What Did Paul Know?

[Granite]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What are you trying to get at here Granite?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. The twelve apostles wrote Paul a letter endorsing his ministry and his unique gospel. (Acts 15)
   
2. 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

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]

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]

In a nutshell:

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

1. 
   
   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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?