Paul's Christianity

[Floatingaxe]

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

All Paul knows about is Jesus' death on a cross, resurrection from tomb, and his ascension into heaven.

These three attribute accredited to Christ by Paul, the earliest Christian writer, were also accredited to many other pagan savior gods before Jesus. Paul never quotes anything from any gospel, mainly because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and apparently hadn't been told about Jesus' earthly ministry. When he speaks of the death, resurrection, and ascension, he talks on a MYTHICAL realm. Just like the pagan saviors.

Hebrews 8:4

"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest."

Jesus lived in the years of 0 A.D. to 33 A.D.(roughly) and Mark was written sometime after 70 A.D. Paul wrote in between these dates. He is the link. And from what I can see, he was unaware of the fact that Jesus was actually on earth.

It is not surprising that Christians rarely speak of early Christianity. When you assemble the facts it comes out as so:

Jesus lived - EVERYONE FORGOT - they finally remembered.

Post your thoughts...

system

Seriously, this is all rubbish.

Why would Paul be mentioning things that everyone already believed since his epistles were written to believers? Paul preached the gospel

orally to people, he did not write The Gospel According to Paul. We have four gospels already for that purpose. We also don't need to play

the 'dating game' where liberal vs. conservative sources smack dates around like a tennis ball during a match. The 'pagan saviour gods'

is just 'mind candy' for selling books to the masses.

Yes it was rubbish.

[systemstrike_7]

Alright then. Good job guys.

You have successfully refuted this argument against Christianity with just a few words.

High five.....

[Guest LAW]

systemstrike: if you are telling of a car crash, what is the part that you will repeat the most--that which you were an eyewitness of. Paul repeats over and over in Act and in his letters his eyewitness knowledge of Christ and the knowledge concerning Him that he learned from his years studying about Christ from Christ's disciples and followers. I think Christ was a very real person to Paul--how can you not hear it when you read his letters? Paul admires and loves and is willing to die for this man who came to earth and died to save him.

[Guest LAW]

systemstrike: another note: Hebrews is not thought to have been written by Paul. The tone of the letter, many things leads scholars to think someone else wrote it.

You did hit upon my favorite, though. I cannot wait to sit at the feet of St. Paul in heaven and hear first hand his testimony of his salvation experience! the very thought gives me chills.

What a way to live!

[Ovedya]

systemstrike: another note: Hebrews is not thought to have been written by Paul. The tone of the letter, many things leads scholars to think someone else wrote it.

You did hit upon my favorite, though. I cannot wait to sit at the feet of St. Paul in heaven and hear first hand his testimony of his salvation experience! the very thought gives me chills.

What a way to live!

Did that change recently? Because my understanding is that most scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul, due to the tone and the mentioning of Timothy (13:23)

[billie]

systemstrike: another note: Hebrews is not thought to have been written by Paul. The tone of the letter, many things leads scholars to think someone else wrote it.

You did hit upon my favorite, though. I cannot wait to sit at the feet of St. Paul in heaven and hear first hand his testimony of his salvation experience! the very thought gives me chills.

What a way to live!

Did that change recently? Because my understanding is that most scholars attribute Hebrews to Paul, due to the tone and the mentioning of Timothy (13:23)

I've heard people say both.

[Joshua-777]

I've heard both, Lets see, was paul aware of Jesus, I noticed no one brought up the book of acts, where his relationship with Jesus was very real, Paul, when he was saul had a vision and saw Jesus, and became blind, Jesus spoke to Paul all through out acts, I noticed that Paul refers to the OT alot to bring mention of all Jesus has fulfilled, Reference, read romans, Paul was actualy a powerful writer for Christ, and anyone who says he wasn't doesnt know the Lord very well, I noticed that Paul uses alot of contrast simular to the writings of John, which had extreem contrasts, presenting Jesus as the Messiah.

[systemstrike_7]

Umm, actually, I have heard no refutations about Hebrews, but 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus? Yes. It is generally accepted that the Timothys and Titus were written sometime in the mid to late 2nd century. This was decided, mainly because of the writing style, and because the letters deal with 2nd century issues, rather than 1st century issues. But, it is also agreed that these letters were written by disciples of Paul.

[systemstrike_7]

I've heard both, Lets see, was paul aware of Jesus, I noticed no one brought up the book of acts, where his relationship with Jesus was very real, Paul, when he was saul had a vision and saw Jesus, and became blind, Jesus spoke to Paul all through out acts, I noticed that Paul refers to the OT alot to bring mention of all Jesus has fulfilled, Reference, read romans, Paul was actualy a powerful writer for Christ, and anyone who says he wasn't doesnt know the Lord very well, I noticed that Paul uses alot of contrast simular to the writings of John, which had extreem contrasts, presenting Jesus as the Messiah.

No doubt, Acts does portray these heroic figures as doing great things. But how much can we be sure is truth? Paul was a pharisee, (which is why he never bashes on them like the gospel authors) so of course he used the OT. This is all he can give us about Christ, other than some certain pagan qualities. In all reality, he gets 90% of his Christ figure from the OT. This is really all we get from Paul. He takes the Suffering Servant song, and puts him in the flesh.

Yes Paul does agree with John, but as I noted before, I cannot trust a gospel that has Jesus saying that "the Jews are children of the devil". John is very mystical and gnostic about his approach, and he obviously took a number out of Paul's teachings. John must have not been a fan of the Jewish Christian cult, and decided to show this in his gospel. In the gospel of John, Jesus gets a brand new attitude, an attitude that I believe is hardly reconcilable with the synoptic gospels.

[tdrehfal]

Ok well, concerning Mithras, the earliest find of a Mithraic temple was dated to the year 100 A.D. and the earliest time it is mentioned is in 90 A.D. Before Christ, Mithra was considered a sun god, and that is where it ends. The sun god is portrayed as slaying a bull(which was taken from a different middle eastern cult) and is more or less described as a "saviour of the stars". So from this, we can conclude that if anyone did the copying, it was Mithra, not Christ.

Ta Da, I might be wrong in some aspects because I wrote this post in a hurried fashion, but I believe it is mostly correct.

I've got a dinner date with my all to punctual girlfriend(sarcasm intented) so I'll be back in a few!!

Excellent reasoning!