Paul's Christianity

[ayin jade]

The pharisees followed Jesus around. They constantly questioned Him. Acts makes it clear that Paul was very much aware of the first Christians since he was present when Stephen was stoned. Paul in fact persecuted the early believers so he was clearly aware of the life of Jesus.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

"If you do not stand firm in your Faith, you will not stand at all".

Isa

[forrestkc]

The pharisees followed Jesus around. They constantly questioned Him. Acts makes it clear that Paul was very much aware of the first Christians since he was present when Stephen was stoned. Paul in fact persecuted the early believers so he was clearly aware of the life of Jesus.

Great point!

[ted]

And concerning the part about how people could have refuted in false teaching of Jesus since they were eye witnesses is ridiculous. We are refuting it now, and what do you call us? Anti-christs. I believe it is in James where it says that anyone who says these things aren't true are ANTI-CHRISTS. So I guess that will leave that one out.

Actually, that was John; one of Jesus's closest followers...

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

t.

[GeneV]

Dear Systemstrike:

I do not know exactly what struck your system, but it has obviously impaired your faculties to a most critical extent. Never fear; I am here to help you!

Since it is now possible for any 4th or 5th grader to get the correct info with the touch of a few buttons on his computer, I think it would be overly indulgent of me to reproduce all the documentation for your here, and besides, it may help you a good deal if you actually go about to study and LEARN something.

If you learn to thoroughly study an issue before forming an opinion, and to consider well that opinion before boldly stating it as fact, then you are much more likely to be spared in the future from looking so very foolish.

You reproduced this list from some other source, of course:

"After reading much of Paul's insertions into the New Testament, I can't seem to find any mention of Jesus' earthly ministry.

No virgin birth

No visit of magi

No slaughter of innocents

No flight into Egypt

No Jesus in the Temple at age twelve

No Baptism of Jesus

No Wedding Feast

No Christ walking on water

No Raising of Lazerus

No Transfiguration

No entering into Jerusalem

No Last Supper

No Jewish Court hearing

No Pilate court hearing

No flogging

No Jesus carrying the cross"

And after reproducing this silly, and truly meaningless list, you assert that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written. We shall speak of this matter first. The dating of the 4 Gospels has been a dicey issue. Since until recently it was very nearly universally believed that none of the autographs still existed, it was only possible to do a little highly conjectural detective work, dealing with the internal evidence of the extant copies.

Any time such research is read, the reader must be aware of the a prioris of the researchers, for these will inevitably color their conclusions. A very clear example of this is found in the fact that scholars who do not believe in prophecy and miracles, clearly do not then believe that Jesus 'prophesied' the destruction of Jerusalem as the synoptic Gospels present Him doing. To them it is clear that since Jesus died circa A.D. 30-33, He could NOT have spoken about the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in A.D. 70. Almost universally, 'dating systems' prepared by these individuals will date the synoptics to a period later than the unhappy events of the Year of Our Lord, the 70th.

Christians scholars however, have universally believed both in prophecy, and that Jesus was capable of it. So dating systems from these scholars rely on other criteria for figuring out dates for the Gospels. Some, seeing Mark as rather more shallow theologically than the Matthean and Lucan efforts, have asserted that Mark was written ca. A.D. 45, and followed probably by Matthew, (variously dated A.D. 58-70), and then by Luke (A.D. 62 or later).

With recent discoveries of the oldest copies of any Gospel ever found; in fact what some scholars believe may be the very autograph of Matthew; at Paris and Toledo of course, we have IN OUR HANDS a Matthean Gospel dated to A.D. 62-65. So it would appear that those who asserted very late dates for the synoptics simply because they didn't like the concept of the miraculous and prophetic, were simply wrong.....

So any blanket statement that "Paul wrote before the Gospels were written," is simply nonsense.

Pray consider for a moment that Paul's subject matter was rarely biographical. Sometimes it was autobiographical, but very rarely biographical.

Paul's writings are almost exclusively hortatory. That is, he is explaining doctrine, and teaching. His letters deal seldom with Christological issues and almost exclusively with Ecclesiological matters. Surely his subject matter alone explains why Paul does not spend his time simply restating what the Gospel writers have already most admirably and thoroughly covered, don't you imagine?

A good analogy would be the difference between Washington Irving's "Life of George Washington" and say, "Review of American Democracy." Things spoken of in the former, but entirely lacking in the latter would certainly include such notable things as:

1. The place of Washington's birth

2. His early career as a surveyor

3. His role in the French and Indian War

4. Washington's legendary abilities as a dancer

5. His great love of young people

6. His prayers and devotions at Valley Forge

7. His deep fatherly love for Benedict Arnold, and his profound depression at that man's betrayal

8. That he loved Marth Washington's fruitcake soaked in coffee or brandy

9. His skill as an inventor, architect, husbandman, a brewer and distiller, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure you get the point; such a list could go on and on and on, and that although the author of the latter was no doubt fully cognizant of these things, they simply did not fit in the context of his literary genre.

You also said:

"Paul never quotes anything from any gospel...."

Au contraire! my dear fellow. Paul has several quotes from the Gospels, and many, many literary allusions thereto. I'll give you one of each: First Paul quotes part of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, and secondarily, Paul uses the Greek word 'metamorpheo' about the lives of Christians in Christ, in the same sense that the synoptics use the word of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. I'm sure if you ACTUALLY READ the New Testament, rather than just reproducing silly things from unbelievers webpages, you can come up with many more--I certainly can, and just off the top of my head while sitting here at the computer screen. I have had many students who disagreed with me on many issues, and received 'A's in my courses, because they showed real effort, study, and scholarships to come to their conclusions, but frankly, if you were one of my college students you would be flunking right now, just due to being too lazy to study things out before making assertions. Gather your FACTS, man!

"When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors."

With many notable exceptions, but I'll just list one: The Greek and other Pagan myths all took place in the distant past. Paul is assuring us these things were done IN LIVING MEMORY, and with many LIVING eye-witnesses! That is quite the most profound difference, don't you think? Paul invites his original readers to come and speak with these folks, they ARE available; "...over 500 persons, most of whom are still living....." Paul says. Mary herself evidently continued to live or near Nazareth until her death ca. A.D. 60, and some quite young folks who were eye-witnesses lived long lives until well into the second century. Further, records of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and the Roman take on subsequent events would be available both at the Provincial Library at Caesarea, and by this time, copies would also have forwarded to the Imperial Library at Rome, where they would be resident until the destruction of the Imperial Library in A.D. 476. To claim this Paul's references are like that of the 'pagan saviors' is ludicrous on the face of it. Come now; you seem to have a functional brain, you're simply being inexcusably lazy here.

LEARN!!!

Couldn't agree with you more Leonard - WHY do we waste time on those who WILL not bother to stop and look at their smallminded nitpicking statements which are, as you say, gathered willy nilly? Why will they not take the time to examine the sense of the comments they make BEFORE posting them? What purpose do they hope to serve by commentating on subjects they have obviously not studied, other than to display their ignorance. If they will persist in this sort of spurious gnosis - then would they please make an attempt to format it in such a way as to be deserving of serious reply.

[systemstrike_7]

And concerning the part about how people could have refuted in false teaching of Jesus since they were eye witnesses is ridiculous. We are refuting it now, and what do you call us? Anti-christs. I believe it is in James where it says that anyone who says these things aren't true are ANTI-CHRISTS. So I guess that will leave that one out.

Actually, that was John; one of Jesus's closest followers...

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

t.

Thank you, I knew it was back there somewhere.

[systemstrike_7]

And GeneV, I'm guessing you are very well versed in this subject? From my understanding it was a pretty good question. It got answered in different ways, and in alot of cases very CIVIL ways, unlike mr. leonard who couldn't keep his panties on because somebody questions his almighty authority.

Anyway, the point I was trying to get to on this thread is simple. Its takes me back to a post I made in an earlier thread.

Jesus' life was already written before he even stepped on the earth. Basically, his entire story was already lived by the many mythical pagan saviour gods before him. Some examples:

Born under a star on December 25th

Virgin birth or other miraculous birth

Visit by magi or wise men

Attempt by jealous ruler to kill newborn child

Missing childhood and young adult years from myth story

Do various miracles and heal sicknesses and deformities

Claim to be Son of God

Claim to be God

Claim to be an important person of God

Claim to be mediator between humans and God

Accepted widely by his own people at first

Rejected harshly by same people

On the night before he died, he had a last supper with his 12(# sometimes differs or is not given) followers and gave them bread to eat as his body and wine to drink as his blood.

Died on a cross or tree(usually to save mankind)

Resurrected 3 days later( # of days sometimes differs)

Ascends to heaven after appearing to followers

Does this sound like anyone you know? If I am completely in the wrong here then please inform me of my mistakes. Could this be an invention by man and not God?

[Smalcald]

It depends on how we see scripture.

Indeed Paul was one of the writer who's words were written down first, as he wrote some of the early letters, but many ascribe I Peter to be just as early and written by Peter and Silus.

But Paul's letters were not meant as an account of the life of Christ, they were sermons to people who already believed in Christ and were aware of His life. From reading these letters we see a detailed knowledge of the life of Christ (detailed accounts of the Last Supper for example), we also see what was important, what the Gospel is very directly and what was important for first believers to understand the core so to speak of our faith. The Letters of Paul an Peter and John are all just as important as Mathew through John, they are all needed. But you see Paul did meet the risen Christ.

Of course you could say it is all a bunch of lies and pagan myths' repackaged, we could say that about the entire New Testament including Mathew through John, but the fact that Paul's sermons don't repeat the four Gospel accounts would really not show that one way or the other.

[systemstrike_7]

The pharisees followed Jesus around. They constantly questioned Him. Acts makes it clear that Paul was very much aware of the first Christians since he was present when Stephen was stoned. Paul in fact persecuted the early believers so he was clearly aware of the life of Jesus.

Acts is a later account by Luke, or at least the author of Luke. The gospels were formed around Paul's letters. I still do not see how you are getting these dates. Please give me your reasons for putting Mathew before Mark when Mathew is clearly derived from Mark. It is pretty well understood that Mark is the basis for the other three gospels(but not so much for John).

[Smalcald]

And GeneV, I'm guessing you are very well versed in this subject? From my understanding it was a pretty good question. It got answered in different ways, and in alot of cases very CIVIL ways, unlike mr. leonard who couldn't keep his panties on because somebody questions his almighty authority.

Anyway, the point I was trying to get to on this thread is simple. Its takes me back to a post I made in an earlier thread.

Jesus' life was already written before he even stepped on the earth. Basically, his entire story was already lived by the many mythical pagan saviour gods before him. Some examples:

Born under a star on December 25th

Virgin birth or other miraculous birth

Visit by magi or wise men

Attempt by jealous ruler to kill newborn child

Missing childhood and young adult years from myth story

Do various miracles and heal sicknesses and deformities

Claim to be Son of God

Claim to be God

Claim to be an important person of God

Claim to be mediator between humans and God

Accepted widely by his own people at first

Rejected harshly by same people

On the night before he died, he had a last supper with his 12(# sometimes differs or is not given) followers and gave them bread to eat as his body and wine to drink as his blood.

Died on a cross or tree(usually to save mankind)

Resurrected 3 days later( # of days sometimes differs)

Ascends to heaven after appearing to followers

Does this sound like anyone you know? If I am completely in the wrong here then please inform me of my mistakes. Could this be an invention by man and not God?

Ahh yes, CS Lewis called those good dreams. What is fascinating is that the preparation for Christ was planted among many different cultures through myth and dreams before His coming. It is indeed one of the reason's so many around the globe from such radically different cultures and places have come to Christ, they were prepared by God to do so.

So those myth's and stories actually strengthen the case for Christ. Does it really make sense that so many different cultures in so many different places would end up with these same sort of strange sounding ideas on their own?