What Did Paul Know?

[Aimiel]

And what circumstantial evidence would that be?

Paul's intelligence (obvious from his writing style and content), his position (a doctor of the law, most likely to keep abreast of current events, especially relating to his zeal for God. He ended up holding someone's coat, while Stephen was stoned, not hearing about the stoning second-hand; so he's taking part in his local congregation. He's active. Those circumstances, for starters.

 

[Granite]

Paul's intelligence (obvious from his writing style and content), his position (a doctor of the law, most likely to keep abreast of current events, especially relating to his zeal for God. He ended up holding someone's coat, while Stephen was stoned, not hearing about the stoning second-hand; so he's taking part in his local congregation. He's active. Those circumstances, for starters.

That's exactly my point: given all of this, why didn't Paul mention once that he was aware of or had encountered Jesus? Why is he so surprised during the Damascus encounter? Why not appeal to what he knew of Jesus, just as he admitted he'd persecuted the church? Why not draw on what he'd directly seen and heard from Jesus? This absence and silence makes zero sense.

 

[Aimiel]

That's exactly my point: given all of this, why didn't Paul mention once that he was aware of or had encountered Jesus? Why is he so surprised during the Damascus encounter? Why not appeal to what he knew of Jesus, just as he admitted he'd persecuted the church? Why not draw on what he'd directly seen and heard from Jesus? This absence and silence makes zero sense.

Maybe he was given a similar prophetic promise to what Simeon had from The Lord (Luke 2:25-32) and knew that he would meet Messiah, before his death. Maybe he had a Messiah complex, and thought that either he would become the Messiah, or perhaps give birth to him; and so thought that Messiah 'wanna-bes' were all dried up. It is curious that he doesn't mention his mind-set during Jesus' ministry or give us any insight into it at all, but it doesn't detract from his writings or any of The Truths of The Gospel.

 

[Granite]

Maybe he was given a similar prophetic promise to what Simeon had from The Lord (Luke 2:25-32) and knew that he would meet Messiah, before his death. Maybe he had a Messiah complex, and thought that either he would become the Messiah, or perhaps give birth to him; and so thought that Messiah 'wanna-bes' were all dried up. It is curious that he doesn't mention his mind-set during Jesus' ministry or give us any insight into it at all, but it doesn't detract from his writings or any of The Truths of The Gospel.

Paul having a messianic complex?! :noway:

Whoa, bud!

I think the problem is that Paul's silence does detract from the gospel message. A prime chance to corroborate the entire story is totally skipped! Judging by Paul's own words and epistles alone, he didn't have a clue who Jesus was until the Damascus road encounter. That conclusion is simply not reasonable or likely. I'd say that's significant.

 

[Aimiel]

Paul having a messianic complex?! :noway:

No, Saul; there is quite a difference. By the way, there are plenty of a certain sect of Jews who, even today, the men all wear loose-fitting pants, in case they should become impregnated with the Messiah; the thought being that women aren't 'good enough' to carry Him, and that He may be placed in their belly fully-formed.

I think the problem is that Paul's silence does detract from the gospel message. A prime chance to corroborate the entire story is totally skipped! Judging by Paul's own words and epistles alone, he didn't have a clue who Jesus was until the Damascus road encounter. That conclusion is simply not reasonable or likely. I'd say that's significant.

I think you are making too much of nothing.

 

[Turbo]

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.

the part i emphasized... what does that mean?

Even Peter had a hard time getting used to the idea of this new gospel that God revealed through Paul, especially that those under the gospel of uncircumcision were saved by grace through faith alone apart from good works. Remember that prior to Paul coming on the scene, the gospel of circumcision (which require faith plus works) was all Peter knew. If you read Acts chapter 10, right after called Paul as to deliver the Gospel of grace to the uncircumcised, God prepared Peter for this shift to working with the Gentiles, and Peter was very reluctant, resisting God's instructions to eat the unclean animals in the vision (God had set up these symbolic dietary laws as a way of setting Israel apart from Gentile nations).

and also, beloved brother is a pleasantry... that doesn't really imply an endorsement.

But it does rule out the notion that Paul was regarded as a heretic or a false teacher by Peter (and by extension, the twelve). Also, Peter mentions that wicked men who twist the meaning of Paul's letters, which he would not have done if he considered Pau's letters to be "twisted" on their own.

no where does peter say that paul's teaching was inspired by christ in this passage.

Look again:

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. 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. 2 Peter 3:15-17​

Peter refers to Paul's epistles and "the other Scriptures." If Peter did not consider Paul's epistles to be inspired Scriptures, he would not have used the word "other" before "Scriptures."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Letsargue]

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?

---Did the Catholics know of the Christ the Christians taught, when they were thrown to the lions? Did the Catholics know of the same earth that the old scientist said went around the sun? -- Yes, Yes, but didn't BELIEVE IT. It's the same today, by the same spirit.
*
----------------Paul---
*

 

[koban]

---Did the Catholics know of the Christ the Christians taught, when they were thrown to the lions? Did the Catholics know of the same earth that the old scientist said went around the sun? -- Yes, Yes, but didn't BELIEVE IT. It's the same today, by the same spirit.
*
----------------Paul---
*

:BRAVO:

Once again Paul, your communication skills are truly befuddling.



I know history isn't your strong suit, but which Catholics were thrown to the lions? :freak:

And exactly what was it that they "didn't BELIEVE"?






(he reminds me of the line in "Animal House" where Bluto says, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" :chuckle: )

 

[allsmiles]

Even Peter had a hard time getting used to the idea of this new gospel that God revealed through Paul, especially that those under the gospel of uncircumcision were saved by grace through faith alone apart from good works. Remember that prior to Paul coming on the scene, the gospel of circumcision (which require faith plus works) was all Peter knew.

so faith without works is still dead?

If you read Acts chapter 10, right after called Paul as to deliver the Gospel of grace to the uncircumcised, God prepared Peter for this shift to working with the Gentiles, and Peter was very reluctant, resisting God's instructions to eat the unclean animals in the vision (God had set up these symbolic dietary laws as a way of setting Israel apart from Gentile nations).

i remember the story well... but it was written by luke, paul's side kick:think:

But it does rule out the notion that Paul was regarded as a heretic or a false teacher by Peter (and by extension, the twelve). Also, Peter mentions that wicked men who twist the meaning of Paul's letters, which he would not have done if he considered Pau's letters to be "twisted" on their own.

maybe, maybe not. it depends on the people peter was speaking to specifically. paul was very popular, was he not? seems to me peter was handling the matter as cautiously as he could. calling paul beloved could be a pleasantry meant to sooth paul's consitituents. in the meantime he tells the reader that paul's gospel is easily misunderstood, hard to understand in the first place and is given to being misinterpreted by evil men. hardly sounds like an endorsement to me.

Look again:

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. 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. 2 Peter 3:15-17​

Peter refers to Paul's epistles and "the other Scriptures." If Peter did not consider Paul's epistles to be inspired Scriptures, he would not have used the word "other" before "Scriptures."

Do you see what I'm getting at? Does that make sense to you?

i see exactly what you're getting at, and you've been more than helpful, i appreciate it.

peter still does not go as far as to say that paul recieved his new gospel from christ or god, just that he received it. a reference to the "other" scripture doesn't imply divine inspiration either. there are dozens of gnostic and apocryphal scriptures that could be described as "other" in comparison with the synoptic.

 

[Bright Raven]

All Smiles, What are you seeking?

 

[allsmiles]

All Smiles, What are you seeking?

i've been trying to establish paul's trustworthiness.

 

[Bright Raven]

i've been trying to establish paul's trustworthiness.

Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

 

[Granite]

Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

Darwin was scientifically minded as well, and that doesn't keep Christians from doubting his credibility, agenda, or motives. Luke was a close friend of the apostle and as such his perceptions, memories, and agenda were colored.

 

[allsmiles]

Didn't Luke record The Acts of the Apostles? Wasn't Luke a Physician? Being, for lack of better words, scientifically minded, would he not have been careful in recording his observations and probable conversations with those from whom he gathered information? Pure supposition eh? Your thoughts?

wasn't luke also converted by paul? i don't think luke can be counted on as a reliable source for what happened, he was biased. if you want to believe that he wasn't, that's fine, but that's asking for a lot more than simple faith in jesus. now you have to have faith in jesus, luke and paul.

 

[Aimiel]

If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

 

[allsmiles]

If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

you're supposed to have faith in christ, not paul, not luke. you have to have faith that paul was divinely inspired because beyond some cosmic, divine event, there's nothing in the bible that lends any credence to a word he says. blind faith is the best you've got because in this case, the bible doesn't give you anything.

 

[Granite]

If you don't have faith in God, you'll never find faith in His Word, especially by doubting the authors were inspired by The Lord. To receive anything from God, including understanding of His Word, you first have to believe in Him. Until you do, you're in the dark.

And this means what to the questions that have been posed? That to believe the book we have to believe what the book says about God? Aimiel, this kind of circular reasoning is enough to give someone a migraine.

 

[Bright Raven]

you're supposed to have faith in christ, not paul, not luke. you have to have faith that paul was divinely inspired because beyond some cosmic, divine event, there's nothing in the bible that lends any credence to a word he says. blind faith is the best you've got because in this case, the bible doesn't give you anything.

Blind faith? :noway:

How does "The Book" define faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

Faith is not blind, just faith.

 

[allsmiles]

Blind faith? :noway:

How does "The Book" define faith?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

Faith is not blind, just faith.

contradiction, and it's beside the point.

 

[Bright Raven]

contradiction, and it's beside the point.

:noway: Define faith. You said it was blind.