What Did Paul Know?

[Lighthouse]

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?

He would have had to have heard about Him. He was present at Stephen's stoning for a reason. He knew why Stephen was being stoned, and I'm sure he knew of the teachings that were considered heretical to the Jewish leaders.

 

[Aimiel]

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.

The Bible is clear that we're not to have 'blind' faith, but reading Paul's and Luke's writings clears up where they both stand. They not only bring clarity and harmony to The Word of God, His Word isn't complete without what they give us. Your rantings, as usual, are meaningless, and drivel, at best.

 

[Aimiel]

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.

It isn't circular, if you're Christian. You're trying to make subjective sense out of something you declare you only have objective experience of. What do you want, the rules of logic and reason to change to suit you? The fact is, if you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't going to believe the authors of His Word were inspired. To attempt to discredit Paul because he never mentions having seen or heard Jesus during his three-year ministry is just silly. I've never written anything about many pastors, several of which I sat under for several years. Doesn't mean I never attended their sermons or that I never learned anything from them; it just means I never wrote about some of them. Paul wrote what he was inspired by The Lord to write. It is curious that he never wrote about Jesus' earthly ministry, but it isn't unusual, because he wasn't an apostle during that time.

 

[Granite]

He would have had to have heard about Him. He was present at Stephen's stoning for a reason. He knew why Stephen was being stoned, and I'm sure he knew of the teachings that were considered heretical to the Jewish leaders.

Well, that's what I think too. My question's why Paul never once appeals to his personal experience with Jesus or mentions having heard of him until after Damascus. I mean, he had no problem admitting he'd persecuted the church. Wouldn't it have made sense to say that he had personally heard Christ and rejected him, to make his own conversion even more persuasive and anecdotal?

 

[Granite]

It isn't circular, if you're Christian. You're trying to make subjective sense out of something you declare you only have objective experience of. What do you want, the rules of logic and reason to change to suit you? The fact is, if you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't going to believe the authors of His Word were inspired. To attempt to discredit Paul because he never mentions having seen or heard Jesus during his three-year ministry is just silly. I've never written anything about many pastors, several of which I sat under for several years. Doesn't mean I never attended their sermons or that I never learned anything from them; it just means I never wrote about some of them. Paul wrote what he was inspired by The Lord to write. It is curious that he never wrote about Jesus' earthly ministry, but it isn't unusual, because he wasn't an apostle during that time.

But saying I have to understand the Christian Bible by being a Christian is absolutely circular, Aimiel. You can't understand koine Greek without opening your primer and learning it, either.

The pastors you've encountered, I hope, are not on par with Jesus himself.

 

[allsmiles]

The Bible is clear that we're not to have 'blind' faith, but reading Paul's and Luke's writings clears up where they both stand. They not only bring clarity and harmony to The Word of God, His Word isn't complete without what they give us. Your rantings, as usual, are meaningless, and drivel, at best.

actually, it doesn't clear anything up. i've been reading the epistles over and over again and it's anything but clear. James makes the reconciliation of Paul's new gospel with the existing one, but it's more in the manner of something that is to be taken for granted. Faith is considered to be secondary by the original apostles. Paul never reconciles the two, he has no interest in the jesus that the original apostles knew, the only jesus he has interest in is the post resurrection, cosmic being. paul didn't care about who jesus the man was, and it's more than obvious. he taught a different jesus than the one that actually existed, and the only people whose word we can take on the matter are paul, and luke, paul's side kick.

kinda suspect.

 

[Aimiel]

... the only people whose word we can take on the matter are paul, and luke, paul's side kick.

kinda suspect.

Actually we take God's Word, Who lives in believers, Who verifies the integrity of His Word.

 

[allsmiles]

Actually we take God's Word, Who lives in believers, Who verifies the integrity of His Word.

no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians) and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke. Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration. James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.

 

[Bright Raven]

no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians) and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke. Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration. James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.

All Smiles, Our resident thorn in the side. Wrong, me thinks you missed 2 Peter 3:15,

2 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

15And 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;


Doesn't look like and imposter or unsubstantiated to me unless you call Peter a liar. "Our beloved brother" Looks like an endorsement from the Apostle Peter to me. What say you?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians)

Why do you say Paul was a liar? What did he lie about?

and Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul). there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion, there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught. The original apostles never endorsed Paul's gospel outside of the accounts written by Paul's boy Luke.

Do you see any accounts by the apostles that explicitly deny Paul's gospel? Anywhere that they specifically declare him a heretic and an antichrist? Nowhere that i can find.

Peter never substantiates Paul's claims of divine inspiration.

Calling him his brother and his works scripture isn't substantiating him? What more could you want?

James condemns faith based salvation by calling it dead without the salvation of works. Paul never reconciles works and faith. the only people who make the reconciliation are modern christians scrambling to make sense of the contradictions while simultaneously clinging to a thin hope of consistency to maintain whatever vestige of divinity that can be found after a thorough reading of the text.

If you see that Paul and James wrote to different groups, under different dispensations, you don't have to reoncile anything. For James's group, faith without works was dead. For Paul's group, faith was all you needed, and good works were something you ought to do afterwards, but were not required to do to be saved.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I ask because I find it very hard to believe that a zealous Pharisee in Jerusalem seemed so ignorant of Jesus and never once appears to have encountered him in person (pre-resurrection). This is, shall we say, a stretch.

Couldn't help interjecting.

Saul was essentialy a Jewish missionary. Jewish missions spanned great distances. It's very easy to see why he'd never have crossed actual paths (pre-crucifiction) with Christ, especialy when one considers his Roman citizenship.

 

[allsmiles]

All Smiles, Our resident thorn in the side. Wrong, me thinks you missed 2 Peter 3:15,

2 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

15And 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;


Doesn't look like and imposter or unsubstantiated to me unless you call Peter a liar. "Our beloved brother" Looks like an endorsement from the Apostle Peter to me. What say you?

i'll tell you what i told Turbo when he showed me this passage:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as (1)our beloved brother Paul also (2)according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, (3)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.

1) this is a pleasantry. Paul's teachings were popular and Peter was playing a game of religion and politics. salvation by faith (belief in the action of christ dying, resurrecting and redeeming) is easier than salvation by works (keeping the law, following the words of the earthly christ as opposed to believing in the supernatural redemptive work of the divine christ being) and was thus a popular alternative to the stiff necked orthodoxy of the original apostles.

2) Peter is not saying that Paul received his gospel from jesus christ.

3) Peter is saying from the get go that these things Paul teaches are difficult to understand, and oftentimes lead people astray, "unto their own destruction". that's not an endorsement, BR, that's a warning. Peter errs on the side of caution through this entire epistle, read the whole thing, it's a warning about Paul's new "gospel". he was telling his the readers, the "unlearned" and "unstable", to leave the interpretation to the apostles, the "learned" and "stable". we know that the people he was writing to were unlearned because, why would he instruct someone who needed no instruction?

no, the book says that Peter never acknowledges Paul's divine inspiration, and we can infer that he didn't trust Paul in that he was cautioning his disciples against what the new "apostle" was teaching.

let me ask you something:

if Paul's new "gospel" wasn't good enough for Peter, a man who knew Jesus personally, how is it that it's good enough for you?

 

[Granite]

Couldn't help interjecting.

Saul was essentialy a Jewish missionary. Jewish missions spanned great distances. It's very easy to see why he'd never have crossed actual paths (pre-crucifiction) with Christ, especialy when one considers his Roman citizenship.

Saul was a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel. I am not aware of any biblical evidence indicating he was a missionary until after his Damascus encounter. Unless you think he just happened to miss Jesus and showed up in town in time to stone Stephen, I think you're reaching. Moreover, it seems inconceivable that the Jewish authorities didn't acquaint him with anything about Jesus in particular. It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

There were no Christians before Paul came on the scene. It would be several years later before someone came up with the term "Christian", in the city of Antioch.

That Paul doesn't mention the earthly ministry of Jesus in his letters only makes sense if he had a different ministry and a different purpose, which he did claim.

 

[Granite]

There were no Christians before Paul came on the scene. It would be several years later before someone came up with the term "Christian", in the city of Antioch.

That Paul doesn't mention the earthly ministry of Jesus in his letters only makes sense if he had a different ministry and a different purpose, which he did claim.

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Saul was a Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel. I am not aware of any biblical evidence indicating he was a missionary until after his Damascus encounter.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Not evidence directly aimed at Saul, but certainly there for the Pharisees.

Unless you think he just happened to miss Jesus and showed up in town in time to stone Stephen, I think you're reaching.

In a world sans steam boats and airplanes it's quite a simple matter to miss two such events. Even when they seem so close together by todays chronological standards.

Moreover, it seems inconceivable that the Jewish authorities didn't acquaint him with anything about Jesus in particular. It was Christians as a movement they cared about; Saul seems ignorant of Jesus, his ministry, or even Christian doctrine until after Damascus. I simply do not find this credible.

I never said they never made him aware of Christ. That doesn't mean he droped all he was doing where he was at just to go spit in Christ's face while he was still alive (again pre-crucifiction).

 

[Mustard Seed]

Followers of Jesus, how's that. Here's another hair to split. Yeeeesh.:chuckle:

Another possibility is that Paul didn't mention the ministry and earthly life of Jesus because it didn't happen the way the gospels describe it, or because it didn't happen at all.

Or because we don't have all records ever made OR because Saul didn't think it terribly critical to document and closely follow every breakaway Jewish sect. The possiblities you seem to gravitate towards are almost always inherently on the most antipathetic side of the issue. Even when there's a smorgasborg of other options that don't seem to particularly favor either side's view while still being plainly in the realm of plausibility.

 

[Aimiel]

no... you take Paul's word (a liar, a persecutor of christians)

Paul, a liar? Puhleaze. He was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. Many of us (Christians) were the same.

...and (you take) Luke's word (the physican converted by Paul).

Again, you discount The Holy Ghost, Who is The Inward Witness, Who gives us revelation knowledge of Who Jesus is, and The Truth of all Scripture.

there are no witnesses to corroborate Paul's conversion,

There are no witnesses to corroberate most of The Old Testament, but that doesn't make it unbelieveable or any less true.

...there is no scriptural tie between the career of jesus and the jesus christ that Paul taught.

The things that Paul taught merely revealed the things which Jesus set up, and confirm the works and ministry of The Holy Ghost.

aimiel, whether you would like to believe it, or whether you can believe it, what you believe is based upon what appears to be the lies of an imposter.

No, Who I believe in is merely hinted at by The Word of God, but verified by His Presence. If He didn't witness His Word within my heart and verify His Authority to me, I'd have left the 'myth' of Him a long time ago. He is no myth, He is alive, and it is The Living Spirit of The Lord Whom I have believed and Whom I belong to, follow and serve.

 

[allsmiles]

Paul, a liar? Puhleaze. He was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. Many of us (Christians) were the same.Again, you discount The Holy Ghost, Who is The Inward Witness, Who gives us revelation knowledge of Who Jesus is, and The Truth of all Scripture.There are no witnesses to corroberate most of The Old Testament, but that doesn't make it unbelieveable or any less true.The things that Paul taught merely revealed the things which Jesus set up, and confirm the works and ministry of The Holy Ghost.No, Who I believe in is merely hinted at by The Word of God, but verified by His Presence. If He didn't witness His Word within my heart and verify His Authority to me, I'd have left the 'myth' of Him a long time ago. He is no myth, He is alive, and it is The Living Spirit of The Lord Whom I have believed and Whom I belong to, follow and serve.

:blabla:

 

[Granite]

Or because we don't have all records ever made OR because Saul didn't think it terribly critical to document and closely follow every breakaway Jewish sect. The possiblities you seem to gravitate towards are almost always inherently on the most antipathetic side of the issue. Even when there's a smorgasborg of other options that don't seem to particularly favor either side's view while still being plainly in the realm of plausibility.

Why wouldn't Paul document the history of his own sect?