|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 12:49:15 GMT -5
This morning I read an article that really caused me to stop and ponder as to exactly how familiar was Paul with Jesus at the time of his conversion and when he wrote his epistles? I also wondered, by the lack of details about Jesus' life in his epistles, if his primary exposure was to stories past down during his lifetime and if the gospel accounts didn't actually surface until after 70 A.D. with the fall of Jerusalem, due to this fact? Paul died under Nero's reign around 63 A.D., so he would not have had access to any of these gospel accounts other than the oral traditions passed down during his lifetime, but not yet recorded. After you check out this article on this subject, please feel free to leave your comments regarding your own thoughts on this matter?
carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom When Were The Gospels Written and By Whom?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle ~ Paul, the Apostle
www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 13:20:56 GMT -5
although Paul may have never met Jesus he certainly knew OF him being a pharisee and all...i am also reminded of this verse:
Joh_20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 13:56:07 GMT -5
Nathan and Wally ~ Thanks for your early comments relating to this puzzling fact. Another thing, however, I have wondered about is why Paul didn't spend more time with the early apostles in Rome to get better acquainted with their teachings about Jesus ???There's a lot of conjecture here that surrounds this fact and his long wait in between returning to Jerusulem ~ about 14 years later. This time frame is found within Galatians 1:17-24; 2:1-2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 14:01:05 GMT -5
Nathan and Wally ~ Thanks for your comments so far relating to this fact. Another thing, however, I have wondered about is why Paul didn't spend more time with the early apostles in Rome? There's a lot of conjecture, I know, that surrounds this fact and the long wait in between returning to Jerusulem ~ about 14 years, I believe, according to the account in Galatians? as you say pure conjecture, so i think it was because of his persecution of the church that he was shunned by the apostles and "christians"...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 14:25:33 GMT -5
Nathan and Wally ~ Thanks for your comments so far relating to this fact. Another thing, however, I have wondered about is why Paul didn't spend more time with the early apostles in Rome? There's a lot of conjecture, I know, that surrounds this fact and the long wait in between returning to Jerusulem ~ about 14 years, I believe, according to the account in Galatians? as you say pure conjecture, so i think it was because of his persecution of the church that he was shunned by the apostles and "christians"... Wally ~ You're probably right in your assessment here, according to Acts 9:15-26, the story of what happened after Paul's conversion experience on the road to Damascus? This story is also re-told by Paul in Acts 22.
Acts 9:15-26 AMP
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 15:06:17 GMT -5
although Paul may have never met Jesus he certainly knew OF him being a pharisee and all...i am also reminded of this verse:
Joh_20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Wally ~ I brought this up for discussion because it is thought that Paul died during Nero's reign of terror around 63 A.D. His lack of reference to the stories within the gospel accounts and Jesus' virgin birth do stand out, too. Because Paul shares little about Jesus' life or ministry, other than what is found in I Cor. 15 about the resurrection account and Jesus' ascension, it appears that his only knowledge of Jesus was passed down to him through oral tradition?
However, it has been thought that the gospels were actually written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which might account for his lack of focus on Jesus' ministry or life? When you consider he grew up during the time Jesus walked the earth and even was present at Stephen's stoning as the first martyr, you have to admit that it's strange that he never discusses what took place regarding Jesus life or actual crucifixion? That part is never shared in his epistles? In fact, that's the primary purpose of this thread is to ascertain why this is so? I shared the counter argument to this fact to show where conjecture has come in regarding Paul due to this lack of information regarding Jesus' birth or ministry within his epistles. I actually created this thread to dig for more information to clear up this mystery surrounding Paul's life and ministry, as I'm puzzled myself?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 15:34:29 GMT -5
I was discussing this thread of mine with StAnne earlier and she brought up some interesting points about Paul, which she gave me permission to share on TMB. Here's a synopsis of what she shared with me:
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 16:16:49 GMT -5
In relation to this topic, perhaps this article will shed some light on when the gospel accounts were written and by whom? However, upon noting the dates given below, I'm still lead to question why Paul would give so little detail about Jesus' life and ministry within his epistles under these circumstances? It appears most of his writings are centered around the Cross and its meaning and the resurrection story alone? Perhaps that's why some modern day scholars tend to date the gospels after 70 A.D. rather than before? However, there still were the oral traditions being passed down and taught during Paul's lifetime, which StAnne brought out in her comments earlier, that probably would have been heard by Paul during his lifetime? Herein lies the mystery associated with the absence of references to Jesus' life and teachings within Paul's epistles, for sure!
carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 16:31:26 GMT -5
By the way, here's something else that StAnne earlier shared with me in relation to my statement about the crucifixion, which I feel is a valuable point worth considering within this discussion, too.
My earlier statement on this thread...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 9, 2014 16:37:08 GMT -5
This morning I read an article that really caused me to stop and ponder as to exactly how familiar was Paul with Jesus at the time of his conversion and when he wrote his epistles? I also wondered, by the lack of details about Jesus' life in his epistles, if his primary exposure was to stories past down during his lifetime and if the gospel accounts didn't actually surface until after 70 A.D. with the fall of Jerusalem, due to this fact? Paul died under Nero's reign around 63 A.D., so he would not have had access to any of these gospel accounts other than the oral traditions passed down during his lifetime, but not yet recorded. After you check out this article on this subject, please feel free to leave your comments regarding your own thoughts on this matter?
carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom When Were The Gospels Written and By Whom?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle ~ Paul, the Apostle
www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/
Questioning the bible has it's risks & rewards. ;-) Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 17:52:01 GMT -5
Xna ~ I liked your attachment you just posted! I have to admit, this is a mind stretching puzzle in relation to the life of Paul? I'm still trying to figure out certain things that bewilder me. So, that's why I started this topic in the first place to see what others could offer me in response. I have always wondered about this lack of much mention about Jesus' ministry, miracles, virgin birth, etc. Why would he leave out something so connected to Jesus' ministry from his epistles? Afterall, Paul's epistles ae the backbone of the Christian faith today? Also, why didn't he want to hang out with the early apostles more than he did to glean from their teachings and experience? Perhaps I opened a can of worms by bringing up all these points, but I'm still waiting for some logical answers to this puzzle within my mind?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 9, 2014 18:04:30 GMT -5
Although it's true that Paul did not mention much of Jesus life in his letters, I don't conclude from that that Paul knew little of Jesus life. I like Marcus Borg's explanation for this aspect of Paul's letters. [Paul's] letters are correspondence in context -- as all correspondence is. Letters are not meant "for the world". They are meant for the persons to whom they are sent. ... We do not have preaching, the content of what he said about Jesus. Instead, what we have is his very personal response to what he learned was going on in these communities. Elsewhere, Borg reminds us that writing in Jesus' day was not like today; it required a major, painstaking effort. There would be no reason for Paul to re-count events of the life of Jesus in a letter, that is, for Paul to write a Gospel. The first Gospel, likely Mark, was not written until around 70 A.D., after Paul had already died in Rome. Why the delay? Borg's idea was that the early Christians, including Paul, all knew about the details of Jesus life. They also thought his return was imminent. So why write anything down? (Ask yourself how much of your own life, or your parents life you have on record. Then add to that how difficult writing was back in New Testament days.) A generation or two after Jesus died, people began to think, hmmm, Jesus isn't back yet, perhaps we should write these things down for our children! It seems quite plausible to me. This is also why the stories in the three Gospels are nugget sized; they are remembered stories pared down to their essentials. And the idea of an earlier, now lost, book called "Q" consisting mainly of the things Jesus said, makes perfect sense also. So, as to your question why Paul didn't take time to learn more about Jesus ... you've answered the question yourself. He did take the time to learn everything about the life of Jesus; he began preaching only a decade after Jesus died. What we don't have is a record of his preaching. Nor do we have a record of the preaching of any of the apostles! Why would we have Paul's? What we do have in Paul's seven letters is a record of the life of the early church. I was surprised to learn that these letters are actually the oldest books of the New Testament, preceding the Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 9, 2014 18:04:54 GMT -5
Xna ~ I liked your attachment you just posted! I have to admit, this is a mind stretching puzzle in relation to the life of Paul? I'm still trying to figure out certain things that bewilder me. So, that's why I started this topic in the first place to see what others could offer me in response. I have always wondered about this lack of much mention about Jesus' ministry, miracles, virgin birth, etc. Why would he leave out something so connected to Jesus' ministry from his epistles? Afterall, Paul's epistles ae the backbone of the Christian faith today? Also, why didn't he want to hang out with the early apostles more than he did to glean from their teachings and experience? Perhaps I opened a can of worms by bringing up all these points, but I'm still waiting for some logical answers to this puzzle within my mind? My wife bought a book; "The Book Of Questions" we had on our coffee table and the workers did not approve of this book. Questioning to them was a show of lack of faith. I think they were right about that. We still have the book but lost our faith due in part to asking questions. www.dl.is.vnu.edu.vn/dspace/bitstream/123456789/586/1/thebookofquestions.pdfwww.amazon.com/Book-Questions-Gregory-Stock-Ph-D/dp/0894803204Here is another quote that fits.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 9, 2014 18:09:14 GMT -5
Xna ~ I liked your attachment you just posted! I have to admit, this is a mind stretching puzzle in relation to the life of Paul? I'm still trying to figure out certain things that bewilder me. So, that's why I started this topic in the first place to see what others could offer me in response. I have always wondered about this lack of much mention about Jesus' ministry, miracles, virgin birth, etc. Why would he leave out something so connected to Jesus' ministry from his epistles? Afterall, Paul's epistles ae the backbone of the Christian faith today? Also, why didn't he want to hang out with the early apostles more than he did to glean from their teachings and experience? Perhaps I opened a can of worms by bringing up all these points, but I'm still waiting for some logical answers to this puzzle within my mind? My wife bought a book; "The Book Of Questions" we had on our coffee table and the workers did not approve of this book. Questioning to them was a show of lack of faith. I think they were right about that. We still have the book but lost our faith due in part to asking questions. www.dl.is.vnu.edu.vn/dspace/bitstream/123456789/586/1/thebookofquestions.pdfwww.amazon.com/Book-Questions-Gregory-Stock-Ph-D/dp/0894803204Here is another quote that fits. 2nd try on the attachment.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 9, 2014 18:16:49 GMT -5
Although it's true that Paul did not mention much of Jesus life in his letters, I don't conclude from that that Paul knew little of Jesus life. I like Marcus Borg's explanation for this aspect of Paul's letters.
[Paul's] letters are correspondence in context -- as all correspondence is. Letters are not meant "for the world". They are meant for the persons to whom they are sent. ... We do not have preaching, the content of what he said about Jesus. Instead, what we have is his very personal response to what he learned was going on in these communities. Elsewhere, Borg reminds us that writing in Jesus' day was not like today; it required a major, painstaking effort. There would be no reason for Paul to re-count events of the life of Jesus in a letter, that is, for Paul to write a Gospel. The first Gospel, likely Mark, was not written around 70 A.D., after Paul had already died in Rome. Why the delay? Borg's idea was that the early Christians, including Paul, all knew about the details of Jesus life. They also thought his return was imminent. So why write anything down? (Ask yourself how much of your own life, or your parents life you have on record. Then add to that how difficult writing was back in New Testament days.) A generation or two after Jesus died, people began to think, hmmm, Jesus isn't back yet, perhaps we should write these things down for our children! It seems quite plausible to me. This is also why the stories in the three Gospels are nugget sized; they are remembered stories pared down to their essentials. And the idea of an earlier, now lost, book called "Q" consisting mainly of the things Jesus said, makes perfect sense also.
So, as to your question why Paul didn't take time to learn more about Jesus ... you've answered the question yourself. He did take the time to learn everything about the life of Jesus; he began preaching only a decade after Jesus died. What we don't have is a record of his preaching. Nor do we have a record of the preaching of any of the apostles! Why would we have Paul's? What we do have in Paul's seven letters is a record of the life of the early church. I was surprised to learn that these letters are actually the oldest books of the New Testament, preceding the Gospel.What Hat ~ Thanks for those insights you just shared. They do make sense to me! But, we do have some examples of Peter's preaching found in Acts 2:14-42 in his famous sermon that lead to the conversion of 3,000 people in Jerusalem at the time of the feast days. There's also the sermon by Stephen before he was stoned in Acts 7, too.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2 (Peter's Sermon in Acts 2)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207 (Stephen's Sermon in Acts 7)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 9, 2014 18:20:53 GMT -5
Xna ~ I liked your attachment you just posted! I have to admit, this is a mind stretching puzzle in relation to the life of Paul? I'm still trying to figure out certain things that bewilder me. So, that's why I started this topic in the first place to see what others could offer me in response. I have always wondered about this lack of much mention about Jesus' ministry, miracles, virgin birth, etc. Why would he leave out something so connected to Jesus' ministry from his epistles? Afterall, Paul's epistles ae the backbone of the Christian faith today? Also, why didn't he want to hang out with the early apostles more than he did to glean from their teachings and experience? Perhaps I opened a can of worms by bringing up all these points, but I'm still waiting for some logical answers to this puzzle within my mind? My wife bought a book; "The Book Of Questions" we had on our coffee table and the workers did not approve of this book. Questioning to them was a show of lack of faith. I think they were right about that. We still have the book but lost our faith due in part to asking questions. www.dl.is.vnu.edu.vn/dspace/bitstream/123456789/586/1/thebookofquestions.pdfwww.amazon.com/Book-Questions-Gregory-Stock-Ph-D/dp/0894803204Here is another quote that fits. Clearly, you forgot to show them question 150, or they might have approved of your book. 150. Would you be willing to give up all television for the next five years if it would induce someone to provide for 1,000 starving children in Indonesia?* Duh, yeah. Also, the 18 page version of the book above is a much better idea than the published edition, which uses very large type and features at most two questions on a page. Along this line, we have enjoyed a book called "Conservation Starters for Married Couples" some years ago. In fact, I liked it so much I purchased five copies and gave them out, mostly to friends. I wonder if the workers approved, but in retrospect it is better not to ask and heed your own counsel.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Sept 9, 2014 19:20:16 GMT -5
Although it's true that Paul did not mention much of Jesus life in his letters, I don't conclude from that that Paul knew little of Jesus life. I like Marcus Borg's explanation for this aspect of Paul's letters.
[Paul's] letters are correspondence in context -- as all correspondence is. Letters are not meant "for the world". They are meant for the persons to whom they are sent. ... We do not have preaching, the content of what he said about Jesus. Instead, what we have is his very personal response to what he learned was going on in these communities. Elsewhere, Borg reminds us that writing in Jesus' day was not like today; it required a major, painstaking effort. There would be no reason for Paul to re-count events of the life of Jesus in a letter, that is, for Paul to write a Gospel. The first Gospel, likely Mark, was not written around 70 A.D., after Paul had already died in Rome. Why the delay? Borg's idea was that the early Christians, including Paul, all knew about the details of Jesus life. They also thought his return was imminent. So why write anything down? (Ask yourself how much of your own life, or your parents life you have on record. Then add to that how difficult writing was back in New Testament days.) A generation or two after Jesus died, people began to think, hmmm, Jesus isn't back yet, perhaps we should write these things down for our children! It seems quite plausible to me. This is also why the stories in the three Gospels are nugget sized; they are remembered stories pared down to their essentials. And the idea of an earlier, now lost, book called "Q" consisting mainly of the things Jesus said, makes perfect sense also.
So, as to your question why Paul didn't take time to learn more about Jesus ... you've answered the question yourself. He did take the time to learn everything about the life of Jesus; he began preaching only a decade after Jesus died. What we don't have is a record of his preaching. Nor do we have a record of the preaching of any of the apostles! Why would we have Paul's? What we do have in Paul's seven letters is a record of the life of the early church. I was surprised to learn that these letters are actually the oldest books of the New Testament, preceding the Gospel.What Hat ~ Thanks for those insights you just shared. They do make sense to me! But, we do have some examples of Peter's preaching found in Acts 2:14-42 in his famous sermon that lead to the conversion of 3,000 people in Jerusalem at the time of the feast days. There's also the sermon by Stephen before he was stoned in Acts 7, too.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2 (Peter's Sermon in Acts 2)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207 (Stephen's Sermon in Acts 7)
And many events and testimonies in the life of Paul. Acts is mainly a record of events of the early apostles including Paul, written around 110 AD. In that sense, it attempts to be fairly complete in writing down the events of the past; that is, it's an attempt at writing history. Why no sermons of Paul in Acts? It is possible that Paul wasn't much of a preacher, and that he reached the Gentiles mainly through direct conversation, with some notable exceptions like Mars Hill. But when Paul did preach, like at Mars Hill, who was there to record or remember the content of what he preached? Acts does say he "preached Jesus and the Resurrection". I see no reason to believe that Paul didn't know everything about the life of Jesus. Both the Acts and the Gospels were attempts to write a comprehensive history, but the letters of Paul are not, they are just letters, and in a letter you never tell something you both already know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 4:04:14 GMT -5
It is possible Paul knew Jesus during the Messiah's various visits to Jerusalem. In any case Paul was spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul had a huge oral tradition which he could hardly escape from. And I am sure some or all Gospels were written fairly close to Jesus' time.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 16, 2014 4:16:50 GMT -5
It is possible Paul knew Jesus during the Messiah's various visits to Jerusalem. In any case Paul was spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul had a huge oral tradition which he could hardly escape from. And I am sure some or all Gospels were written fairly close to Jesus' time. Most, if not all Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 4:21:48 GMT -5
A very interesting discussion, I must say. I think that more time and energy should be spent on this kind of discourse: educational, informative, thought provoking, speculative spiritually awakening. I kind of like Paul after his conversion. Thanks folks
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 30, 2014 15:04:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 30, 2014 16:55:57 GMT -5
To the non-believers, and the Atheists, who believe Jesus has NEVER existed. However, to the Christians, we believe Jesus exists through reading the word of God/Bible AND we have FELT the touch and the dealing of God's Spirit in our hearts and lives. We lie to ourselves and others if we deny the existence of Jesus and God. ~ Nathan9 Q1. Should the workers instruct the friends - DO NOT READ books on Jesus mythicism? Q2. If you were able, would you BAN such books? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theorywww.amazon.com/No-Meek-Messiah-Christianitys-Legacy/dp/0988216116
|
|
|
Post by obieone on Sept 30, 2014 18:51:37 GMT -5
Paul did not learn about the gospel from anyone. It was revealed to him by Jesus Christ. The mysteries that Paul so often wrote about in his letters were revealed to him by Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:11,12 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Consequently, there is no difference between what Jesus taught and what Paul teaches. The mysteries that Paul spoke of were not yet revealed by Jesus in His ministry because he only brought the gospel to the Jews, but Paul was commissioned to bring the gospel to the gentile therefore a great deal was revealed to him that had not been taught by Jesus or any of the Old Testament Prophets.
Just my 2 cents worth on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Oct 1, 2014 1:46:01 GMT -5
What Hat ~ Thanks for those insights you just shared. They do make sense to me! But, we do have some examples of Peter's preaching found in Acts 2:14-42 in his famous sermon that lead to the conversion of 3,000 people in Jerusalem at the time of the feast days. There's also the sermon by Stephen before he was stoned in Acts 7, too.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2 (Peter's Sermon in Acts 2)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207 (Stephen's Sermon in Acts 7)
And many events and testimonies in the life of Paul. Acts is mainly a record of events of the early apostles including Paul, written around 110 AD. In that sense, it attempts to be fairly complete in writing down the events of the past; that is, it's an attempt at writing history. Why no sermons of Paul in Acts? It is possible that Paul wasn't much of a preacher, and that he reached the Gentiles mainly through direct conversation, with some notable exceptions like Mars Hill. But when Paul did preach, like at Mars Hill, who was there to record or remember the content of what he preached? Acts does say he "preached Jesus and the Resurrection". I see no reason to believe that Paul didn't know everything about the life of Jesus. Both the Acts and the Gospels were attempts to write a comprehensive history, but the letters of Paul are not, they are just letters, and in a letter you never tell something you both already know. Lots of text bogs me down so havent ploughed through the thread. Paul is called an apostle but was not one of the original 12 disciples. He certainly had a heart for the people under his care. His conversion was very powerful. Ive known people who have had strong radical conversions and they state 'to whom much is given much is required.' Their passion and zeal were similar to Paul. Paul relied heavily on the spirit of revelation/ hearing from God. I think as far as familiarity goes Paul was a good apostle and followed the call he was obedient. He understood what Christ was about. He understood the kingdom. He also had a job so that he wouldnt be a burden on people. Integrity!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 2:23:35 GMT -5
If Paul was officiating in Jerusalem he would have at least seen Jesus. Certainly almost EVERYTHING written in the Gospels was available to him via: 1-the testimony of those he persecuted 2-the accounts of the religious leaders 3-the fact that you would have had to have been a stranger in Israel NOT to know what transpired. 4-the testimony of those Christians he moved amongst afterwards
As for the Gospels. I suspect John's was written down very soon as the resurrection, some of it might have been written verbatim. Take care in reading people's theories about dating Gospels, they could be as way out as their INTERPRETATION of the Gospels.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 1, 2014 8:11:28 GMT -5
If Paul was officiating in Jerusalem he would have at least seen Jesus. Certainly almost EVERYTHING written in the Gospels was available to him via: 1-the testimony of those he persecuted 2-the accounts of the religious leaders 3-the fact that you would have had to have been a stranger in Israel NOT to know what transpired. 4-the testimony of those Christians he moved amongst afterwards As for the Gospels. I suspect John's was written down very soon as the resurrection, some of it might have been written verbatim. Take care in reading people's theories about dating Gospels, they could be as way out as their INTERPRETATION of the Gospels. Do you have some new information that would help to fix the dates of the epistles and gospels? Failing that I must put my faith in the scholars and historians that are in general agreement after centuries of study. Mind, they give themselves a fair bit of latitude with spans of time in some cases of about 10 years. The consensus is that most of the epistles were written before the gospels, and John was written 15-20 years after the others. How bits and pieces were recorded, memorised or retold is not really known, but the Gospels as we know did not come together till much later. And then in the copying of them down through the years little bits were added that were not found in the earlier copies.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 1, 2014 11:28:33 GMT -5
Paul did not learn about the gospel from anyone. It was revealed to him by Jesus Christ. The mysteries that Paul so often wrote about in his letters were revealed to him by Jesus Christ. Gal 1:11,12 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Consequently, there is no difference between what Jesus taught and what Paul teaches. The mysteries that Paul spoke of were not yet revealed by Jesus in His ministry because he only brought the gospel to the Jews, but Paul was commissioned to bring the gospel to the gentile therefore a great deal was revealed to him that had not been taught by Jesus or any of the Old Testament Prophets. Just my 2 cents worth on the subject. Although you don't touch directly on this point, I suspect that Paul did not meet Jesus in person, because he had his revelation on the road to Damascus, and that is what he references in Galatians 1. That doesn't matter, the way I see it. Lots of converts then and since who never knew Jesus first hand. The mysteries revealed to Paul need not have been revealed by Jesus in the flesh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 5:49:55 GMT -5
Fred quote - "I must put my faith in the scholars and historians that are in general agreement after centuries of study."
I would rephrase that, "Scholars and historians for centuries have not found any new evidence concerning the dating of the Gospels."
Also, how some of these scribes "date" scripture is to look at scripture and say, ie "It claims there's a prophecy that the Romans will destroy the temple, therefore, as this is what happened, and seeing how prophets can't predict what hasn't happened yet - this scripture was written after the event.
They do that with Daniel - only, the dating was very selective, and things which happened in Jesus' time, or later, are ignored.
|
|