1 Cor. 15:3-5 Interesting that Paul NEVER Mentions Jesus Appearing to Mary Magdalene or Mary, Salome or The Other Women (churches, quotes)
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.
There's a simple reason for this. Paul's ministry began around 36AD. That is way before before the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John were written, which ranged from about 70 AD onward.
All the more reason, since the gospels copied much of what Paul had to offer. Paul, being in direct communication with God according his own epistles, would have gotten all this from Jesus directly i.e. "Paul, since you ask I will tell you: First I appeared to Mary Magdalene, then I appeared to my apostles, then I appeared to....." etc. and naturally the gospel writers would follow suit and all accounts would be synonymous and in harmony. But they are not.
The reason Paul says very little concerning Christ as He lived on earth is because Paul got his information from the risen Christ, not Christ as He walked the earth. We believers of the nations are not to follow Christ prior to His resurrection and ascension, but after His resurrection and ascension.
How do you reconcile :"As the Father sent me so I send you."
That is actually quite cogent and insightful, Eusebius.
Yes, but not really addressing my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The reason Paul says very little concerning Christ as He lived on earth is because Paul got his information from the risen Christ, not Christ as He walked the earth. We believers of the nations are not to follow Christ prior to His resurrection and ascension, but after His resurrection and ascension.
I can understand that Paul, getting his information first -hand into his head, might be less concerned by what he said and did on earth. But it does puzzles me that he uses the earthly doings and sayings so little in writing for others to read. It is argued that they already knew, but did they? They were Romanised Greeks and probably knew nothing of Jesus' life, if they had even heard of him.
It could also be argued that the earlier gospel -story had been circulated, but again it is odd that Paul writes with the OT (so to speak) on one side, but not the New. He never reefers to or quotes from it. He mentions only the words at the Last Supper.
Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?...
It's an argument I have seen before in connection with Cleophas (in Luke) failing to mention the women running into Jesus on Sunday morning. Which of course contradicts Matthew.
The Apologetic is that Cleophas had heard their tale of running into Jesus, but did not mention is as women had no standing and their testimony was not worth relating. That of course is a ludicrous apologetic as he does relate their seeing of an angel and the hearsay claim that Jesus was alive. It is beyond belief that he would nt also mention the claim that they had actually run into him as well. The only sensible answer (backed up by Luke 24 34. where Cleophas is told that the risen Jesus has appeared to Simon but not that he was appeared to Mary, which if they doubted the tale at first, is now confirmed) is that Luke knows of no sighting of Jesus by Mary as described in Matthew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlbron
Thrillo ...
By the way, who says Mary Magdaldne was not among the 500?
...
Hardly relevant when the question s why Paul does not refer to her as the first one to see the risen Jesus.
Paul writings should never be taken on the surface. The listing by Paul were not in order of how they occurred but in order for his audience at that time to absorb.
By the way, who says Mary Magdaldne was not among the 500?
There are so many disputations on Paul's gospels, but the devil is in the interpretation we give it. For Instance, some interprete "caught up" to mean rapture, but Paul had used the word before In describing his visit to the third heaven. Was Paul raptured then?
No, he didn't. He said he knew a man, and the man was Stephen, whose garments Paul probably held as Stephen was stoned to death (yet forgiving his murderers, the epitome of unconditional love). Without Stephen there likely would have been no Paul, but G-d honored his prayer and sacrifice of praise. Peace
No, he didn't. He said he knew a man, and the man was Stephen, whose garments Paul probably held as Stephen was stoned to death (yet forgiving his murderers, the epitome of unconditional love). Without Stephen there likely would have been no Paul, but G-d honored his prayer and sacrifice of praise. Peace
I have to disagree with your opinion that Paul was referring to Stephen, or to anyone other than himself as the person who had experienced the events that he wrote about in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. The context of the passage very strongly points to Paul referring to himself, although in the third person. Even if he had been referring to someone else, Stephen is ruled out by the fact that Paul stated that he didn't know if the event of being caught up to the third heaven was in the body or not. But Stephen was stoned to death, and Paul knew that Stephen was dead. Obviously then, while Stephen did go to heaven, it was not 'in the body.' He had died physically. Nor did Stephen return to life in this world in order to speak of things that he was not permitted to speak.
2 Corinthians 12:7 would make no sense if Paul had not been referring to himself, although in the third person. Paul stated that it was 'for this reason' that he had been given a thorn in his side to keep him from exalting himself.
2Corinthians 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason (διὸ - therefore) to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-- to keep me from exalting myself!
διὸ -'therefore' is a conjunction which joins together the revelations referred to in verses 1-6 with the reason Paul was given a thorn in his side in order to keep him from exalting himself.
Why would Paul have been given a thorn in his side in order to keep him from exalting himself because of a revelation which had been given to someone else, and in Stephen's case, who couldn't speak of his revelation because he was dead?
It is likely that Paul wrote of the event in the third person from a sense of humility.
Another consideration is the fact that Paul stated that this revelation occurred fourteen years prior to the time that he wrote 2 Corinthians. Paul was in Corinth during the time that Gallio was the Roman Proconsul of Achaia(Acts 18:12). We know from a first century inscription at Delpi - Gallio Inscription that Gallio was the Roman Proconsul during the period of Claudius's twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator. From other inscriptions it is known that this was during the timeframe of A.D. 51-52. Paul stayed in Corinth for one and half years and then set sail for Syria, and then went to Ephesus where he stayed for over two years and which, based on 1 Corinthians 16:5-8 is where he wrote 1 Corinthians. A reasonable estimate for the dating of 1 Corinthians is c. A.D. 55, with 2 Corinthians being written perhaps a year or two later.
What all that means is that when you subtract fourteen years from the estimated dating of 2 Corinthians (the mid to late 50's), let's say A.D. 55, you get the year A.D. 41 as the year that the events occurred of which Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. This is much too late for Paul to have been referring to Stephen who had been martyred probably no later than A.D. 35-36.
I realize that some people think that Paul was referring to someone other than himself, but I think it's fairly clear that Paul was referring to himself in the third person.
I don't see it as third person at all, and Stephen is the only one mentioned in NT scripture that saw the third heaven.
As for Paul needing a thorn, he was given revelations as a man out of season, as he saw what was to come in the 3rd day. If you understand that we are changed from glory (terrestrial/carnal mind) to glory celestial (mind of Christ), then it's perfectly understandable why a thorn would need to be kept in place to keep him from attaining something that was not "in season" for him.
Peace
I have to disagree with your opinion that Paul was referring to Stephen, or to anyone other than himself as the person who had experienced the events that he wrote about in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. The context of the passage very strongly points to Paul referring to himself, although in the third person. Even if he had been referring to someone else, Stephen is ruled out by the fact that Paul stated that he didn't know if the event of being caught up to the third heaven was in the body or not. But Stephen was stoned to death, and Paul knew that Stephen was dead. Obviously then, while Stephen did go to heaven, it was not 'in the body.' He had died physically. Nor did Stephen return to life in this world in order to speak of things that he was not permitted to speak.
2 Corinthians 12:7 would make no sense if Paul had not been referring to himself, although in the third person. Paul stated that it was 'for this reason' that he had been given a thorn in his side to keep him from exalting himself.
2Corinthians 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason (διὸ - therefore) to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-- to keep me from exalting myself!
διὸ -'therefore' is a conjunction which joins together the revelations referred to in verses 1-6 with the reason Paul was given a thorn in his side in order to keep him from exalting himself.
Why would Paul have been given a thorn in his side in order to keep him from exalting himself because of a revelation which had been given to someone else, and in Stephen's case, who couldn't speak of his revelation because he was dead?
It is likely that Paul wrote of the event in the third person from a sense of humility.
Another consideration is the fact that Paul stated that this revelation occurred fourteen years prior to the time that he wrote 2 Corinthians. Paul was in Corinth during the time that Gallio was the Roman Proconsul of Achaia(Acts 18:12). We know from a first century inscription at Delpi - Gallio Inscription that Gallio was the Roman Proconsul during the period of Claudius's twenty-sixth acclamation as imperator. From other inscriptions it is known that this was during the timeframe of A.D. 51-52. Paul stayed in Corinth for one and half years and then set sail for Syria, and then went to Ephesus where he stayed for over two years and which, based on 1 Corinthians 16:5-8 is where he wrote 1 Corinthians. A reasonable estimate for the dating of 1 Corinthians is c. A.D. 55, with 2 Corinthians being written perhaps a year or two later.
What all that means is that when you subtract fourteen years from the estimated dating of 2 Corinthians (the mid to late 50's), let's say A.D. 55, you get the year A.D. 41 as the year that the events occurred of which Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. This is much too late for Paul to have been referring to Stephen who had been martyred probably no later than A.D. 35-36.
I realize that some people think that Paul was referring to someone other than himself, but I think it's fairly clear that Paul was referring to himself in the third person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
I don't see it as third person at all, and Stephen is the only one mentioned in NT scripture that saw the third heaven.
As for Paul needing a thorn, he was given revelations as a man out of season, as he saw what was to come in the 3rd day. If you understand that we are changed from glory (terrestrial/carnal mind) to glory celestial (mind of Christ), then it's perfectly understandable why a thorn would need to be kept in place to keep him from attaining something that was not "in season" for him.
Peace
However, since Paul indicated that the event occurred 14 years prior to the writing of 2 Corinthians which could have been written no earlier than the mid 50's, that makes it too late for it to have been Stephen.
We'll just have to disagree. I hold to the view, which a plain sense reading indicates, that Paul was referring to himself.
However, since Paul indicated that the event occurred 14 years prior to the writing of 2 Corinthians which could have been written no earlier than the mid 50's, that makes it too late for it to have been Stephen.
We'll just have to disagree. I hold to the view, which a plain sense reading indicates, that Paul was referring to himself.
That works for me. Peace
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.
