Paul's Christianity

[systemstrike_7]

Actually the destruction is mentioned and played off as a prophecy. Jesus says that not one stone will be left unturned. Most scholars date the gospels past 70 because of this fact.

Your missing my point though. The church fathers don't have to prove anything. But why not at least mention the gospel accounts? Are they not the story of Jesus' life? Why do they not mention such important documents? If the gospels were written and circulated so thorougly as you claim they are, then why don't we see any evidence of this?

I understand that Paul is not writing his own account, but why does he not mention even a whisper of Jesus' own words? This is completely illogical for someone to do who claims to be teaching what Jesus taught?

[Floatingaxe]

Actually the destruction is mentioned and played off as a prophecy. Jesus says that not one stone will be left unturned. Most scholars date the gospels past 70 because of this fact.

Your missing my point though. The church fathers don't have to prove anything. But why not at least mention the gospel accounts? Are they not the story of Jesus' life? Why do they not mention such important documents? If the gospels were written and circulated so thorougly as you claim they are, then why don't we see any evidence of this?

I understand that Paul is not writing his own account, but why does he not mention even a whisper of Jesus' own words? This is completely illogical for someone to do who claims to be teaching what Jesus taught?

He was writing as Jesus told him to write. That's good enough for me. He knew the Saviour intimately. Jesus instructed the gospel-writers to write as they did--now it was time for the churches to be instructed.

[systemstrike_7]

Actually the destruction is mentioned and played off as a prophecy. Jesus says that not one stone will be left unturned. Most scholars date the gospels past 70 because of this fact.

Your missing my point though. The church fathers don't have to prove anything. But why not at least mention the gospel accounts? Are they not the story of Jesus' life? Why do they not mention such important documents? If the gospels were written and circulated so thorougly as you claim they are, then why don't we see any evidence of this?

I understand that Paul is not writing his own account, but why does he not mention even a whisper of Jesus' own words? This is completely illogical for someone to do who claims to be teaching what Jesus taught?

He was writing as Jesus told him to write. That's good enough for me. He knew the Saviour intimately.

He knew Jesus only through a vision he had. This still does not answer the question. If he is teaching what Jesus taught, why does he never mention Jesus' own words?

[Masked Chris]

Actually the destruction is mentioned and played off as a prophecy. Jesus says that not one stone will be left unturned. Most scholars date the gospels past 70 because of this fact.

yes... or Jesus could've actully told a prophesy. The super-natural shouldn't be that easily dismissed.

Your missing my point though. The church fathers don't have to prove anything. But why not at least mention the gospel accounts? Are they not the story of Jesus' life? Why do they not mention such important documents? If the gospels were written and circulated so thorougly as you claim they are, then why don't we see any evidence of this?

for the same reason the post office doesn't mark every peice of mail with an account of every other peice of mail ever deleivered. To mention the progress of "the post office" wasn't Paul's agenda

also... you gotta remember without the internet and all that people were forced to be extra extra careful not to lose important information.... after awhile a person will prolly get so used to this kind of responsability that it will seem normal... and therefore they won't need to mark down "important documents" because they always know where they are.

I understand that Paul is not writing his own account, but why does he not mention even a whisper of Jesus' own words? This is completely illogical for someone to do who claims to be teaching what Jesus taught?

Paul says alot about Jesus words and stuff actully. He just caters it to his purpose. In the church of Corinth people abused the Lord's Supper and treated it like Happy Hour at the local bar. So there is a detailed discription of the Lord's Supper in either 1st or 2nd Corinthains [can't remember which one]

[Yahsway]

Paul was "unaware that Jesus was actually on earth?"

Acts 5:33 You need to read this. Gamaliel was Pauls teacher. And what did Gamaliel teach Paul? The Torah/Tanakh.

And who is the Aleph-Tov (Alpha and Omega)? Yeshua/Jesus. All of the disciples taught from the Scriptures they had which we know as the Old Test. This was all they had, but it was enough. For these scriptures speak of the One to come, Psalm 22, Is 53, Zach 12:10 and many more.

But most importantly, what did Yeshua tell Thomas? "Blessed are those who have NOT SEEN ME and still believe".

You are right in that Paul never quoted from any New Test gospels because there were not any at that time. But he sure quoted a lot from the Old Test. Scriptures to prove who Yeshua was and Is.

Paul was not an eye-witness to Yeshuas earthly ministry, but neither were a lot of people. So what? Paul certainly was a very learned man in the Scriptures, but then again, so what? He even said he boasted not in that but only in Christ Crucified. Why would he make such a statement? Again, it goes back to the Old Test. Scriptures that was all they had in that day.

Having eyes, he could not SEE the truth, and having EARS he could not Shema it either But I think Yeshua took care of that on Pauls way to Damascus wouldnt you say?

Paul doesn't speak of any of Jesus "Miracles" because he was not an "eye-witness" to them. Now we wouldn't want it to be just hear say would we? We wouldnt want it said of Paul, "How does he know, he didnt see Jesus do any miricles".

[systemstrike_7]

Actually the destruction is mentioned and played off as a prophecy. Jesus says that not one stone will be left unturned. Most scholars date the gospels past 70 because of this fact.

yes... or Jesus could've actully told a prophesy. The super-natural shouldn't be that easily dismissed.

Your missing my point though. The church fathers don't have to prove anything. But why not at least mention the gospel accounts? Are they not the story of Jesus' life? Why do they not mention such important documents? If the gospels were written and circulated so thorougly as you claim they are, then why don't we see any evidence of this?

for the same reason the post office doesn't mark every peice of mail with an account of every other peice of mail ever deleivered. To mention the progress of "the post office" wasn't Paul's agenda

also... you gotta remember without the internet and all that people were forced to be extra extra careful not to lose important information.... after awhile a person will prolly get so used to this kind of responsability that it will seem normal... and therefore they won't need to mark down "important documents" because they always know where they are.

I understand that Paul is not writing his own account, but why does he not mention even a whisper of Jesus' own words? This is completely illogical for someone to do who claims to be teaching what Jesus taught?

Paul says alot about Jesus words and stuff actully. He just caters it to his purpose. In the church of Corinth people abused the Lord's Supper and treated it like Happy Hour at the local bar. So there is a detailed discription of the Lord's Supper in either 1st or 2nd Corinthains [can't remember which one]

It was 2nd Corinthians and the "Last Supper" concept is a common pagan practise of the time. Why does Paul never say, "As Jesus said..."? It still makes no sense to me...

[systemstrike_7]

Paul was "unaware that Jesus was actually on earth?"

Acts 5:33 You need to read this. Gamaliel was Pauls teacher. And what did Gamaliel teach Paul? The Torah/Tanakh.

And who is the Aleph-Tov (Alpha and Omega)? Yeshua/Jesus. All of the disciples taught from the Scriptures they had which we know as the Old Test. This was all they had, but it was enough. For these scriptures speak of the One to come, Psalm 22, Is 53, Zach 12:10 and many more.

But most importantly, what did Yeshua tell Thomas? "Blessed are those who have NOT SEEN ME and still believe".

You are right in that Paul never quoted from any New Test gospels because there were not any at that time. But he sure quoted a lot from the Old Test. Scriptures to prove who Yeshua was and Is.

Paul was not an eye-witness to Yeshuas earthly ministry, but neither were a lot of people. So what? Paul certainly was a very learned man in the Scriptures, but then again, so what? He even said he boasted not in that but only in Christ Crucified. Why would he make such a statement? Again, it goes back to the Old Test. Scriptures that was all they had in that day.

Having eyes, he could not SEE the truth, and having EARS he could not Shema it either But I think Yeshua took care of that on Pauls way to Damascus wouldnt you say?

Paul doesn't speak of any of Jesus "Miracles" because he was not an "eye-witness" to them. Now we wouldn't want it to be just hear say would we? We wouldnt want it said of Paul, "How does he know, he didnt see Jesus do any miricles".

Thank you for understanding this.

Paul gets his information from the OT. He takes certain verses out of context and uses midrash to create a story. The gospel authors do this very same thing.

Paul didn't speak of any of the miracles because he wasn't an eye witness to them. Did he know about them? How do we know if he knew anything of Jesus' life if he didn't know about these miraculous things Jesus did? Such as raising Lazerus from the dead. Holy miraculous!!! This is huge!! Why didn't the early church know about this and write about it?

[Floatingaxe]

Paul had a visitation with the living Jesus. He knew Him intimately, as I said. We can know Jesus intimately also. He is alive.

Paul spoke with all the authority that Jesus gave him. He didn't have to quote Jesus' words. He didn't have to re-write what the gospel writers were busy doing. He wrote what Jesus instructed him to write. His mission was to spread the gospel and instruct the churches.

[Masked Chris]

Paul was "unaware that Jesus was actually on earth?"

show me the refrence.

Acts 5:33 You need to read this. Gamaliel was Pauls teacher. And what did Gamaliel teach Paul? The Torah/Tanakh.

Acts 5:33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.

I'm not sure what this really says man. Paul isn't even mentioned until Chapter 7.

And who is the Aleph-Tov (Alpha and Omega)? Yeshua/Jesus. All of the disciples taught from the Scriptures they had which we know as the Old Test. This was all they had, but it was enough. For these scriptures speak of the One to come, Psalm 22, Is 53, Zach 12:10 and many more.

The early Christains didn't techniquely have a New Testment bud. The New Testment was develepted over time and it was St. Augustine who first introduced it as "The New Testment" and that was 100 some years later. Until than? All they had was their "Christain documents" and the Old Testment. At this point of time The Old Testment is seen as authoritive... the "Christian Documents" are not. These documents are simply letters that were written by the early church leaders and written gospels that were used to advance the knowlege of Jesus Christ.

But most importantly, what did Yeshua tell Thomas? "Blessed are those who have NOT SEEN ME and still believe".

The Old Testment men and women lived their lives following an unseen God. When Jesus tells Thomas "blessed are those who have not seen me and still beleive" he is refering to those people in the Old Testment who followed an unknown voice by faith and found themselves very blessed.

You are right in that Paul never quoted from any New Test gospels because there were not any at that time. But he sure quoted a lot from the Old Test. Scriptures to prove who Yeshua was and Is.

As I said before just because the temple event is written like a prophesy doesn't mean it isn't actully a real prophesy.

Having eyes, he could not SEE the truth, and having EARS he could not Shema it either But I think Yeshua took care of that on Pauls way to Damascus wouldnt you say?

Paul claims the Damascus event happened, Acts seems to record that it did indeed happen. But you are right.... besides Paul's own admission there is no proof it actully did happen. However... that still doesn't shake the claims I have made before.

Paul doesn't speak of any of Jesus "Miracles" because he was not an "eye-witness" to them. Now we wouldn't want it to be just hear say would we? We wouldnt want it said of Paul, "How does he know, he didnt see Jesus do any miricles".

your right. The requirements for Apolstleship was being an eyewitness to Jesus... it's clear that Paul wasn't an eye-witness. though I'll let Paul himself back up his own claim. Read 2 Corinthains because the Corinth church brought the same charge against Paul and Paul argues in favor of his apostleship

[Yahsway]

Masked Chris, why are you arguing with me. I AM a believer in Yeshua and am simply trying to get system strike to understand that. He said that Paul was "Unaware that Jesus was actually on earth" and I questioned that if you read my post correctly. Sheesh, also, Pauls teacher was aware that Jesus had lived and died, thats the point I was making to system.

Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. He knew Yeshua, but not just from the Damascus road experience. He knew the Torah and Tanakh better than anyone. That was my point to system strike. Paul quotes from the Old Test because thats what pointed to Yeshua. And also, if you will read a lot of the quotes he makes from the Old Test, there are many that were also quoted by Yeshua himself.

Now read what Paul says here and understand.

Romans 15:15

Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, MINISTERING THE GOSPEL OF GOD, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I, Paul, have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO GOD. (Not that he, Paul had to be an eyewitness to anything, understand?)

(now here is the verse for system strike

For I, Paul, will NOT DARE to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished THROUGH ME, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obediant-

Paul doesnt see the need to expound on Jesus virgin birth, his raising Lazerus from the dead, ect.. He is only going to speak about those things which Christ has accomplished in and thru him. He doesnt say these things did not happen, he simply wants to expound his personal testimony.

verse 20-

And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, NOT where Christ was named, lest I should build on another mans foundation, but as it is written,

To whom He was not announced, they shall SEE; And to those who have NOT HEARD shall understand.