Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I overlook the whole NT, and consideration of Paul arose out of consideration of the Gospels.
I am pretty clued up on the NT, other than the later epistles and revelations, also I am no expert on the OT, though I have picked up a few pointers about Genesis, the prophecies and the origins of the NT prophecies. Also Ezekiel vis- a - vis the East Gate prophecy. That was quite fun
I wanted to add something and since I wanted to reach the ones who are posting on this forum, as opposed to starting a new thread, allow me to "resurrect" this thread if I may
From what we know, Paul never met Jesus. Aside from making a claim of divine visitation or such, Paul should have known Jesus.
Here is why
Year CE 15, Paul (Saul of Tarsus) arrives in Jeruselum a city of 40,000 to 45,000 inhabitants, to enroll in school He stays there for 5 years, and while unclear of where he went afterwards, we do know that he was in Jerusulem some 12 years afterwards as he participated in the stoning of St Stephen. Being a Pharisee, we can know that even if he were not actively living in Jerusulem, he would have made visitations to the temples and met with other pharisees there. Odd, he was in Jerusulem, probably at the temple for events like Passover, yet he never met Jesus ?
Two things come to mind Paul is not telling the whole story, or Jesus was so insignificant at the time as to not have warranted The pharisees time and efforts.
We know Jesus was an Essene, in fact a branch of Essene called Nazareans and living in a shelterd communal atmosphere prior to joining with John the Baptist and then starting his own ministry, it is plausable that the paths of Jesus and Paul never crossed, but I would not say too likely.
Jesus we know really gained popularity from Paul and others, Paul leading the "orthodox" movement with others contributing to the gnostics, etc
The problem with Paul is that Paul was one of only several early followers of Jesus. It would be mistaken to think that Paul was the "only" follower or the only "Right" Follower or the "only" follower we should emulate today. Many people would have met this Jesus, and walked away with different experiences. Most of them, like Jesus, would have been illiterate and uneducated, so no written record of their ideas would survive, Paul being educated would have ahd the ability to write and read. Consider too that many of the followers of Jesus, fishermen, prostitutes, laborers would have had no REASON to learn to read and write. Paul could have been 1 out of a hundred who had this skill.
Either way, it would be erroneous to believe everyone who claims to have had a divine revelation from Jesus. We had dozens of people who had "divine inspiration" when I did intern work in a state institution.
Just remember, a blow on the head, from falling off a horse (or getting kicked by one) can result in temporary blindness, audio and visual hallucinations and even a type of fugue amnesia, in which a patient assumes a whole new identity. (Although it is usually very short lived).
Strange things can happen, I personally do not chalk any of them up to "Divine intervention" then or now
So the door to the gentiles wasn't opened by Paul, but Peter!
Opening the door is not the same as shutting another door behind you. In Acts 9-48 Peter does indeed reach out to Gentiles (although with some trepidation) but there is nothing that calls for an abandonment of the laws of the Old testament.
It seems to me that Peter was accepting of Gentiles in the faith but still argues for adherence to Judaic law in 2nd Peter Chapter 2.
As for Paul, the ancient Pat Robertson, who can blame him for noting a great scam when he saw one.
I wanted to add something and since I wanted to reach the ones who are posting on this forum, as opposed to starting a new thread, allow me to "resurrect" this thread if I may
From what we know, Paul never met Jesus. Aside from making a claim of divine visitation or such, Paul should have known Jesus.
Here is why
Year CE 15, Paul (Saul of Tarsus) arrives in Jeruselum a city of 40,000 to 45,000 inhabitants, to enroll in school He stays there for 5 years, and while unclear of where he went afterwards, we do know that he was in Jerusulem some 12 years afterwards as he participated in the stoning of St Stephen. Being a Pharisee, we can know that even if he were not actively living in Jerusulem, he would have made visitations to the temples and met with other pharisees there. Odd, he was in Jerusulem, probably at the temple for events like Passover, yet he never met Jesus ?
Two things come to mind Paul is not telling the whole story, or Jesus was so insignificant at the time as to not have warranted The pharisees time and efforts.
We know Jesus was an Essene, in fact a branch of Essene called Nazareans and living in a shelterd communal atmosphere prior to joining with John the Baptist and then starting his own ministry, it is plausable that the paths of Jesus and Paul never crossed, but I would not say too likely.
Jesus we know really gained popularity from Paul and others, Paul leading the "orthodox" movement with others contributing to the gnostics, etc
The problem with Paul is that Paul was one of only several early followers of Jesus. It would be mistaken to think that Paul was the "only" follower or the only "Right" Follower or the "only" follower we should emulate today. Many people would have met this Jesus, and walked away with different experiences. Most of them, like Jesus, would have been illiterate and uneducated, so no written record of their ideas would survive, Paul being educated would have ahd the ability to write and read. Consider too that many of the followers of Jesus, fishermen, prostitutes, laborers would have had no REASON to learn to read and write. Paul could have been 1 out of a hundred who had this skill.
Either way, it would be erroneous to believe everyone who claims to have had a divine revelation from Jesus. We had dozens of people who had "divine inspiration" when I did intern work in a state institution.
Just remember, a blow on the head, from falling off a horse (or getting kicked by one) can result in temporary blindness, audio and visual hallucinations and even a type of fugue amnesia, in which a patient assumes a whole new identity. (Although it is usually very short lived).
Strange things can happen, I personally do not chalk any of them up to "Divine intervention" then or now
I do get the impression that Paul was resident in Asia minor and was first and foremost a Roman Citizen and had more in common with his greek fellow citizens than with his Jewish fellows - certainly not with the more orthodox Jews of Judea or even Galilee. Probably he did visit the Temple at festivals, but would he have met Jesus there?
That's where it depends whether one follows the gospel story or not. As the proto - Christian, Jesus is shown as being not too interested in the temple and Mark shows his followers rubbernecking about the complex like tourists. That is surely wrong. As is Luke's expansion of a relatively brief occupation of the temple in Passion -week to days and days teaching and occasional debates with Pharisees or Sadduccees.
For myself -and it is something of the 'pet theory' as the conclusions are based on first buying my argument that the historical events were limited to regular quiet visits and that one public temple cleansing - if Paul and Jesus ever attended the same festival, there is no reason why they should have met or known the other was there. That's if Paul even bothered with temple festivals. His writings indicate that his whole theology was based on decriminalizing his guilt about not observing the Mosaic Laws very well.
I believe his confession that he first persecuted the Nazorenes - the Jesus party. Not because of son of god claims, but because (I argue) of their opposition to the Roman occupation. Paul was a loyal Roman himself and the Sanhedrin something of an element of the Roman administration. While it is unlikely that - as Saul - Paul was important enough to be given temple authority to 'persecute the Church of God' (Corinthians) he did something like minor spying on and arrests of the faithful.
The conversion is a question, but the famous miracle is in Luke, who is not to be trusted, is not confirmed by Paul himself. He is obscure about what changed his mind but, going by his message, I apply his belief that faith in Jesus could lead to salvation for Jews and gentiles alike - and without the need to observe the jewish Law. Since this was evidently his own idea and nobody elses' - not the view of the disciples, I am certain - it was just the theory he needed to reconcile Judaism and gentiles, gain God's promise for his fellow citizens and also excuse his own laxity in observance. In effect he decided that the Disciple's belief that Jesus crucifixion was not failure but a kind of atonement sacrifice to renew the covenant with God, was - suitably extended to the gentiles - just what he needed.
I might finally say that I don't automatically buy the Essene identification. There are some hints at Essene -like behaviour in the gospels, notably the synoptic man with the water jar, which must have been in the synoptic story since both Mark and Luke record it, but (curiously) not Matthew who just has Jesus send them to such and such a person.
In fact my 'pet theory' hasn't a last supper in the city at all. I see it as that supper at the house of Lazarus before the temple procession but misplaced to a time after the event.
I also doubt the identification of Qumran as Essene just because it is a desert community. The scrolls do not strike me as very Essene, but of a more militant and even subversive form of Phariseeical Judaism - very much what I expect from a desert hideout of the Nazorene party intent on countering the Romans occupation.
I did mention this was my 'pet theory?'
If I am not way off, Paul's conversion was centered more around Damascus than Jerusalem and he hints that he avoided the place and Jesus' followers and went no further than Antioch.
So the upshot is that Paul may never have met Jesus' actual associates, let alone Jesus. Until he has an out - of - body chat with him in heaven, so he claims.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-03-2012 at 08:03 PM..
Opening the door is not the same as shutting another door behind you. In Acts 9-48 Peter does indeed reach out to Gentiles (although with some trepidation) but there is nothing that calls for an abandonment of the laws of the Old testament.
It seems to me that Peter was accepting of Gentiles in the faith but still argues for adherence to Judaic law in 2nd Peter Chapter 2.
As for Paul, the ancient Pat Robertson, who can blame him for noting a great scam when he saw one.
The role of Peter is a curious one. While both Paul and James (to some extent, Acts and Paul are like two versions of 'Acts' the comparison of which can show up discrepancies, contradictions and evasions and give indications of what the true situation was) indicate that James was the leader of the 'Elect/saints' in Jerusalem and peter was his second - in - command and gofor to the apostles in Antioch, the question of how far this extended to Gentiles is not clear.
I find it hard to believe that the doctrine of the messianic return had attracted many gentile believers, but both Luke and Acts do indicate that there were a number of non - observant followers who both Peter and Paul regarded as gentiles. That was the subject of Paul's quarrel with Peter about withdrawing from eating with them.
The role of Peter is a curious one. While both Paul and James indicate that James was the leader of the 'Elect/saints' in Jerusalem and peter was his second - in - command and gofor to the apostles in Antioch, the question of how far this extended to Gentiles is not clear.
That doesn't jibe with my understanding which would be that Peter, James and John shared equal responsibility and leadership of the early church but as canon would have it Peter was the most equal of the three. Certainly the Nazarene gave Peter the nod to build his church. And it was Peter who put forth Matthais to be the Judas' replacement.
PS - Who let Paul in the room to begin with, its slipped my mind tonight.
That doesn't jibe with my understanding which would be that Peter, James and John shared equal responsibility and leadership of the early church but as canon would have it Peter was the most equal of the three. Certainly the Nazarene gave Peter the nod to build his church. And it was Peter who put forth Matthais to be the Judas' replacement.
PS - Who let Paul in the room to begin with, its slipped my mind tonight.
It would be very interesting to know more about the process through which the Church - persecuting Saul after spending some time in the desert and around Damascus became the Jesus - preaching Paul. Paul doesn't say and Luke's account is not to be trusted. Paul doesn't so much as hint at it.
However, whichever Jews or Nazorenes invited him in, so to speak, it was Paul who went off on his own account, not with any mission or endorsement from James or indeed, Peter, though presumably with the blessing of the Elect in Antioch.
Effectively, Paul took advantage of the Judean famine to go around Achea collecting for the 'Saints/the Meek' (which is to say, Ebionites - the Nazorene community in Judea). It is hars to avoid the conclusion that Paul saw this as an excellent opportunity to buy his way in.
When it became known to James what perversion of their beliefs Paul was teaching to Gentiles and even to Jews, damn' his eyes, he was summoned by messengers sent to Antioch or to wherever Paul is supposed to have landed (Luke is not to be trusted, as I say) to call him to Jerusalem to explain himself.
What took place there is another matter, but Paul certainly regarded it as confirmation that he had 'arrived'.
AREQUIPA,
Paul was separated for the nations, to be their apostle. The nations were not under law. God had set Israel aside (that's what Romans 9-11 is all about.
Paul was transferred from law to grace. The nations are under grace, not law as it should be. How could it be otherwise with Israel set aside.
Paul was saved outside the land on the Damascus road. This intimates a change. Saul's name was changed to Paul which means "Pause." So Israel was Paused so Paul was to show a pause.
However, whichever Jews or Nazorenes invited him in, so to speak, it was Paul who went off on his own account, not with any mission or endorsement from James or indeed, Peter, though presumably with the blessing of the Elect in Antioch.
Huh?
But, on the contrary, preceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel
of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who
operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also
for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James
and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the
nations, yet they for the Circumcision-" (Galatians 2:7-9)
But, on the contrary, preceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel
of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who
operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also
for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James
and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the
nations, yet they for the Circumcision-" (Galatians 2:7-9)
Thanks for these scriptures, I forgot where they were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
