What Did Paul Know?

[Granite]

No, merely obedient.

:yawn:

Whatever flips the switch, man. Carry on! :dog:

 

[Bright Raven]

I'm sorry to butt in, but I've been following this line of questioning with some interest. As a Christian this is very interesting to me. Raven, you dont know these men do you? You know nothing of their past, you know nothing of what their faith was. No man knows another mans heart. And only the Lord can determine this. You should be ashamed as a Christian for this line of questions, so far all you have done is make your self look foolish. You'll notice your the only Christian asking these men to validify their "ex-Christian" credentials.

It is not the place of some random inqusitor to grill them on what their previous faith was. Allsmiles has detailed what his faith was, from what he said he seemed pretty deep in it. Admitedly, he more then likely knows more then I do in the school of theological thought. You have yet to even offer a semi-inteligent reason for them to give you an answer.

Fore shame.

You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Accusing me of antipathetic apologetics is rich coming from a Mormon, of all people.

I'm openly apologetic. You are trying to play like your view is the only logical conclusion.

As prominent, zealous, and apparently well-regarded as Saul was, the idea that he simply had no clue who Jesus was is unreasonable.

I never said he had no clue who Jesus was. He obviously did as he persecuted his followers. What I'm saying is that for you to take seeming ommisions of certain gosple principles not exaustively available where you, by some abstract and irrelevant standard, judge they should exist, as evidence that the whole of the story of Jesus being a fabrication, is absured. This is the piece meal type attack made on the likes of Anne Frank's journal entries, one that finds what it portrays to be critical discrepancies, but once exposed to the light and perspective claimed by the writtings and the surounding circumstances, become very acceptable--if not entirely expected--results of the piece of the whole piece of evidence at hand.

Apologetics, openly advertised as such, is an honest portrayal of what is being attempted. When apologetics is shrouded in the veil of a psuedo-attempt at finding the 'truth' rather than defending a previously specified dogma, then it is insidious and disingenuous.

 

[Mustard Seed]

As a parent, I don't approve of TV (or anyone else) using code to hide curse words. I don't believe that is what the airwaves are for, and won't repeat someone else's cursing, even 'coded' cursing. I was told not to let corrupt communication proceed from my mouth (read: keyboard).

My friend, every time you type you are using corrupt communication. I'm not personaly one for 'colorfull metaphores' but you are taking this to a Pharissaical absured. This is diging a hedge up around the law. Not obeying it, but creating an entirely new set of laws NOT original proscribed by God. Your mentality is the same kind of stupid filtering that would change the word of God by several jot and tiddles if it were to be placed wholesale here on TOL. Grow up.

"...and shutteth up his bowels..."

Would you prefere the scriptures not even talk of such?

 

[Aimiel]

My friend, every time you type you are using corrupt communication. I'm not personaly one for 'colorfull metaphores' but you are taking this to a Pharissaical absured. This is diging a hedge up around the law. Not obeying it, but creating an entirely new set of laws NOT original proscribed by God. Your mentality is the same kind of stupid filtering that would change the word of God by several jot and tiddles if it were to be placed wholesale here on TOL. Grow up.

"...and shutteth up his bowels..."

Would you prefere the scriptures not even talk of such?

You misunderstand The Word of God, as usual. Corrupt communication doesn't mean censoring The Word of God, it means potty mouth. The Lord doesn't want us to curse, and said so. No man can tame his tongue, since it is set on fire by hell itself; it takes the work of The Holy Spirit to do so. Your 'mentality' leaves a lot to be desired. You need to do some maturing, and not just when it comes to understanding The Word of God, you also need to learn who is your friend and who is not. The LDS church is not your friend. They represent the enemy of your soul, being a cult, designed in hell.

 

[Granite]

I'm openly apologetic. You are trying to play like your view is the only logical conclusion.




I never said he had no clue who Jesus was. He obviously did as he persecuted his followers. What I'm saying is that for you to take seeming ommisions of certain gosple principles not exaustively available where you, by some abstract and irrelevant standard, judge they should exist, as evidence that the whole of the story of Jesus being a fabrication, is absured. This is the piece meal type attack made on the likes of Anne Frank's journal entries, one that finds what it portrays to be critical discrepancies, but once exposed to the light and perspective claimed by the writtings and the surounding circumstances, become very acceptable--if not entirely expected--results of the piece of the whole piece of evidence at hand.

Apologetics, openly advertised as such, is an honest portrayal of what is being attempted. When apologetics is shrouded in the veil of a psuedo-attempt at finding the 'truth' rather than defending a previously specified dogma, then it is insidious and disingenuous.

This isn't evidence "the whole story" of Jesus is a fabrication. I'd say a lot of it is, and this omission and Paul's silence is very telling. Is mine the only logical conclusion? Of course not. But it certainly makes sense. If Paul didn't describe certain events he must have or should have been privy to, a very key and prominent witness to Jesus' life is giving us nothing but silence.

 

[allsmiles]

You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

is that it then?

 

[Mustard Seed]

This isn't evidence "the whole story" of Jesus is a fabrication. I'd say a lot of it is, and this omission and Paul's silence is very telling. Is mine the only logical conclusion? Of course not. But it certainly makes sense. If Paul didn't describe certain events he must have or should have been privy to, a very key and prominent witness to Jesus' life is giving us nothing but silence.

My issue is that you determine that the lack of that evidence stems from it's non-existance. You haven't searched everywhere, you don't have access to the person of Paul. You are saying that the cake was never created when if it had been consumed it would have left nigh identical evidences, especialy with how far removed we are, chronologicaly, from the event in question. It's again like me concluding you never went to elementary school because I can't find any mention of it, or of your teachers, here on TOL. It's just absured to put it down as significant, or even slightly notable, evidence for your view, when it is the very lacking of evidence that the whole point is leaning on.

 

[Bright Raven]

is that it then?

No allsmiles, one last post that will be construed by some, possibly you included, to be off point and arrogant and I'm ready for the flak but will not post to any that comes my way. What did Paul know? He knew Christ and the power of the resurrection. He was not ashamed of the Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and neither am I. I was intrigued and saddened when you said that you were an ex-Christian. By answering my questions that thought has remained with me. I've asked myself, with the the knowledge this young person has, how could he/she (You never said) have exchanged the truth for a lie? I don't say that with arrogance or as a putdown to you but as an affirmation of my own belief. The answer was right in front of my nose all the time. Christianity is a religion by definition but more than that it is a relationship with God first and people second for those who choose to embrace it as such. But you already know all this, I was slow in getting it. Thanks for being open, candid, and sharing about yourself. That's it.
Peace be with you.

 

[paulpeterson83]

You're not sorry you posted as you did. You had every intention of doing so or you would not have. You haven't followed the line closely either. The questons have been for all smiles and him alone . He has been gracious enough to answer for which I thank him. So where did your use of the plural come from? I was trying to establish a frame of reference, some common ground to understand. How do you find out answers to a question you have? I ask. The caveat was there. All Smiles did not have to answer. Two things you were right about. First, All Smiles is very knowledgable. Second, one man doesn't know anothers heart does he. Thank you for your support. No more questions necessary.

Okay, so being polite obviously is unknown to you. When I said I was sorry, I was just being polite for interjecting into a conversation that was already underway. Thats what that meant, so in a way, you were right I was really sorry for posting what I did, just for interjecting.

And yes, I had been following, it. You were demanding Allsmiles to give you, his background and credentials other wise the rest of his post was "meaningless". As for the plural, I was lumping Granite in there too. As for your frame of reference, how about being polite? Did you try that approach? A PM works. Seriously though, my biggest problem was with the way you handled it, you called them on carpet so I did the same to you. Doesnt feel so good does it? Second, it was support, it was rebuke genious boy.

Plus the questions you were asking would make no difference, if you believe you believe, thats the bottom line, it doesnt matter how long you were a Christian or events of your conversion, you should know that. Your questions were irrelivent and rather childish. It would be like demanding to know how old some one is because of a post.

Question, when did AS not have an answer for the questions you asked? You were being so nondiscriptive in your line of questions it was hard to even read them, you made very little to no sense what so ever. You need to link words that make sense together, not just random ones.

Thanks for your time BR, you've been fun.

 

[Bright Raven]

Okay, so being polite obviously is unknown to you. When I said I was sorry, I was just being polite for interjecting into a conversation that was already underway. Thats what that meant, so in a way, you were right I was really sorry for posting what I did, just for interjecting.

And yes, I had been following, it. You were demanding Allsmiles to give you, his background and credentials other wise the rest of his post was "meaningless". As for the plural, I was lumping Granite in there too. As for your frame of reference, how about being polite? Did you try that approach? A PM works. Seriously though, my biggest problem was with the way you handled it, you called them on carpet so I did the same to you. Doesnt feel so good does it? Second, it was support, it was rebuke genious boy.

Plus the questions you were asking would make no difference, if you believe you believe, thats the bottom line, it doesnt matter how long you were a Christian or events of your conversion, you should know that. Your questions were irrelivent and rather childish. It would be like demanding to know how old some one is because of a post.

Question, when did AS not have an answer for the questions you asked? You were being so nondiscriptive in your line of questions it was hard to even read them, you made very little to no sense what so ever. You need to link words that make sense together, not just random ones.

Thanks for your time BR, you've been fun.

Paul, I'm not the greatest grammarian around and the method of questioning will improve. Reread the post. Did you get that I understood your rebuke and sincerely thanked you for it. Peace

 

[Morris]

What Did Paul Know?

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?

I have not had time to read all the posts. So, if this was already covered, I apologize:

1Ti 1:12-13 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; (13) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

How can some one do something ignorantly in unbelief? I asked Duane Gallentine, that question once and his reply pretty much answers the question "What did Paul know?"

Simple, God's perspective and revelatory action towards 'His own' [John 1:11-12] was made know by the Son speaking to Israel in her last days. As those days ticked away into the early chapters of Acts, Christ through the Spirit commencing at Pentecost gave Israel the things they could "now" bear (John 14:16-21 and John 18:7-13). This revelation through preaching...[IE the gospel of the Circumcision]...signs, miracles and wonders made manifest to Israel the epignosis of Christ according to Prophecy. Heb 10:26 in the KJV has the underlying Greek TR word of "epi-gnosis". Thus during the four gospels and early Acts, Israel was being enlightened, the nation was tasting of the heavenly gift (Holy Ghost), they were part taking of the word of God through their Gospel of the Circumcision, and were experiencing the power of the world to come (New Testament power promised by the Prophets; the promise of the Father). With all this, God accounted Israel has being fully accountable for they were fully enlightened.

Needless to say, Israel's perspective and response was of rejection and oppostion. As you read the early chapter of Acts, the written word shows God moving through the "Little Flock" by the Holy Ghost to press Israel into the kingdom. Verses like Acts 2:14,2,36; 3:12; 4:8,23-28, 5:31-32; 6:3-8; 7:2 emphasis God giving Israel full complete knowledge of Prophecy. Of course it began right after the resurrection with the Little Flock ruled by the Twelve as shown in Luke 24:27-49.

Put is all together: God gave Israel full knowledge of Prophecy....Israel refused to mix faith with their Gospel coming into faith by what they heard and what they saw through signs. In this, God held them fully accountable. Blasphemy was committed (Matt 12) at the stoning of Stephen with their own Gospel and Last Days foretelling of God unleashing what the prophets foretold.....the day of wrath. Israel lay there impotent, being a hypocritical nation (Is 10:6) made ready by unbelief to drinking the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture of grace, mercy, patience, or peace, poured into his cup of indignation (Rev 14:10).

Save the Little Flock headed by the Twelve apostles, the nation was judge by God to be in unbelief. Saul of Tarsus, being a part of that hypocritical nation, personally reveals in 1 Tim 1:13 that he was a blasphemer when he lead the rebellion against God's last day prophetic program in the Little Flock. He chose to ignore all that God manifest before His own.....he did not beleive it because he chose to ignore it as being from God. Doing something ignorantly in unbelief is that you ignore what is placed before you because you do not beleive it. In fact he thought he was doing God service by wrecking havoc upon the early Acts Little Flock Kingdom Church (John 16:1-3).

At the point in time (31AD), God's word through the prophets plainly stated that those things would mark the time of the end as the fury of God's wrath would impact the whole earth. No more mercy, no more graciousness, no more patience on God's part.

BUT.....Oh, thank God for that word as we come to Paul's epistles....in reading from Acts 7 forward, God's wrath does not fall. Rather with the saving of Saul, making in the Apostle of and to the Gentiles (Rom 13:11) God begins a new thing....something kept secret since the world began...something hid in God but now made manifest to the Gentile without Israel via preaching committed unto Paul. Beginning with Saul/Paul, God progressively reveals another purpose of His...a heavenly purpose...a purpose enjoining beleiving Gentiles via Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God into a new creation called the body of Christ, even the One New Man. A called out assembly positioned for and eternaly at home in the heavenly places.

Wonderful it is to rightly divided all Scriptures.