaps because they rejected everything Jesus taught as heresy. Maybe Saul had enough sense to recognize Truth, even though the High-Priest had Jesus put to death. Maybe if The Lord appeared to Caiaphas, the High Priest, or another of the priesthood, He would have been rejected as a devil.

Saul did believe in Jesus when He declared Himself to him, and changed his name to Paul. He also didn't change his mind about Him, even though he was threatened with death for that belief many times. Not only was Paul convinced that Jesus was Messiah, he was thorough in his explanations of how we are to live, believing in Jesus.

Granite
November 23rd, 2005, 08:37 AM
I don't think that we're told that Saul was ignorant of Jesus. I can't see how he could have been, as studious and well-connected as he was. Perhaps the reason we're not told anything is that he hadn't yet made up his mind as to Jesus' guilt or where he would 'place' Jesus in his thinking. We're not told about other Jewish leaders of the time who were converted, perhaps because they rejected everything Jesus taught as heresy. Maybe Saul had enough sense to recognize Truth, even though the High-Priest had Jesus put to death. Maybe if The Lord appeared to Caiaphas, the High Priest, or another of the priesthood, He would have been rejected as a devil.

Saul did believe in Jesus when He declared Himself to him, and changed his name to Paul. He also didn't change his mind about Him, even though he was threatened with death for that belief many times. Not only was Paul convinced that Jesus was Messiah, he was thorough in his explanations of how we are to live, believing in Jesus.

Nothing that Paul said hints once that he knew a thing about Jesus until after the resurrection. And if Paul recognized the truth before Damascus, why was it necessary for Jesus to accost, stun, and blind him?

Aimiel
November 23rd, 2005, 08:51 AM
I believe from circumstantial evidence that Saul knew about Jesus' ministry. Saul had to be blinded (physically) so that he could comprehend his true (spiritual) condition. He was blind to Truth. You're the best example that I can think of to compare him to. You seem to 'know' a lot about Scripture, and yet you can't see at all (spiritually). If The Lord were to visit you, as He did Saul, I wonder what your reaction would be. I pray that He doesn't have to do anything nearly so drastic, but if He does, that you will repent. Many who are confronted with Truth don't. Thank God that many do.

Granite
November 23rd, 2005, 09:09 AM
I believe from circumstantial evidence that Saul knew about Jesus' ministry. Saul had to be blinded (physically) so that he could comprehend his true (spiritual) condition. He was blind to Truth. You're the best example that I can think of to compare him to. You seem to 'know' a lot about Scripture, and yet you can't see at all (spiritually). If The Lord were to visit you, as He did Saul, I wonder what your reaction would be. I pray that He doesn't have to do anything nearly so drastic, but if He does, that you will repent. Many who are confronted with Truth don't. Thank God that many do.

And what circumstantial evidence would that be?

Aimiel
November 23rd, 2005, 11:11 AM
And what circumstantial evidence would that be?Paul's intelligence (obvious from his writing style and content), his position (a doctor of the law, most likely to keep abreast of current events, especially relating to his zeal for God. He ended up holding someone's coat, while Stephen was stoned, not hearing about the stoning second-hand; so he's taking part in his local congregation. He's active. Those circumstances, for starters.

Granite
November 23rd, 2005, 11:33 AM
Paul's intelligence (obvious from his writing style and content), his position (a doctor of the law, most likely to keep abreast of current events, especially relating to his zeal for God. He ended up holding someone's coat, while Stephen was stoned, not hearing about the stoning second-hand; so he's taking part in his local congregation. He's active. Those circumstances, for starters.

That's exactly my point: given all of this, why didn't Paul mention once that he was aware of or had encountered Jesus? Why is he so surprised during the Damascus encounter? Why not appeal to what he knew of Jesus, just as he admitted he'd persecuted the church? Why not draw on what he'd directly seen and heard from Jesus? This absence and silence makes zero sense.

Aimiel
November 23rd, 2005, 12:07 PM
That's exactly my point: given all of this, why didn't Paul mention once that he was aware of or had encountered Jesus? Why is he so surprised during the Damascus encounter? Why not appeal to what he knew of Jesus, just as he admitted he'd persecuted the church? Why not draw on what he'd directly seen and heard from Jesus? This absence and silence makes zero sense.Maybe he was given a similar prophetic promise to what Simeon had from The Lord (Luke 2:25-32) and knew that he would meet Messiah, before his death. Maybe he had a Messiah complex, and thought that either he would become the Messiah, or perhaps give birth to him; and so thought that Messiah 'wanna-bes' were all dried up. It is curious that he doesn't mention his mind-set during Jesus' ministry or give us any insight into it at all, but it doesn't detract from his writings or any of The Truths of The Gospel.

Granite
November 23rd, 2005, 12:14 PM
Maybe he was given a similar prophetic promise to what Simeon had from The Lord (Luke 2:25-32) and knew that he would meet Messiah, before his death. Maybe he had a Messiah complex, and thought that either he would become the Messiah, or perhaps give birth to him; and so thought that Messiah 'wanna-bes' were all dried up. It is curious that he doesn't mention his mind-set during Jesus' ministry or give us any insight into it at all, but it doesn't detract from his writings or any of The Truths of The Gospel.

Paul having a messianic complex?! :noway:

Whoa, bud!

I think the problem is that Paul's silence does detract from the gospel message. A prime chance to corroborate the entire story is totally skipped! Judging by Paul's own words and epistles alone, he didn't have a clue who Jesus was until the Damascus road encounter. That conclusion is simply not reasonable or likely. I'd say that's significant.

Aimiel
November 23rd, 2005, 02:31 PM
Paul having a messianic complex?! :noway: No, Saul; there is quite a difference. By the way, there are plenty of a certain sect of Jews who, even today, the men all wear loose-fitting pants, in case they should become impregnated with the Messiah; the thought being that women aren't 'good enough' to carry Him, and that He may be placed in their belly fully-formed.
I think the problem is that Paul's silence does detract from the gospel message. A prime chance to corroborate the entire story is totally skipped! Judging by Paul's own words and epistles alone, he didn't have a clue who Jesus was until the Damascus road encounter. That conclusion is simply not reasonable or likely. I'd say that's significant.I think you are making too much of nothing.

Turbo
November 27th, 2005, 08:32 PM
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

the part i emphasized... what does that mean?Even Peter had a hard time getting used to the idea of this new gospel that God revealed through Paul, especially that those under the gospel of uncircumcision were saved by grace through faith alone apart from good works. Remember that prior to Paul coming on the scene, the gospel of circumcision (which require faith plus works) was all Peter knew. If you read Acts chapter 10, right after called Paul as to deliver the Gospel of grace to the uncircumcised, God prepared Peter for this shift to working with the Gentiles, and Peter was very reluctant, resisting God's instructions to eat the unclean animals in the vision (God had set up these symbolic dietary laws as a way of setting Israel apart from Gentile nations).



and also, beloved brother is a pleasantry... that doesn't really imply an endorsement.But it does rule out the notion that Paul was regarded as a heretic or a false teacher by Peter (and by extension, the twelve). Also, Peter mentions that wicked men who twist the meaning of Paul's letters, which he would not have done if he considered Pau's letters to be "twisted" on their own.


no where does peter say that paul's teaching was inspired by christ in this passage.Look again:


And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 2 Peter 3:15-17
Peter refers to Paul's epistles and "the other Scriptures." If Peter did not consider Paul's epistles to be inspired Scriptures, he would not have used the word "other" before "Scriptures."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Does that make sense to you?

Letsargue
November 27th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?

---Did the Catholics know of the Christ the Christians taught, when they were thrown to the lions? Did the Catholics know of the same earth that the old scientist said went around the sun? -- Yes, Yes, but didn't BELIEVE IT. It's the same today, by the same spirit.
*
----------------Paul---
*

koban
November 27th, 2005, 11:17 PM
---Did the Catholics know of the Christ the Christians taught, when they were thrown to the lions? Did the Catholics know of the same earth that the old scientist said went around the sun? -- Yes, Yes, but didn't BELIEVE IT. It's the same today, by the same spirit.
*
----------------Paul---
*



:BRAVO:

Once again Paul, your communication skills are truly befuddling.



I know history isn't your strong suit, but which Catholics were thrown to the lions? :freak:

And exactly what was it that they "didn't BELIEVE"?






(he reminds me of the line in "Animal House" where Bluto says, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" :chuckle: )

allsmiles
November 28th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Even Peter had a hard time getting used to the idea of this new gospel that God revealed through Paul, especially that those under the gospel of uncircumcision were saved by grace through faith alone apart from good works. Remember that prior to Paul coming on the scene, the gospel of circumcision (which require faith plus works) was all Peter knew.

so faith without works is still dead?


If you read Acts chapter 10, right after called Paul as to deliver the Gospel of grace to the uncircumcised, God prepared Peter for this shift to working with the Gentiles, and Peter was very reluctant, resisting God's instructions to eat the unclean animals in the vision (God had set up these symbolic dietary laws as a way of setting Israel apart from Gentile nations).

i remember the story well... but it was written by luke, paul's side kick:think:


But it does rule out the notion that Paul was regarded as a heretic or a false teacher by Peter (and by extension, the twelve). Also, Peter mentions that wicked men who twist the meaning of Paul's letters, which he would not have done if he considered Pau's letters to be "twisted" on their own.

maybe, maybe not. it depends on the people peter was speaking to specifically. paul was very popular, was he not? seems to me peter was handling the matter as cautiously as he could. calling paul beloved could be a pleasantry meant to sooth paul's consitituents. in the meantime he tells the reader that paul's gospel is easily misunderstood, hard to understand in the first place and is given to being misinterpreted by evil men. hardly sounds like an endorsement to me.


Look again:


And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 2 Peter 3:15-17
Peter refers to Paul's epistles and "the other Scriptures." If Peter did not consider Paul's epistles to be inspired Scriptures, he would not have used the word "other" before "Scriptures."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Does that make sense to you?

i see exactly what you're getting at, and you've been more than helpful, i appreciate it.

peter still does not go as far as to say that paul recieved his new gospel from christ or god, just that he received it. a reference to the "other" scripture doesn't imply divine inspiration either. there are dozens of gnostic and apocryphal scriptures that could be described as "other" in comparison with the synoptic.

Bright Raven
November 28th, 2005, 11:53 PM
All Smiles, What are you seeking?

allsmiles
November 29th, 2005, 12:14 PM
All Smiles, What are you seeking?

i've been trying to establish paul's trustworthiness.

Bright Raven
November 29th, 2005, 12:35 PM
i've been trying to establish paul's trustworthiness.

Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

Granite
November 29th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

Darwin was scientifically minded as well, and that doesn't keep Christians from doubting his credibility, agenda, or motives. Luke was a close friend of the apostle and as such his perceptions, memories, and agenda were colored.

allsmiles
November 29th, 2005, 12:57 PM
Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

wasn't luke also converted by paul? i don't think luke can be counted on as a reliable source for what happened, he was biased. if you want to believe that he wasn't, that's fine, but that's asking for a lot more than simple faith in jesus. now you have to have faith in jesus, luke and paul.

Aimiel
November 29th, 2005, 01:10 PM
If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

allsmiles
November 29th, 2005, 01:29 PM
If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

you're supposed to have faith in christ, not paul, not luke. you have to have faith that paul was divinely inspired because beyond some cosmic, divine event, there's nothing in the bible that lends any credence to a word he says. blind faith is the best you've got because in this case, the bible doesn't give you anything.

Granite
November 29th, 2005, 01:54 PM
If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

And this means what to the questions that have been posed? That to believe the book we have to believe what the book says about God? Aimiel, this kind of circular reasoning is enough to give someone a migraine.

Bright Raven
November 29th, 2005, 03:54 PM
you're supposed to have faith in christ, not paul, not luke. you have to have faith that paul was divinely inspired because beyond some cosmic, divine event, there's nothing in the bible that lends any credence to a word he says. blind faith is the best you've got because in this case, the bible doesn't give you anything.

Blind faith? :noway:

How does "The Book" define faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

Faith is not blind, just faith.

allsmiles
November 29th, 2005, 04:04 PM
Blind faith? :noway:

How does "The Book" define faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

Faith is not blind, just faith.

contradiction, and it's beside the point.

Bright Raven
November 29th, 2005, 04:20 PM
contradiction, and it's beside the point.
:noway: Define faith. You said it was blind.

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?
He would have had to have heard about Him. He was present at Stephen's stoning for a reason. He knew why Stephen was being stoned, and I'm sure he knew of the teachings that were considered heretical to the Jewish leaders.

Aimiel
November 29th, 2005, 05:44 PM
you're supposed to have faith in christ, not paul, not luke. you have to have faith that paul was divinely inspired because beyond some cosmic, divine event, there's nothing in the bible that lends any credence to a word he says. blind faith is the best you've got because in this case, the bible doesn't give you anything.The Bible is clear that we're not to have 'blind' faith, but reading Paul's and Luke's writings clears up where they both stand. They not only bring clarity and harmony to The Word of God, His Word isn't complete without what they give us. Your rantings, as usual, are meaningless, and drivel, at best.

Aimiel
November 29th, 2005, 05:58 PM
And this means what to the questions that have been posed? That to believe the book we have to believe what the book says about God? Aimiel, this kind of circular reasoning is enough to give someone a migraine.It isn't circular, if you're Christian. You're trying to make subjective sense out of something you declare you only have objective experience of. What do you want, the rules of logic and reason to change to suit you? The fact is, if you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't going to believe the authors of His Word were inspired. To attempt to discredit Paul because he never mentions having seen or heard Jesus during his three-year ministry is just silly. I've never written anything about many pastors, several of which I sat under for several years. Doesn't mean I never attended their sermons or that I never learned anything from them; it just means I never wrote about some of them. Paul wrote what he was inspired by The Lord to write. It is curious that he never wrote about Jesus' earthly ministry, but it isn't unusual, because he wasn't an apostle during that time.

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 07:25 AM
He would have had to have heard about Him. He was present at Stephen's stoning for a reason. He knew why Stephen was being stoned, and I'm sure he knew of the teachings that were considered heretical to the Jewish leaders.

Well, that's what I think too. My question's why Paul never once appeals to his personal experience with Jesus or mentions having heard of him until after Damascus. I mean, he had no problem admitting he'd persecuted the church. Wouldn't it have made sense to say that he had personally heard Christ and rejected him, to make his own conversion even more persuasive and anecdotal?

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 07:26 AM
It isn't circular, if you're Christian. You're trying to make subjective sense out of something you declare you only have objective experience of. What do you want, the rules of logic and reason to change to suit you? The fact is, if you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't going to believe the authors of His Word were inspired. To attempt to discredit Paul because he never mentions having seen or heard Jesus during his three-year ministry is just silly. I've never written anything about many pastors, several of which I sat under for several years. Doesn't mean I never attended their sermons or that I never learned anything from them; it just means I never wrote about some of them. Paul wrote what he was inspired by The Lord to write. It is curious that he never wrote about Jesus' earthly ministry, but it isn't unusual, because he wasn't an apostle during that time.

But saying I have to understand the Christian Bible by being a Christian is absolutely circular, Aimiel. You can't understand koine Greek without opening your primer and learning it, either.

The pastors you've encountered, I hope, are not on par with Jesus himself.:rolleyes:

allsmiles
November 30th, 2005, 07:34 AM
The Bible is clear that we're not to have 'blind' faith, but reading Paul's and Luke's writings clears up where they both stand. They not only bring clarity and harmony to The Word of God, His Word isn't complete without what they give us. Your rantings, as usual, are meaningless, and drivel, at best.

actually, it doesn't clear anything up. i've been reading the epistles over and over again and it's anything but clear. James makes the reconciliation of Paul's new gospel with the existing one, but it's more in the manner of something that is to be taken for granted. Faith is considered to be secondary by the original apostles. Paul never reconciles the two, he has no interest in the jesus that the original apostles knew, the only jesus he has interest in is the post resurrection, cosmic being. paul didn't care about who jesus the man was, and it's more than obvious. he taught a different jesus than the one that actually existed, and the only people whose word we can take on the matter are paul, and luke, paul's side kick.

kinda suspect.

Aimiel
November 30th, 2005, 11:06 AM
... the only people whose word we can take on the matter are paul, and luke, paul's side kick.

kinda suspect.Actually we take God's Word, Who lives in believers, Who verifies the integrity of His Word.

allsmiles
November 30th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Actually we take God's Word, Who lives in believers, Who verifies the integrity of His Word.

no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians) and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke. Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration. James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.

Bright Raven
November 30th, 2005, 01:31 PM
no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians) and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke. Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration. James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.

All Smiles, Our resident thorn in the side. Wrong, me thinks you missed 2 Peter 3:15,

2 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


Doesn't look like and imposter or unsubstantiated to me unless you call Peter a liar. "Our beloved brother" Looks like an endorsement from the Apostle Peter to me. What say you?

God_Is_Truth
November 30th, 2005, 01:41 PM
no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians)

Why do you say Paul was a liar? What did he lie about?



and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke.

Do you see any accounts by the apostles that explicitly deny Paul's gospel? Anywhere that they specifically declare him a heretic and an antichrist? Nowhere that i can find.



Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration.

Calling him his brother and his works scripture isn't substantiating him? What more could you want?



James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

If you see that Paul and James wrote to different groups, under different dispensations, you don't have to reoncile anything. For James's group, faith without works was dead. For Paul's group, faith was all you needed, and good works were something you ought to do afterwards, but were not required to do to be saved.

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 01:42 PM
I ask because I find it very hard to believe that a zealous Pharisee in Jerusalem seemed so ignorant of Jesus and never once appears to have encountered him in person (pre-resurrection). This is, shall we say, a stretch.


Couldn't help interjecting.

Saul was essentialy a Jewish missionary. Jewish missions spanned great distances. It's very easy to see why he'd never have crossed actual paths (pre-crucifiction) with Christ, especialy when one considers his Roman citizenship.

allsmiles
November 30th, 2005, 01:59 PM
All Smiles, Our resident thorn in the side. Wrong, me thinks you missed 2 Peter 3:15,

2 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


Doesn't look like and imposter or unsubstantiated to me unless you call Peter a liar. "Our beloved brother" Looks like an endorsement from the Apostle Peter to me. What say you?

i'll tell you what i told Turbo when he showed me this passage:


15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as (1)our beloved brother Paul also (2)according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, (3)speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1) this is a pleasantry. Paul's teachings were popular and Peter was playing a game of religion and politics. salvation by faith (belief in the action of christ dying, resurrecting and redeeming) is easier than salvation by works (keeping the law, following the words of the earthly christ as opposed to believing in the supernatural redemptive work of the divine christ being) and was thus a popular alternative to the stiff necked orthodoxy of the original apostles.

2) Peter is not saying that Paul received his gospel from jesus christ.

3) Peter is saying from the get go that these things Paul teaches are difficult to understand, and oftentimes lead people astray, "unto their own destruction". that's not an endorsement, BR, that's a warning. Peter errs on the side of caution through this entire epistle, read the whole thing, it's a warning about Paul's new "gospel". he was telling his the readers, the "unlearned" and "unstable", to leave the interpretation to the apostles, the "learned" and "stable". we know that the people he was writing to were unlearned because, why would he instruct someone who needed no instruction?

no, the book says that Peter never acknowledges Paul's divine inspiration, and we can infer that he didn't trust Paul in that he was cautioning his disciples against what the new "apostle" was teaching.

let me ask you something:

if Paul's new "gospel" wasn't good enough for Peter, a man who knew Jesus personally, how is it that it's good enough for you?

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 02:28 PM
Couldn't help interjecting.

Saul was essentialy a Jewish missionary. Jewish missions spanned great distances. It's very easy to see why he'd never have crossed actual paths (pre-crucifiction) with Christ, especialy when one considers his Roman citizenship.

Saul was a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel. I am not aware of any biblical evidence indicating he was a missionary until after his Damascus encounter. Unless you think he just happened to miss Jesus and showed up in town in time to stone Stephen, I think you're reaching. Moreover, it seems inconceivable that the Jewish authorities didn't acquaint him with anything about Jesus in particular. It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

God_Is_Truth
November 30th, 2005, 02:32 PM
It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

There were no Christians before Paul came on the scene. It would be several years later before someone came up with the term "Christian", in the city of Antioch.

That Paul doesn't mention the earthly ministry of Jesus in his letters only makes sense if he had a different ministry and a different purpose, which he did claim.

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 02:43 PM
There were no Christians before Paul came on the scene. It would be several years later before someone came up with the term "Christian", in the city of Antioch.

That Paul doesn't mention the earthly ministry of Jesus in his letters only makes sense if he had a different ministry and a different purpose, which he did claim.

:rolleyes:

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Saul was a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel. I am not aware of any biblical evidence indicating he was a missionary until after his Damascus encounter.


15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Not evidence directly aimed at Saul, but certainly there for the Pharisees.



Unless you think he just happened to miss Jesus and showed up in town in time to stone Stephen, I think you're reaching.

In a world sans steam boats and airplanes it's quite a simple matter to miss two such events. Even when they seem so close together by todays chronological standards.


Moreover, it seems inconceivable that the Jewish authorities didn't acquaint him with anything about Jesus in particular. It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

I never said they never made him aware of Christ. That doesn't mean he droped all he was doing where he was at just to go spit in Christ's face while he was still alive (again pre-crucifiction).

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 02:52 PM
:rolleyes:

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.


Or because we don't have all records ever made OR because Saul didn't think it terribly critical to document and closely follow every breakaway Jewish sect. The possiblities you seem to gravitate towards are almost always inherently on the most antipathetic side of the issue. Even when there's a smorgasborg of other options that don't seem to particularly favor either side's view while still being plainly in the realm of plausibility.

Aimiel
November 30th, 2005, 03:05 PM
no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians) Paul, a liar? Puhleaze. He was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. Many of us (Christians) were the same.
...and (you take) Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). Again, you discount The Holy Ghost, Who is The Inward Witness, Who gives us revelation knowledge of Who Jesus is, and The Truth of all Scripture.
there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, There are no witnesses to corroberate most of The Old Testament, but that doesn't make it unbelieveable or any less true.
...there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The things that Paul taught merely revealed the things which Jesus set up, and confirm the works and ministry of The Holy Ghost.
aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.No, Who I believe in is merely hinted at by The Word of God, but verified by His Presence. If He didn't witness His Word within my heart and verify His Authority to me, I'd have left the 'myth' of Him a long time ago. He is no myth, He is alive, and it is The Living Spirit of The Lord Whom I have believed and Whom I belong to, follow and serve.

allsmiles
November 30th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Paul, a liar? Puhleaze. He was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. Many of us (Christians) were the same.Again, you discount The Holy Ghost, Who is The Inward Witness, Who gives us revelation knowledge of Who Jesus is, and The Truth of all Scripture.There are no witnesses to corroberate most of The Old Testament, but that doesn't make it unbelieveable or any less true.The things that Paul taught merely revealed the things which Jesus set up, and confirm the works and ministry of The Holy Ghost.No, Who I believe in is merely hinted at by The Word of God, but verified by His Presence. If He didn't witness His Word within my heart and verify His Authority to me, I'd have left the 'myth' of Him a long time ago. He is no myth, He is alive, and it is The Living Spirit of The Lord Whom I have believed and Whom I belong to, follow and serve.

:blabla:

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Or because we don't have all records ever made OR because Saul didn't think it terribly critical to document and closely follow every breakaway Jewish sect. The possiblities you seem to gravitate towards are almost always inherently on the most antipathetic side of the issue. Even when there's a smorgasborg of other options that don't seem to particularly favor either side's view while still being plainly in the realm of plausibility.

Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?

Bright Raven
November 30th, 2005, 03:22 PM
i'll tell you what i told Turbo when he showed me this passage:
Quote:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as (1)our beloved brother Paul also (2)according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, (3)speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1) this is a pleasantry. Paul's teachings were popular and Peter was playing a game of religion and politics. salvation by faith (belief in the action of christ dying, resurrecting and redeeming) is easier than salvation by works (keeping the law, following the words of the earthly christ as opposed to believing in the supernatural redemptive work of the divine christ being) and was thus a popular alternative to the stiff necked orthodoxy of the original apostles.

2) Peter is not saying that Paul received his gospel from jesus christ.

3) Peter is saying from the get go that these things Paul teaches are difficult to understand, and oftentimes lead people astray, "unto their own destruction". that's not an endorsement, BR, that's a warning. Peter errs on the side of caution through this entire epistle, read the whole thing, it's a warning about Paul's new "gospel". he was telling his the readers, the "unlearned" and "unstable", to leave the interpretation to the apostles, the "learned" and "stable". we know that the people he was writing to were unlearned because, why would he instruct someone who needed no instruction?

no, the book says that Peter never acknowledges Paul's divine inspiration, and we can infer that he didn't trust Paul in that he was cautioning his disciples against what the new "apostle" was teaching.

let me ask you something:

if Paul's new "gospel" wasn't good enough for Peter, a man who knew Jesus personally, how is it that it's good enough for you?

Nope. What I am about to say is in no way meant as a snub. How do you expect to discern spiritual things if you are not born of the Spirit? You interpret according to your human intellect with out the benefit of the Spirit . That being said, your interpretation of the two verses quoted is improper. Let me restate them (KJV and NKJV) and give you the proper interpretation. (I hope seeing the two versions in paralell will give you a clearer understanding of the passage.) I does not involve that much explanation.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter knew the Pauline letters, that is a given. The phrase "Our beloved brother" refers to a contemporary for who he had respect. It isn't just a pleasentry

In verse 16, Peter refers to those who quibble and doubt the authority of Pauls writings, not the dependability or authority of them. You give it a nice twist, an improper twist which is expected from those who don't believe or doubt the veracity of the scriptures in the first place.

Peace be with you.

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?


That wasn't the sect I was meaning. I was saying he wouldn't necesarily document the history of the Christian 'sect'.

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 03:38 PM
That wasn't the sect I was meaning. I was saying he wouldn't necesarily document the history of the Christian 'sect'.

My question remains: why on earth not? The epistles were written before the gospels. Paul was in a prime position to do what took the authors of the gospels a decade or more to get around to, namely, describe Jesus, his life, and his ministry. This seems like an oversight.

allsmiles
November 30th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Nope. What I am about to say is in no way meant as a snub. How do you expect to discern spiritual things if you are not born of the Spirit?

ah, the spiritual elitism that is a trade mark of christianity finally rears it's ugly head at me...:chuckle:


You interpret according to your human intellect with out the benefit of the Spirit.

it's not a snub, BR, it's an ace in the hole, and not a very good one at that. maybe it would have fooled arabs and jews 2000 years ago, but your jedi mind tricks don't work on me :crackup:


That being said, your interpretation of the two verses quoted is improper. Let me restate them (KJV and NKJV) and give you the proper interpretation. (I hope seeing the two versions in paralell will give you a clearer understanding of the passage.) I does not involve that much explanation.

thank you for teaching the ignorant, fire worshipping pagan:rolleyes:

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuff


Peter knew the Pauline letters, that is a given. The phrase "Our beloved brother" refers to a contemporary for who he had respect. It isn't just a pleasentry

i don't see the difference, i don't understand how a sign of respect is an endorsement of the new "gospel" or a verification of it's divine inspiration.


In verse 16, Peter refers to those who quibble and doubt the authority of Pauls writings, not the dependability or authority of them. You give it a nice twist, an improper twist which is expected from those who don't believe or doubt the veracity of the scriptures in the first place.

you forget that Peter refers to Paul's gospel as hard to understand in the first place, it is easily taken out of context and "twisted" by those unlearned and not yet stable, although that word twisted is from a later version, of course. what was once understood to be accidentally "misunderstood" has now become known as a deliberate misinterpretation. i understand why you would need to rely on this argument from multiple sources to come to this specifc conclusion. excellent example of man interpreting the bible according to his own subjective beliefs and theological needs :BRAVO:

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 04:03 PM
My question remains: why on earth not? The epistles were written before the gospels. Paul was in a prime position to do what took the authors of the gospels a decade or more to get around to, namely, describe Jesus, his life, and his ministry. This seems like an oversight.

How many churchs are you aware of that make it a key priority to document all the disenting sects no matter how small or seamingly trivial they appear to be? my view is that the they saw the Christians, initialy, in similar light as to other breakaways.

An example (even from probably/likely the same Gamaliel that Paul was under) as to a lack of concern regarding the details of various breakaways--

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Funny that Paul didn't seem to get his teachers view in that he continued to persecute the Christians despite their staying power.

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 04:25 PM
How many churchs are you aware of that make it a key priority to document all the disenting sects no matter how small or seamingly trivial they appear to be? my view is that the they saw the Christians, initialy, in similar light as to other breakaways.

An example (even from probably/likely the same Gamaliel that Paul was under) as to a lack of concern regarding the details of various breakaways--

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Funny that Paul didn't seem to get his teachers view in that he continued to persecute the Christians despite their staying power.

You seem to be saying the churches saw each other as breakaways, not as an unified movement breaking away from Judaism. Is that correct?

God_Is_Truth
November 30th, 2005, 04:40 PM
:rolleyes:

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Jesus didn't start a new religion. He was fulfilling the current one. Before Antioch, they were all just Israelites, but of different sects. They were called "the way" before they were called "Christians".



Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.

There are many things in life that are possible. What is important is how probable something is. Simply saying something is possible is of little value. What is important is to show why that possibility should be believed, or not believed.

God_Is_Truth
November 30th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?

He didn't see any need to. He expected the end of his ministry and the reigning of Christ to happen within his own lifetime. He believed it could happen at any day and that it would soon take place. Thus, he saw no need to write out and explain what so many people had experienced first hand.

It is also a matter of priority. He had his stewardship as his primary focus. Sitting down and writing an account of how things went through, was not directly related to that. It may have crossed his mind however, and so maybe that is why Luke wrote his accounts (book of Luke and book of Acts).

koban
November 30th, 2005, 04:55 PM
He didn't see any need to. He expected the end of his ministry and the reigning of Christ to happen within his own lifetime. He believed it could happen at any day and that it would soon take place. Thus, he saw no need to write out and explain what so many people had experienced first hand.



Do you think he was mistaken?

God_Is_Truth
November 30th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Do you think he was mistaken?

No. I believe he was right to expect it.

Bright Raven
November 30th, 2005, 05:02 PM
[QUOTE=allsmiles]ah, the spiritual elitism that is a trade mark of christianity finally rears it's ugly head at me...:chuckle:



it's not a snub, BR, it's an ace in the hole, and not a very good one at that. maybe it would have fooled arabs and jews 2000 years ago, but your jedi mind tricks don't work on me :crackup:



thank you for teaching the ignorant, fire worshipping pagan:rolleyes:

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuff



i don't see the difference, i don't understand how a sign of respect is an endorsement of the new "gospel" or a verification of it's divine inspiration.



you forget that Peter refers to Paul's gospel as hard to understand in the first place, it is easily taken out of context and "twisted" by those unlearned and not yet stable, although that word twisted is from a later version, of course. what was once understood to be accidentally "misunderstood" has now become known as a deliberate misinterpretation. i understand why you would need to rely on this argument from multiple sources to come to this specifc conclusion. excellent example of man interpreting the bible according to his own subjective beliefs and theological needs :BRAVO:[/QUOTE/]

I'm sorry you took it as a snub, poor ace in the hole whatever you care to call it. You said you know this stuff? Prove it. You say you were a Christian? And for how many years do you think you walked in truth? :think: ing

Aimiel
November 30th, 2005, 06:29 PM
:blabla:

listen, i was a christian my entire life up until a couple of years ago, i know this... stuffIt is precisely because of your attitude that you weren't Christian, and never will be. It takes faith, not knowledge, to meet The Lord. When you seek and search for Him with all of your heart is when you will find Him, not seeking and searching for something to find fault with. You're not recognizing that God exists, and can be found, simply because you never found Him, and that only came about by your being half-hearted. The double-minded man can expect nothing from The Lord except judgement. I suspect that Granite has the same (or a similar) fault. Repent, before it is eternally too late.

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 07:17 PM
You seem to be saying the churches saw each other as breakaways, not as an unified movement breaking away from Judaism. Is that correct?

What? I'm not following. I'm saying the Pharisaical sect Paul was a member of didn't care about the intricacies of those they considered heretical of fringe groups of Judaism. They knew basic perifirial information about them but didn't make it their prime focus to document and confront and destroy them, they let them fizzle out with the expenditure of their own hot air. My point being with such an initial laissez-faire, if you will, approach to those groups/people considered heretical, or just plain wacky, it's not a stretch to imagine them giving little press, or space in documents records etc. to such groups in any meaningful detail.

Granite
November 30th, 2005, 08:26 PM
What? I'm not following. I'm saying the Pharisaical sect Paul was a member of didn't care about the intricacies of those they considered heretical of fringe groups of Judaism. They knew basic perifirial information about them but didn't make it their prime focus to document and confront and destroy them, they let them fizzle out with the expenditure of their own hot air. My point being with such an initial laissez-faire, if you will, approach to those groups/people considered heretical, or just plain wacky, it's not a stretch to imagine them giving little press, or space in documents records etc. to such groups in any meaningful detail.

I'm talking about Paul's omissions AFTER his conversion, not before. As an apostle:

He didn't ever hint at the virgin birth (Galatians 4:4, in fact, could be taken the other way)

He never described, referenced, quoted, much less appealed to Jesus' miracles, ministry, parables, or teachings

He did not once articulate the trinity

He seemed ignorant of Jesus completely until after Damascus

In other words, the Pauline Jesus is not rooted in the epistles in history and certainly is not described as a fleshly, historic human being. It is inconceivable that so zealous a Pharisee who stood witness to the first Christian martyrdom was this ignorant of Jesus.

The ministry, triumphal entry, confrontation with the Pharisees, trial, execution--all of this with the exception of the crucifixion might as well have not happened according to Paul. And Saul, a student of Gamiliel himself, was based in Jerusalem and brought up there (Acts 22:3, 26:4).

What did Paul know?

From the looks of it, very, very little.

The gospel Jesus isn't described in the epistles because the legend and story of the gospels had yet to be written. Paul's complete ignorance of a historical human Jesus without tales or a ministry to draw on simply makes sense.

Mustard Seed
November 30th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I'm talking about Paul's omissions AFTER his conversion, not before. As an apostle:

He didn't ever hint at the virgin birth (Galatians 4:4, in fact, could be taken the other way)

He never described, referenced, quoted, much less appealed to Jesus' miracles, ministry, parables, or teachings

He did not once articulate the trinity

He seemed ignorant of Jesus completely until after Damascus

I would argue that there are no articulations on the trinity as viewed by the creeds because the trinity, as they take it, is not biblical. On the other topics I would see omission as concession to that which was taught. The fact is that if you looked at the gospel intricacies elaborated or omitted by each one of the apostles you'd have some serious problems. I mean if you had to have a point by point repeat of every major gospel principle available in a book that was compiled, not by the authors but rather, men who lived several centuries later and were rather disconnected from the initial movement.

I don't see how you can so conclusively deduce ignorance and/or fabrication from what you see as an untenable omission. It's as if simply because I never said anything to you about my mother that you concluded that I didn't/don't know her. It's rather ridiculous. Discrepancies are glaring but omissions can't justify the derivation of conclusions as sound as those you posit.


In other words, the Pauline Jesus is not rooted in the epistles in history and certainly is not described as a fleshly, historic human being. It is inconceivable that so zealous a Pharisee who stood witness to the first Christian martyrdom was this ignorant of Jesus.

It's not "inconceivable" because your claims of ignorance on Paul's part are based solely on the lack of evidence rather than any conflicting evidence. And of an event thats a couple centuries removed from the now.


The ministry, triumphal entry, confrontation with the Pharisees, trial, execution--all of this with the exception of the crucifixion might as well have not happened according to Paul. And Saul, a student of Gamiliel himself, was based in Jerusalem and brought up there (Acts 22:3, 26:4).

Your view is terribly simplistic. You think that simply because someone was in close proximity that they must be both well versed in and highly vocal of all and any interactions they ever had through the duration of their mortal life with the contemporary in question?


What did Paul know?

From the looks of it, very, very little.

The gospel Jesus isn't described in the epistles because the legend and story of the gospels had yet to be written. Paul's complete ignorance of a historical human Jesus without tales or a ministry to draw on simply makes sense.

Here we see what you 'know'. You have the conclusion, now you are hunting for points that might support and/or validate it. It's simply an attempt at antipathetic Christian apologetics.

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 07:13 AM
Accusing me of antipathetic apologetics is rich coming from a Mormon, of all people.:rolleyes:

As prominent, zealous, and apparently well-regarded as Saul was, the idea that he simply had no clue who Jesus was is unreasonable.

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 07:26 AM
I'm sorry you took it as a snub, poor ace in the hole whatever you care to call it. You said you know this stuff? Prove it. You say you were a Christian? And for how many years do you think you walked in truth? :think: ing

i'm glad to see that the only point you took time to touch on is my status as an ex.

how about the rest of my post?

and how is telling you how long i was a christian going to prove that the apostle paul wasn't an imposter? don't try to shift the focus to something outside the scope of the discussion. it's not my fault your book doesn't say what you need it to.

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 10:28 AM
i'm glad to see that the only point you took time to touch on is my status as an ex.

how about the rest of my post?

and how is telling you how long i was a christian going to prove that the apostle paul wasn't an imposter? don't try to shift the focus to something outside the scope of the discussion. it's not my fault your book doesn't say what you need it to.

The rest of your post is meaningless until you answer the question. Establish your credibilty as a ex-Christian.

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 10:53 AM
The rest of your post is meaningless until you answer the question. Establish your credibilty as a ex-Christian.

i don't understand what you want or what you would accept.

and as for my post being meaningless... it's what the book says friend. you can read between the lines all you want and refer to your various versions, play semantic word games and call it the work of the holy spirit, but it doesn't change what the book says.

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 11:27 AM
i don't understand what you want or what you would accept.

and as for my post being meaningless... it's what the book says friend. you can read between the lines all you want and refer to your various versions, play semantic word games and call it the work of the holy spirit, but it doesn't change what the book says.
You still haven't established your credibility. What the book says? Hardly. As an ex-Christian, friend, you attack God's Word as
who? The intellectual skeptical philosopher au natural?

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 12:13 PM
You still haven't established your credibility. What the book says? Hardly. As an ex-Christian, friend, you attack God's Word as
who? The intellectual skeptical philosopher au natural?

and like i said, i don't understand what you want from me.

never claimed to be an intellectual either. and you're a skeptic too, you're skeptical of anything that challenges your notions, but even a skeptic must be skeptical of his skepticism.

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 12:16 PM
The rest of your post is meaningless until you answer the question. Establish your credibilty as a ex-Christian.

:rotfl:

Credibility as an ex-Christian? Excuse me, but what the hell kind of question is that?:darwinsm:

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 12:22 PM
and like i said, i don't understand what you want from me.

never claimed to be an intellectual either. and you're a skeptic too, you're skeptical of anything that challenges your notions, but even a skeptic must be skeptical of his skepticism.

Neither am I an intellectual. Let"s not play role reversal here friend. I'm not the one who is critical or doubtful of the Word of God, You are. Let's keep that point clear.

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 12:27 PM
Neither am I an intellectual. Let"s not play role reversal here friend. I'm not the one who is critical or doubtful of the Word of God, You are. Let's keep that point clear.

i'm glad something's clear because you still haven't told me how one goes about establishing his credibility as an "ex-christian".

let me ask something as an aside... if you did give me specific criteria for establishing my ex-christian credibility, would you accept my opinions as valid then, or are you trying to get me to chase my tail?

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 12:33 PM
i'm glad something's clear because you still haven't told me how one goes about establishing his credibility as an "ex-christian".

let me ask something as an aside... if you did give me specific criteria for establishing my ex-christian credibility, would you accept my opinions as valid then, or are you trying to get me to chase my tail?

Simple, For a start, how long were you one? Second, a little more difficult, what you do to become one in the first place?

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 12:36 PM
Great. Now Raven will determine if we "really" were "Christians" based on Q&A.

Buddy, this pretentious, arrogant, self-righteous BS is offensive in the extreme. You want a frickin' resume of my faith, or smiles's faith? Go bend yourself.

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 12:42 PM
Simple, For a start, how long were you one? Second, a little more difficult, what you do to become one in the first place?

how long was i a christian? since as far back as i can remember (3 or 4) to the age of 20. i am now 22. my father and mother raised me on the bible, by the time i was 10 i had a comprehensive understanding of post-mill, pre-mill and a-mill eschatology and was scripturally knowledgable in calvinistic and armenian soteriology. by the time i rejected christianity i was able to not only argue pre-destination and election against free-will but i could also debate mormons on their "heresy" and defend reconstructionism on the basis of the dominion mandate.

i'm not a dummy, BR, i used to eat this stuff for breakfast.

what do i do to become an ex? is that your second question?

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 12:44 PM
Great. Now Raven will determine if we "really" were "Christians" based on Q&A.

Buddy, this pretentious, arrogant, self-righteous BS is offensive in the extreme. You want a frickin' resume of my faith, or smiles's faith? Go bend yourself.
My,My hostile and defensive? Common courtesy isn't your best suit. First, I didn't ask you. AllSmiles doesn't have to answer if he doesn't care to. Have a nice day

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 12:46 PM
My,My hostile and defensive? Common courtesy isn't your best suit. First, I didn't ask you. AllSmiles doesn't have to answer if he doesn't care to. Have a nice day

I don't really give a hoot in hell who finds me offensive or courteous. Good manners are deserved, not a right.

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 12:47 PM
how long was i a christian? since as far back as i can remember (3 or 4) to the age of 20. i am now 22. my father and mother raised me on the bible, by the time i was 10 i had a comprehensive understanding of post-mill, pre-mill and a-mill eschatology and was scripturally knowledgable in calvinistic and armenian soteriology. by the time i rejected christianity i was able to not only argue pre-destination and election against free-will but i could also debate mormons on their "heresy" and defend reconstructionism on the basis of the dominion mandate.

i'm not a dummy, BR, i used to eat this stuff for breakfast.

what do i do to become an ex? is that your second question?

Thank You AllSmiles, Yes, that was my second question. I have an appointment to go to. I will get back with you.

paulpeterson83
December 1st, 2005, 12:57 PM
My,My hostile and defensive? Common courtesy isn't your best suit. First, I didn't ask you. AllSmiles doesn't have to answer if he doesn't care to. Have a nice day

I'm sorry to butt in, but I've been following this line of questioning with some interest. As a Christian this is very interesting to me. Raven, you dont know these men do you? You know nothing of their past, you know nothing of what their faith was. No man knows another mans heart. And only the Lord can determine this. You should be ashamed as a Christian for this line of questions, so far all you have done is make your self look foolish. You'll notice your the only Christian asking these men to validify their "ex-Christian" credentials.

It is not the place of some random inqusitor to grill them on what their previous faith was. Allsmiles has detailed what his faith was, from what he said he seemed pretty deep in it. Admitedly, he more then likely knows more then I do in the school of theological thought. You have yet to even offer a semi-inteligent reason for them to give you an answer.

Fore shame.

allsmiles
December 1st, 2005, 01:01 PM
Thank You AllSmiles, Yes, that was my second question. I have an appointment to go to. I will get back with you.

i better not sink my teeth into a big ol' mouth full of tail BR:rolleyes: i just healed from having it get stomped on not too long ago:chuckle:

how did i become an ex...:think:

i started reading.

i read books about mithra (Manfred Clauss wrote an excellent book that i recommend, he delves into the archaeological realm, rather than the theological one that Ulanssey centered on) i read gnostic gospels (Islamic texts, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.) i read books about the history of the church, about the councils that organized the canon. i read books by Doherty and Pagels and Acharya S. which were all very enlightening and helped me develop a very unique view of christianity until i grew to the point where i could no longer call myself a christian.

Aimiel
December 1st, 2005, 01:46 PM
"Buddy, this pretentious, arrogant, self-righteous BS is offensive in the extreme. You want a *** resume of my faith, or smiles's faith? Go bend yourself.He said, pretentiously, arrogantly and self-righteously. You should expect to be treated the way you treat others, it's the law of reciprocity: whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 02:03 PM
He said, pretentiously, arrogantly and self-righteously. You should expect to be treated the way you treat others, it's the law of reciprocity: whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

What's with the asterisks? I didn't use profanity at all. Not following you here.

Aimiel
December 1st, 2005, 02:06 PM
What's with the asterisks? I didn't use profanity at all. Not following you here.As a parent, I don't approve of TV (or anyone else) using code to hide curse words. I don't believe that is what the airwaves are for, and won't repeat someone else's cursing, even 'coded' cursing. I was told not to let corrupt communication proceed from my mouth (read: keyboard).

paulpeterson83
December 1st, 2005, 02:13 PM
Aimiel, question to your post, do you not swear at all? Or do you just not like people hiding swears?

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 02:16 PM
As a parent, I don't approve of TV (or anyone else) using code to hide curse words. I don't believe that is what the airwaves are for, and won't repeat someone else's cursing, even 'coded' cursing. I was told not to let corrupt communication proceed from my mouth (read: keyboard).

Then you're more uptight than I thought. Knock yourself out.

Aimiel
December 1st, 2005, 02:24 PM
Aimiel, question to your post, do you not swear at all? Or do you just not like people hiding swears?I don't curse, I sware I don't.

Aimiel
December 1st, 2005, 02:25 PM
Then you're more uptight than I thought. Knock yourself out.No, merely obedient.

paulpeterson83
December 1st, 2005, 02:33 PM
I don't curse, I sware I don't.

Hey man, thats cool. Personaly I swear like a sailor. Its one of my biggest faults. But no thats cool.

Granite
December 1st, 2005, 02:35 PM
No, merely obedient.

:yawn:

Whatever flips the switch, man. Carry on! :dog:

Bright Raven
December 1st, 2005, 04:13 PM
I'm sorry to butt in, but I've been following this line of questioning with some interest. As a Christian this is very interesting to me. Raven, you dont know these men do you? You know nothing of their past, you know nothing of what their faith was. No man knows another mans heart. And only the Lord can determine this. You should be ashamed as a Christian for this line of questions, so far all you have done is make your self look foolish. You'll notice your the only Christian asking these men to validify their "ex-Christian" credentials.

It is not the place of some random inqusitor to grill them on what their previous faith was. Allsmiles has detailed what his faith was, from what he said he seemed pretty deep in it. Admitedly, he more then likely knows more then I do in the school of theological thought. You have yet to even offer a semi-inteligent reason for them to give you an answer.

Fore shame.

You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

Mustard Seed
December 1st, 2005, 07:35 PM
Accusing me of antipathetic apologetics is rich coming from a Mormon, of all people.:rolleyes:

I'm openly apologetic. You are trying to play like your view is the only logical conclusion.



As prominent, zealous, and apparently well-regarded as Saul was, the idea that he simply had no clue who Jesus was is unreasonable.

I never said he had no clue who Jesus was. He obviously did as he persecuted his followers. What I'm saying is that for you to take seeming ommisions of certain gosple principles not exaustively available where you, by some abstract and irrelevant standard, judge they should exist, as evidence that the whole of the story of Jesus being a fabrication, is absured. This is the piece meal type attack made on the likes of Anne Frank's journal entries, one that finds what it portrays to be critical discrepancies, but once exposed to the light and perspective claimed by the writtings and the surounding circumstances, become very acceptable--if not entirely expected--results of the piece of the whole piece of evidence at hand.

Apologetics, openly advertised as such, is an honest portrayal of what is being attempted. When apologetics is shrouded in the veil of a psuedo-attempt at finding the 'truth' rather than defending a previously specified dogma, then it is insidious and disingenuous.

Mustard Seed
December 1st, 2005, 07:56 PM
As a parent, I don't approve of TV (or anyone else) using code to hide curse words. I don't believe that is what the airwaves are for, and won't repeat someone else's cursing, even 'coded' cursing. I was told not to let corrupt communication proceed from my mouth (read: keyboard).

My friend, every time you type you are using corrupt communication. I'm not personaly one for 'colorfull metaphores' but you are taking this to a Pharissaical absured. This is diging a hedge up around the law. Not obeying it, but creating an entirely new set of laws NOT original proscribed by God. Your mentality is the same kind of stupid filtering that would change the word of God by several jot and tiddles if it were to be placed wholesale here on TOL. Grow up.

"...and shutteth up his bowels..."

Would you prefere the scriptures not even talk of such?

Aimiel
December 2nd, 2005, 07:04 AM
My friend, every time you type you are using corrupt communication. I'm not personaly one for 'colorfull metaphores' but you are taking this to a Pharissaical absured. This is diging a hedge up around the law. Not obeying it, but creating an entirely new set of laws NOT original proscribed by God. Your mentality is the same kind of stupid filtering that would change the word of God by several jot and tiddles if it were to be placed wholesale here on TOL. Grow up.

"...and shutteth up his bowels..."

Would you prefere the scriptures not even talk of such?You misunderstand The Word of God, as usual. Corrupt communication doesn't mean censoring The Word of God, it means potty mouth. The Lord doesn't want us to curse, and said so. No man can tame his tongue, since it is set on fire by hell itself; it takes the work of The Holy Spirit to do so. Your 'mentality' leaves a lot to be desired. You need to do some maturing, and not just when it comes to understanding The Word of God, you also need to learn who is your friend and who is not. The LDS church is not your friend. They represent the enemy of your soul, being a cult, designed in hell.

Granite
December 2nd, 2005, 07:07 AM
I'm openly apologetic. You are trying to play like your view is the only logical conclusion.




I never said he had no clue who Jesus was. He obviously did as he persecuted his followers. What I'm saying is that for you to take seeming ommisions of certain gosple principles not exaustively available where you, by some abstract and irrelevant standard, judge they should exist, as evidence that the whole of the story of Jesus being a fabrication, is absured. This is the piece meal type attack made on the likes of Anne Frank's journal entries, one that finds what it portrays to be critical discrepancies, but once exposed to the light and perspective claimed by the writtings and the surounding circumstances, become very acceptable--if not entirely expected--results of the piece of the whole piece of evidence at hand.

Apologetics, openly advertised as such, is an honest portrayal of what is being attempted. When apologetics is shrouded in the veil of a psuedo-attempt at finding the 'truth' rather than defending a previously specified dogma, then it is insidious and disingenuous.

This isn't evidence "the whole story" of Jesus is a fabrication. I'd say a lot of it is, and this omission and Paul's silence is very telling. Is mine the only logical conclusion? Of course not. But it certainly makes sense. If Paul didn't describe certain events he must have or should have been privy to, a very key and prominent witness to Jesus' life is giving us nothing but silence.

allsmiles
December 2nd, 2005, 08:26 AM
You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

is that it then?

Mustard Seed
December 2nd, 2005, 12:48 PM
This isn't evidence "the whole story" of Jesus is a fabrication. I'd say a lot of it is, and this omission and Paul's silence is very telling. Is mine the only logical conclusion? Of course not. But it certainly makes sense. If Paul didn't describe certain events he must have or should have been privy to, a very key and prominent witness to Jesus' life is giving us nothing but silence.

My issue is that you determine that the lack of that evidence stems from it's non-existance. You haven't searched everywhere, you don't have access to the person of Paul. You are saying that the cake was never created when if it had been consumed it would have left nigh identical evidences, especialy with how far removed we are, chronologicaly, from the event in question. It's again like me concluding you never went to elementary school because I can't find any mention of it, or of your teachers, here on TOL. It's just absured to put it down as significant, or even slightly notable, evidence for your view, when it is the very lacking of evidence that the whole point is leaning on.

Bright Raven
December 2nd, 2005, 01:54 PM
is that it then?

No allsmiles, one last post that will be construed by some, possibly you included, to be off point and arrogant and I'm ready for the flak but will not post to any that comes my way. What did Paul know? He knew Christ and the power of the resurrection. He was not ashamed of the Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and neither am I. I was intrigued and saddened when you said that you were an ex-Christian. By answering my questions that thought has remained with me. I've asked myself, with the the knowledge this young person has, how could he/she (You never said) have exchanged the truth for a lie? I don't say that with arrogance or as a putdown to you but as an affirmation of my own belief. The answer was right in front of my nose all the time. Christianity is a religion by definition but more than that it is a relationship with God first and people second for those who choose to embrace it as such. But you already know all this, I was slow in getting it. Thanks for being open, candid, and sharing about yourself. That's it.
Peace be with you.

paulpeterson83
December 2nd, 2005, 02:10 PM
You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

Okay, so being polite obviously is unknown to you. When I said I was sorry, I was just being polite for interjecting into a conversation that was already underway. Thats what that meant, so in a way, you were right I was really sorry for posting what I did, just for interjecting.

And yes, I had been following, it. You were demanding Allsmiles to give you, his background and credentials other wise the rest of his post was "meaningless". As for the plural, I was lumping Granite in there too. As for your frame of reference, how about being polite? Did you try that approach? A PM works. Seriously though, my biggest problem was with the way you handled it, you called them on carpet so I did the same to you. Doesnt feel so good does it? Second, it was support, it was rebuke genious boy.

Plus the questions you were asking would make no difference, if you believe you believe, thats the bottom line, it doesnt matter how long you were a Christian or events of your conversion, you should know that. Your questions were irrelivent and rather childish. It would be like demanding to know how old some one is because of a post.

Question, when did AS not have an answer for the questions you asked? You were being so nondiscriptive in your line of questions it was hard to even read them, you made very little to no sense what so ever. You need to link words that make sense together, not just random ones.

Thanks for your time BR, you've been fun. ;)

Bright Raven
December 2nd, 2005, 02:38 PM
Okay, so being polite obviously is unknown to you. When I said I was sorry, I was just being polite for interjecting into a conversation that was already underway. Thats what that meant, so in a way, you were right I was really sorry for posting what I did, just for interjecting.

And yes, I had been following, it. You were demanding Allsmiles to give you, his background and credentials other wise the rest of his post was "meaningless". As for the plural, I was lumping Granite in there too. As for your frame of reference, how about being polite? Did you try that approach? A PM works. Seriously though, my biggest problem was with the way you handled it, you called them on carpet so I did the same to you. Doesnt feel so good does it? Second, it was support, it was rebuke genious boy.

Plus the questions you were asking would make no difference, if you believe you believe, thats the bottom line, it doesnt matter how long you were a Christian or events of your conversion, you should know that. Your questions were irrelivent and rather childish. It would be like demanding to know how old some one is because of a post.

Question, when did AS not have an answer for the questions you asked? You were being so nondiscriptive in your line of questions it was hard to even read them, you made very little to no sense what so ever. You need to link words that make sense together, not just random ones.

Thanks for your time BR, you've been fun. ;)

Paul, I'm not the greatest grammarian around and the method of questioning will improve. Reread the post. Did you get that I understood your rebuke and sincerely thanked you for it. Peace

Morris
December 10th, 2005, 09:15 AM
Did Paul know of Jesus during Jesus' life, or was he only aware of Jesus after the Damascus road encounter?

We know that Paul was a student of Gamaliel and studied in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He stood as a witness at the death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), which had to have occurred rather shortly after the resurrection. The impression I always had, however, was that Paul seemed to be ignorant of Jesus' ministry and teachings until after the resurrection.

It seems odd that such a fervent, zealous Pharisee as Saul of Tarsus would have been ignorant of the crucified heretic Jesus; Paul the Apostle never claimed to have known of Jesus' ministry or miracles or stood a witness to his kangaroo court trial and subsequent execution. It just strikes me as as peculiar that a prominent Jerusalem-based Pharisee was unaware of this trouble-making rabbi.

Thoughts?

I have not had time to read all the posts. So, if this was already covered, I apologize:

1Ti 1:12-13 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; (13) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

How can some one do something ignorantly in unbelief? I asked Duane Gallentine, that question once and his reply pretty much answers the question "What did Paul know?"


Simple, God's perspective and revelatory action towards 'His own' [John 1:11-12] was made know by the Son speaking to Israel in her last days. As those days ticked away into the early chapters of Acts, Christ through the Spirit commencing at Pentecost gave Israel the things they could "now" bear (John 14:16-21 and John 18:7-13). This revelation through preaching...[IE the gospel of the Circumcision]...signs, miracles and wonders made manifest to Israel the epignosis of Christ according to Prophecy. Heb 10:26 in the KJV has the underlying Greek TR word of "epi-gnosis". Thus during the four gospels and early Acts, Israel was being enlightened, the nation was tasting of the heavenly gift (Holy Ghost), they were part taking of the word of God through their Gospel of the Circumcision, and were experiencing the power of the world to come (New Testament power promised by the Prophets; the promise of the Father). With all this, God accounted Israel has being fully accountable for they were fully enlightened.

Needless to say, Israel's perspective and response was of rejection and oppostion. As you read the early chapter of Acts, the written word shows God moving through the "Little Flock" by the Holy Ghost to press Israel into the kingdom. Verses like Acts 2:14,2,36; 3:12; 4:8,23-28, 5:31-32; 6:3-8; 7:2 emphasis God giving Israel full complete knowledge of Prophecy. Of course it began right after the resurrection with the Little Flock ruled by the Twelve as shown in Luke 24:27-49.

Put is all together: God gave Israel full knowledge of Prophecy....Israel refused to mix faith with their Gospel coming into faith by what they heard and what they saw through signs. In this, God held them fully accountable. Blasphemy was committed (Matt 12) at the stoning of Stephen with their own Gospel and Last Days foretelling of God unleashing what the prophets foretold.....the day of wrath. Israel lay there impotent, being a hypocritical nation (Is 10:6) made ready by unbelief to drinking the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture of grace, mercy, patience, or peace, poured into his cup of indignation (Rev 14:10).

Save the Little Flock headed by the Twelve apostles, the nation was judge by God to be in unbelief. Saul of Tarsus, being a part of that hypocritical nation, personally reveals in 1 Tim 1:13 that he was a blasphemer when he lead the rebellion against God's last day prophetic program in the Little Flock. He chose to ignore all that God manifest before His own.....he did not beleive it because he chose to ignore it as being from God. Doing something ignorantly in unbelief is that you ignore what is placed before you because you do not beleive it. In fact he thought he was doing God service by wrecking havoc upon the early Acts Little Flock Kingdom Church (John 16:1-3).

At the point in time (31AD), God's word through the prophets plainly stated that those things would mark the time of the end as the fury of God's wrath would impact the whole earth. No more mercy, no more graciousness, no more patience on God's part.

BUT.....Oh, thank God for that word as we come to Paul's epistles....in reading from Acts 7 forward, God's wrath does not fall. Rather with the saving of Saul, making in the Apostle of and to the Gentiles (Rom 13:11) God begins a new thing....something kept secret since the world began...something hid in God but now made manifest to the Gentile without Israel via preaching committed unto Paul. Beginning with Saul/Paul, God progressively reveals another purpose of His...a heavenly purpose...a purpose enjoining beleiving Gentiles via Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God into a new creation called the body of Christ, even the One New Man. A called out assembly positioned for and eternaly at home in the heavenly places.

Wonderful it is to rightly divided all Scriptures.