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.
Galatians 2:6-9 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
No Gospel had been written or at the very least circulated, when Paul started his ministry. Plus the Jews knew the history of Jesus' ministry because they saw it. The Gentiles needed to know it, beyond just the verbal info shared by Paul and the Apostles. However for those that knew it and now those joining with them, they needed instruction on how to meet, preach, associate with Gentiles and the many things that Jews had practiced and Christians would not. Getting the congregations functioning as a united group was important at that time because the Gospel was spreading.The full story of Jesus and his ministry was known, the written gospels just made it possible for many beyond those who saw it to tell others. Established congregations now had a written account, from the various perspectives presented, to learn what was becoming past history as some apostles and others who knew or saw Jesus died. Paul was shall we say organizationally motivate and the Gospel writers focused on the reason for turning from Judaism and learning about Jesus and far less on what was expected of believers.
You make a couple of assumptions here. It is undeniable that the companions of Jesus knew of his doings and sayings, and the other disciples would have at least heard it from them. Which is one reason why I find the argument that some gospels omit important events was because they didn't themselves see it is an excuse that doesn't wash.
However, it assumes that what Paul heard was what he passed on and moreover that what he passed on is what we have in the Gospels.
I agree with you to a certain extent that no gospel (at least none that we have today) was circulating when Paul was beginning his ministry. Paul may well have heard the basics about Jesus. He may even have got some of the details. Yet in passing on a wealth of argument, he says little about the earthly Jesus.
But what I argue is that the story about Jesus waking about and being seen would be so well known that even if Paul wasn't bothered to cite it in support of resurrection rather than appeal to their faith being in vain if it wasn't true, there would have been one pretty coherent resurrection account in all the gospels. Instead we get none in Mark and the rest hopelessly contradictory.
What is also clear to me is that, what Paul has to labour on arguing out with his crummy logic is plonked down as a supposed saying of Jesus. Well...if he said so, what's the need for argument?
Add to that some concepts only embryonic in Paul such as those who oppose Paul being beneath contempt becoming Jew -hate, in the gospels, Paul's desire to abrogate the need for observance of the law become Jew-hate in the gospels and the observation that the 'Lords of this world' would not have executed Jesus if they had knows who he was, becomes more and more jew -hate.
Thus certainly there is pretty good evidence that the gospels we now have were put together after Paul had begun his ministry, and also that they were works written by Gentile Christians, not Jews, and had little to do with what Paul had said about Jesus and even less to do with what the apostles had said about him.
Remind me. Who says so? What does Paul say about this event? After all a writer who lies about why Paul had to escape from Damascus, gets his history back to front, mangles Amos as recited by James in order to turn it into a prophecy can hardly be considered reliable, and his Peter speech and James letter do not inspire much confidence either.
And as I recall, Luke (Acts) changes the story of the conversion when Paul supposedly recounts it later on. Anyone like to check that?
Yes, I will remind you, and yes, let's check it out. It is recorded three times in Acts, once by narration of Luke as Paul is being referred to in the third person (and he said), and twice in which Luke records Paul himself relating his encounter with the risen Christ.
The story is told a little differently in each account just as it would be expected that anyone relating an event might report it a little differently each time he tells it without introducing any contradictions in the way he reports it. Now let's look at the three accounts.
Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4] and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5] And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6] but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." 7] The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8] Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.
Acts. 22:6 "But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, 7] and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' 8] "And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' 9] "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. 10] "And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'
Acts 26:12 While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13] at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14] "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15] And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16] 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17] rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18] to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
In Acts 9:7 Luke records that Paul said that the men who were with him heard a voice but saw no one.
In Acts 22:9 Paul states that the men who were with him saw the light but didn't understand the voice.
By comparing the two accounts, it is seen that the men who were with Paul heard a voice which they did not understand, and that though they saw no one, they saw the light which accompanied the vision.
In the Acts 26 account Paul states that a light brighter than the sun shone all around him and the men who were with him. In this telling of the account Paul leaves out the reference to the men not understanding the voice that they heard. Leaving out that particular detail on this occasion when he had earlier mentioned it is not a contradiction. Again, it is common for an event which is being reported to be reported in a slightly different way each time it is told. A detail may be left out in one reporting of the event when that same detail had previously been included. There is no contradiction here.
Addendum: Furthermore, it is related by Luke in Acts 9:10-15 that the Lord spoke to a man by the name of Ananias, and told him that Paul was a chosen instrument of His and that Paul would be coming to him (to Ananias) and that he was to lay hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. Paul was blinded by the light in his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road.
And your charge of Luke lying need not even be addressed.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-22-2015 at 10:38 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,944,335 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Exactly. Paul was on the road to arrest Christians and drag them back to Jerusalem. He was intercepted by Jesus Christ and Paul was a changed man.
There are indications that Paul had an epileptic seizure at the time. There is quite the difference as to did his fellow travelers see something or not? Did they hear something or not?
The claim that the apostolic view of the resurrection is that it was a spiritual one is absolutely false, and I have already addressed that.
RESPONSE:
Paul seems to disagree with your explanation, doesn't he?
Douay-Rheims Bible 1Cor 15:44
It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:
I already addressed that issue in post #112. I stated what Paul meant by that. I'll repeat what I said.
As for Paul, his use of the word 'soma' in 1 Cor. 15:35 refers to a fleshly body. A physical body. Yes, Paul did distinguish between a natural body and a spiritual body, but by spiritual body he did not mean a non-corporeal, non-physical body, but rather, a glorified body of incorruptibility and immortality. It is the physical body which is raised imperishable and immortal, and it is physical death which is defeated by a physical resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:52:55).
There are indications that Paul had an epileptic seizure at the time. There is quite the difference as to did his fellow travelers see something or not? Did they hear something or not?
Substantially. If you don't know what i actually in the Gospels, it is easy to tell yourself that they are reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP
Well then maybe you could produce that evidence? I assume the info is correct unless you can SHOW otherwise.
The Info is that Herod died in 4 BC and the census of Quirinus was in 6 AD, after the death of Herod, the dismissal of his son and Judea taken over by Rome. Thus the Gospel nativities contradict and both cannot be true.
The Census of Qurinus applied only to Judea, not Galilee, so Joseph wouldn't even need to sign on. In any case you signed on in your own town, not some distant city where your ancestors lived.
Thus Luke despite not being as absurd as Matthew, is contradicted by the evidence. Attempt to fiddle this to make it work fail. Thus the debate about dating the census is the issue and it comes back to 6 AD - after the death of Herod and thus contradicting Matthew.
If this isn't showing that the evidence is 'otherwise' than supporting gospel reliability, I do not know what would show it to you.
Matthew might possibly be true as to date - after all, Jesus had to be born sometime, but the story itself is rather absurd.
I already addressed that issue in post #112. I stated what Paul meant by that. I'll repeat what I said.
As for Paul, his use of the word 'soma' in 1 Cor. 15:35 refers to a fleshly body. A physical body. Yes, Paul did distinguish between a natural body and a spiritual body, but by spiritual body he did not mean a non-corporeal, non-physical body, but rather, a glorified body of incorruptibility and immortality. It is the physical body which is raised imperishable and immortal, and it is physical death which is defeated by a physical resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:52:55).
Yes, but there is the argument that paul was taking terms of the resurrection known to the Jews. Like that described in Matthew at the crucifixion, because, I suppose he wanted to show that the Kingdom of God had come at that time.
It hadn't. In Paul's day he was still waiting for it and it is the Other kind of resurrection (as distinct from the Roman kind where we die, are immediately whisked (with music by Elgar) into the presence of Jesusgod for judgement and sorting into heavenly symphonia 7th trumpet 3rd rank or firelighters for perdition.
The Jewish kind of resurrection which (perversely) is preached together with the Instant judgement and harps on clouds belief is that we all lie in the ground or pewter urns on the mantlepiece until "Ol' Gabe Blo his horn" and we all clamber out ...to be handed out Aka's and suicide bombs in order to fight the Antichrist at Armageddon.
This latter resurrection with the saved floating up in new bodies to greet Jesus as he returns is what he is referring to. And Jesus would quite likely be in a new body. But all the time he was appearing to Paul, it was in visions. Just as he is the faithful now. And that was what the apostles saw. Not the old body with the war wounds walking about in Jerusalem despite having gone to Galilee.
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.
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
