"Here are a few verses for you to chew on granite."
I appreciate you actually giving me an answer!:thumb:
"How do these differ from Jesus of the Gospels? This is a broad sampling from almost every Pauline epistle plus Acts of some of what Paul had to say about Jesus. Now I would like you to respond and show me how this Jesus is materially different from Jesus in the Gospels."
To this I would ask: how often does Paul appeal to the WORDS of Jesus? The sermon the mount, the miracles, the ministry, the prayers? Next to never. He does, indeed, preach "Christ crucified," but remember, if Paul was taking the Jesus Story (a wise rabbi unjustly executed) and putting his own spin on it, what does that really prove? And I'm not exactly making this up. The idea that Paul took a local story and ran with it is certainly not a new concept.
The emphasis in the passages you cited is, of course, on Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul does not appeal to (very recent) local history and cites a nebulous "five hundred" witnesses, none of whom are named (the witnesses he does name are the apostles, which is a self-proving argument, i.e., scripture essentially proving scripture).
"I have time so you can read all of the verse before you jump out there with some one-liner."
Ah. You know me too well...:chuckle:
"If you can prove that this is something different, I will accept your research. But it appears to me that Paul is talking of Jesus of Nazareth who was born, who grew up in Nazareth, who suffered at the hands of the authorities, who was crucified, who suffered outside the city walls, who was buried, resurrected and who promised to come again."
This is what he talked about, yes. Paul's greatest next step, as it were, was claiming that Jesus was the promised messiah. Jews of his day and of ours deny this, of course, by appealing to the very scripture Paul as a pharisee knew inside and out. (Nazareth, incidently, may not have even existed in Jesus' day; there's no agreement amongst scholars on this subject, but it's a digression.) Here's the thing: Paul championed the idea that Jesus was the Christ, amidst stiff opposition even among "Christian" or at least gnostic sects. If the gnostics had "won," as it were, say at Nicea, Pauline thought wouldn't dominate today. He was one man, one scholar, one voice, one argument. His argument won out; lucky Paul.
As Paul himself pointed out, his story was worthless without the resurrection. Sooner or later this discussion boils down to the validity of scripture, of course, and neither of us will "win" THAT argument. Paul endorsed the resurrection story and ran with it. Many didn't and still don't.
"It also appears that he sent His Holy Spirit as promised and that he came not to condemn but rather to save just as John 3 states. So, anyway, I'm having a hard time dismissing Paul as some inventor of a mock Jesus who had no real earthly life."
Well, trying to "prove" the Holy Spirit was "sent" is well-nigh impossible. I wouldn't say Paul invented the entire Jesus story out of whole cloth, no. I would say he embellished it.
"I don't know what has you so bummed about your experience in a christian church, but maybe they were preaching the wrong Christ. I don't know. But , anyway, I await your response."
PM me if you care to know Granite's Tale of Woe (it's short and not terribly interesting, FYI), but I can tell you each church I ever attended preach the "right" (read: ORTHODOX) Christ.
