Ok Lindy, we get it. You don't believe, you hate God, the bible is bs, what happened to Paul was bulls***t, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, you're much smarter and not taken in by all this superstitious religious mythology. Us poor saps just can't see how there really is no God and Jesus is the opium of the masses.
I've always thought it odd how sheer age alone can lend credibility to an otherwise flakey bunch of yarns.
If the Bible or the Quran or the sayings of Buddha were written a few weeks ago, I wonder how much devotion they'd garner?
Not much is my bet...
Yeah, well I'm talking and you seem to have the same attitude towards my words as any 'old' words.
What does devotion have to do with anything, except your apparently trying to put words and ideas in place of what I and others have said. And want to change their intended meaning to suit yourself, instead of trying to see what the other person is saying.
Just how would you like God to speak to you George?
And this 'flakey bunch of yarns' just might be here.
Ok Lindy, we get it. You don't believe, you hate God, the bible is bs, what happened to Paul was bulls***t, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, you're much smarter and not taken in by all this superstitious religious mythology. Us poor saps just can't see how there really is no God and Jesus is the opium of the masses.
Whatever.
Troll thread.
No, not a troll thread. But by all means don't address the topic and just attack the poster.
Yes, I hate God, and all the other things I doubt the existence of. That damned Jolly Green Giant really gets my panties in a bunch.
It is not about being smarter or dumber or whatever. Don't take my opinion so personally.
I would like anyone's thoughts on this if they have anything to contribute. Is there anything in there that you have a different opinion on. Am I wrong on the unprecidented experience of Paul.
BTW, next time, look it up before attacking me! There are plenty of theists that have the same or a similar opinion of Paul
FYI, I don't think the Bible is bs, that was another poster on here. I think there are many good things to learn from it, including Pauls writings. What I won't do is swallow the whole thing without question. I don't think atheists and agnostics are the only ones that are like this.
I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them.
What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels.
It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy.
Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?
Alright Lindy I'll bite...but I am going to call it a "unique" event in stead of an unprecidented one. Just a semantics thing that I am more comfortable with.
Let us assume for a moment that Paul was in fact trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his enemies the Christians. His ploy was fairly well conceived in its inception. He gained immediate access to the inner circle by pretending to represent the "other side of the coin" so to speak. He took the teachings of Jesus and found a loop hole. Someone was supposed to be trying to reach the Gentile nations. In steps Paul.
He manufactures a story that the new Christians are likely to believe, he describes their Lord Jesus in exquisite detail and spins a yarn that though outwardly suspicious it does fit into their agenda. After all Peter and the boys didn't really like the Gentiles and had no intention of inviting them to the eternal life party if they could get away with it. So it was a real boon to them that this man who once hunted them now claims to have seen the Lord and been given a ministry to convert the Gentiles. They readily accepted Paul and his story, so the first part of the plan has gone off without a hitch.
So now he's in. What to do now? His plan is to try and subvert the church from within. So he changed a word here and there, just subtle differences from the words of Jesus. But permanent change takes time. He tries to make a religion based on his own ideas.
But his plan went awry although slightly different than the plan of Jesus he managed to nurture a young church into adolesence. The numbers were growing exponentially and he himself had now made it to the top of the Roman goon squad most wanted list. He gets imprisoned and instead of denying his affiliation with the Christian movement he writes letters to his followers encouraging them and teaching them. Finally Nero calls for his head as a gift to his wife. Paul still does not tell his captors that he is really undercover and they shouldn't kill him because he has a better plan.
Paul loses his head and his martyrdom encourages his fledgling church to expand their numbers. So in death Pauls master plan of destroy from within is lost. He made some changes but they were not enough. The corps message of love, brotherhood and redemption still lived on past him. So ultimately he ran out of time if his plan was to destroy from within. His plan failed, so was it worth it? <_<
I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them.
What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels.
It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy.
Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?
...I would like anyone's thoughts on this if they have anything to contribute. Is there anything in there that you have a different opinion on. Am I wrong on the unprecidented experience of Paul...
Okay – here's my 2 cents thrown in…Paul refers to his experience of seeing the resurrected Christ in Corinthians:
I Corinthians 15: 1-11 NASB
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
The above passage hits me that Christ's appearing to Paul wasn't unprecedented because of the other instances he mentions before his. And from my Trinitarian viewpoint – I consider the appearance of the resurrected Christ on par with the appearances of the Lord in the Old testament…Paul also indicated the experience was due to God's amazing grace – which puts the spotlight back on God rather than Paul's personality…I don't really see any contradictions between what Jesus said in the gospels and what Paul wrote in the epistles. I'm not saying there aren't any – I'm just not aware of any offhand – it may help if you could be more specific and cite certain passages.
Ephesians 2:19,20 mentions the foundation built BY the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone. It may be some who adhere to a strict dispensationalist's viewpoint see a big difference in the gospels and the epistles. In Galatians Paul does speak of a common authentic gospel – a message that he and the other apostles and prophets spread. And to me - the basic message in the epistles appears to be the same as what began in the gospels and continued in Acts: that Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead.
Galatians 1 NASB
1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them.
What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels.
It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy.
Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?
I think we indeed know very little about the real “Paul” through the depiction posed by the Pseudo “Acts of the Apostles “ (written somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 AD, for the purpose of rewriting the story of the chief Apostle of the rival Marcionite movement, repackaging the “Apostle of the heretics” in an “orthodox” light .
Doesn’t anyone else here find it curious that Paul in those epistles directly attributed to him never so much alludes even once to this rather significant mind-blowing conversion experience played in Acts - no cgi fx withheld - on the “road to Damascus” ?
There have been a number of works written on the irreconcilable differences between the Paul/Saul of “Acts” and the “Paul” of the epistles, especially Galatians. Most notable is “The First Christian” by A. Powell Davies, who devoted a couple chapters to the problems which exists among these narratives. If it wasn’t bad enough that Acts and Galatians are at odds with one another, the 3 conversion accounts throughout the same work of Acts do not even match up
So who was this “Paul”?
Most intriguing, the Mariconites in “The Dialogue of Adamantius” claimed that Paul was an actual witness to the crucifixion of Christ, and that he had even written “The Gospel” - namely, the Gospel circulated by Marcion (which formed the basis for “Luke” in the later orthodox version).
I am of the preliminary opinion that Paul may have been one of “the seventy” called out by Jesus in Luke 10. Whether or not this was the case, I need to explore further.
Indeed, who was this Jesus presented by Paul?
The “Christ” of Paul is an angelic being, “the heavenly Lord” descended from above, not the baby born to a virgin in a manger (or a cave) in the orthodox gospels.
I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them.
What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels.
It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy.
Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?
maybe in the books of the bible but there is other writtens like "The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate - Memorials of Our Lord Jesus Christ Done in the Time of Pontius Pilate"
...Doesn't anyone else here find it curious that Paul in those epistles directly attributed to him never so much alludes even once to this rather significant mind-blowing conversion experience played in Acts - no cgi fx withheld - on the "road to Damascus" ?...
It looks like Paul IS referencing his road to Damascus experience in Galatians 1 – where he does not emphasize the “special effects” of the incident – but the point of the experience – “to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles” [Galatians 1:16].
The “Christ” of Paul is an angelic being, “the heavenly Lord” descended from above, not the baby born to a virgin in a manger (or a cave) in the orthodox gospels.
It looks like Paul IS referencing his road to Damascus experience in Galatians 1 – where he does not emphasize the “special effects” of the incident – but the point of the experience – “to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles” [Galatians 1:16].
Or might this - from what we may gather from Paul's own words - allude to the event in 2 Cor. 12, of having been "caught away" to the "third heaven"?
The Marcionite version of Galatians (2:1f) has Paul "going up to Jerusalem" for the first time "after fourteen years" - cf. with 2 Cor. 12:2 - "I knew a man in Christ
fourteen years ago..."
Of course it may be possible this section in Galatians refers to neither of the events presented in Acts or 2 Corinthians.
There is a new book advertised on Amazon .com - "Marcion and Luke Acts: A Defining Struggle" by Joseph B. Tyson, which, though I have not yet picked up, appears to elaborate upon the position I've arrived at over the past 15 years concerning the reason behind the compilation of "Luke-Acts", namely, to battle Marcion. The "Book Description" is as follows:
Building on recent scholarship that argues for a second-century date for the book of Acts, Marcion and Luke-Acts explores the probable context for the authorship not only of Acts but also of the canonical Gospel of Luke. Noted New Testament scholar Joseph B. Tyson proposes that both Acts and the final version of the Gospel of Luke were published at the time when Marcion of Pontus was beginning to proclaim his version of the Christian gospel, in the years 120-125 c.e. He suggests that although the author was subject to various influences, a prominent motivation was the need to provide the church with writings that would serve in its fight against Marcionite Christianity. Tyson positions the controversy with Marcion as a defining struggle over the very meaning of the Christian message and the author of Luke-Acts as a major participant in that contest.
Suggesting that the primary emphases in Acts are best understood as responses to the Marcionite challenge, Tyson looks particularly at the portrait of Paul as a devoted Pharisaic Jew. He contends that this portrayal appears to have been formed by the author to counter the Marcionite understanding of Paul as rejecting both the Torah and the God of Israel. Tyson also points to stories that involve Peter and the Jerusalem apostles in Acts as arguments against the Marcionite claim that Paul was the only true apostle.
Tyson concludes that the author of Acts made use of an earlier version of the Gospel of Luke and produced canonical Luke by adding, among other things, birth accounts and postresurrection narratives of Jesus.
Or might this - from what we may gather from Paul's own words - allude to the event in 2 Cor. 12, of having been "caught away" to the "third heaven"?
The Marcionite version of Galatians (2:1f) has Paul "going up to Jerusalem" for the first time "after fourteen years" - cf. with 2 Cor. 12:2 - "I knew a man in Christ
fourteen years ago..." ...
I think there's enough noteworthy details to distinguish two different experiences mentioned in Galatians and II Corinthians.
There appears to be a three year time period [Galatians 1:17, 18] sandwiched in between Paul's conversion [Galatians 1: 15, 16] and his second trip to Jerusalem [Galatians 2:1]. In other words, when Paul is referencing his second trip to Jerusalem [Galatians 2:1] – it was fourteen years after his first trip there [Galatians 1:18] which was three years after his conversion on the way to Damascus. So, I don't think this fourteen year time-period is in reference to his conversion.
When these epistles were written is another matter to consider. Some scholars say Galatians was written around the Spring of 53 A.D. and II Corinthians around late Summer of 57 A.D. – and Acts about 63 A.D. Some place Paul's conversion at around 34 A.D…Roughly around 46 to 48 is Paul's first missionary journey. Subtracting 14 years from Paul's reference in II Corinthians 12 [written around 57 A.D.] of his third heaven experience would bring us back to 43 A.D. – 9 years after his conversion.
Also judging by how he refers to himself in each passage seems to show a distinction between the conversion and third heaven experience. In Galatians Paul says God "called me by his grace…to reveal his Son in me." In Corinthians Paul says "I knew a man in Christ" – already a convert, and to keep him from getting conceited was tormented by a messenger of Satan in the midst of insults, persecutions, hardships, etc. that befell this committed convert.
Galatians 1:13-2:2
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabiaand later returned to Damascus.
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
II Corinthians 12:1-10
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christwho fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
This section in Galatians - "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother, etc." - was missing from the earlier version of Galatians in Marcion's text, which may be reconstructed through citations against Marcion in the works of Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius.
IMHO, the process of harmonizing the Pauline epistles to the pseudepigraphic book of "Acts" (again, actually written circ. 150 AD) will ultimately prove something of a red herring. That there were efforts made by the editors of the orthodox canon to "harmonize" Paul with "Acts" is not doubted. To make matters worse for us centuries later, they added many interpolations throughout Paul's authentic letters. A monument to this practice are the bogus Pastoral epistles (1&2 Tim., Titus), as well as the existence of the longer and shorter versions of epistles attributed tp St. Ignatius.
The point about "the man in Christ" referring to one already a convert: you may be correct, but if Paul claimed that he was "chosen" or "selected" from his "mother's womb", when was Paul not "in Christ"?
Invisible Dan, I guess it depends on which scholars you refer to. The following excerpt is from The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce – and I think your position is based more on a philosophical presupposition [see the bold red section below] than on historical evidence. The link to this article is
"…The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.
But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at leastwould still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. But a more detailed examination of the Gospels will come in a later chapter.
The date of the writing of Acts will depend onthe date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first. There are strong arguments for dating the twofold work not long after Paul's two years' detention in Rome (AD 60-62)Some scholars, however, consider that the 'former treatise' to which Acts originally formed the sequel was not our present Gospel of Luke but an earlier draft, sometimes called 'ProtoLuke'; this enables them to date Acts in the sixties, while holding that the Gospel of Luke in its final form was rather later.
The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence. The day has gone by when the authenticity of these letters could be denied wholesale. There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (I and ~ Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul.' I accept them all as Pauline, but the remaining eight letters would by themselves be sufficient for our purpose, and it is from these that the main arguments are drawn in our later chapter on 'The Importance of Paul's Evidence'.
Ten of the letters which bear Paul's name belong to the period before the end of his Roman imprisonment.
These ten, in order of writing, may be dated as follows: Galatians, 48; I and 2 Thessalonians, 50; Philippians, 54; I and 2 Corinthians, 54-56; Romans, 57; Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, c. 60. The Pastoral Epistles, in their diction and historical atmosphere, contain signs of later date than the other Pauline Epistles, but this presents less difficulty to those who believe in a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome about the year 64, which was ended by his execution.' The Pastoral Epistle can then be dated c. 63-64, and the changed state of affairs in the Pauline churches to which they bear witness will have been due in part to the opportunity which Paul's earlier Roman imprisonment afforded to his opponents m these churches.
At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in assessing the trustworthiness of ancient historical writings, one of the most important questions is: How soon after the events took place were they recorded ?
3. What is the evidence for their early existence? |
About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament,including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD.This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated m their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date…"
Invisible Dan, I guess it depends on which scholars you refer to. The following excerpt is from The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce – and I think your position is based more on a philosophical presupposition [see the bold red section below] than on historical evidence. The link to this article is
Do you think it's possible that F.F. Bruce has it backwards, and is in fact speaking quite "philosophically" from his presumptions, indeed more so than "historically"?
Example, from the outset of his rather "philosophical" discourse:
"…The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. "
Okay - sounds impressive - but where does he provide the actual historical evidence to support this particular claim? (not so much a snippet of an Ante-Nicene patristic citation?) -
He gives none, really, outside of his sweet, eloquent assurances to his largely target Bible-worshipping audience
that they have little to fear from those darn godless critical scholars.
About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament,including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions.
Bruce, like Wierwille, Bullinger, and countless others, doesn't like to question - at least *too much* - those "presuppositions" concerning the "integrity" of the Bible which he worshipped.
He was unable to set aside his own philosophy to examine the obvious stylistic/grammatical/ historical issues which exist between the authentic Pauline material and the so-called Pastoral epistles.
And contrary to what he wished to believe himself, the issues raised by higher critics have been anything but entirely unfounded
or dismissed. In Bruce's case, - as with so many other fundamentalists- a great many things raised by critical scholars were and are simply ignored .
And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
But alas - they're not.
We're not talking about Homer's "Illiad" or Aschylus' "Promethius Bound" - religious literature is a whole different animal,
subject to a whole different set of historical circumstances and situations, often involving power struggles and rivalries between
various movements within the same religion. Out of this emerged the writings comprising the NT as well as many other sacred scriptures.
IMHO if we had only the gospels Christianity would look a lot different today. For better or for worse Paul was a pivotal figure, or at least whoever wrote the epistles attributed to him was.
IMHO if we had only the gospels Christianity would look a lot different today. For better or for worse Paul was a pivotal figure, or at least whoever wrote the epistles attributed to him was.
Perhaps. I sincerely wish that the teachings of Christ concerning fellow human beings treating one other with the utmost dignity and respect
had come to occupy exclusively the realm of ethics, rather than being padded with oddball and hairbrain religious superstitions concerning gods and demons
and heavens and hells, and the like.
Brings my mind to the title to a neighboring thread started by Sunesis, "The Basics of Christianity".
Lets get real- Christians will never reach a consensus on such "basics" as the state of the dead, or how many crucifed, of the infallibility of super holy books, or how many demons it takes to dance on the eyeball of a chalatan, or how many gods it takes to fit into your toaster, - in the grand scheme of things, it all seems such piddly nonsense.
But what if we all agreed to disagree, and to live by "Love your neighbor as your own self", and even "love your enemies"?
That's a helluva challenge to us all.
The world might well indeed be transformed if all strived to emphasise the edicts of Christ on treating one another well as
the "basic" of Christianity, relegating doctrines and myths and other assorted mumbo-jumbo to the back seat.
The Works of Josephus is a good read for anyone that enjoys ancient history and touches on noteworthy people and events in the Bible. I'm not here to defend Bruce – just responding to you asking what evidence he provides. He does list some books for further reading of which I've read a couple
I'm not hung up in trying to defend the "integrity" of the Bible – or that I could prove it's infallible by doctrinal or philosophical argument. My opinion on any Bible stuff is going to be biased for sure – I'm a Bible-believing Christian. My point in these posts has been – from the things I've read, I believe the New Testament documents are reliable in terms of historical and geographical references, who wrote them, when they wrote them and because of my Christian bias [philosophical presupposition] view them as doctrinally and philosophically harmonious with the Old Testament.
Like I said before - I guess it comes down to which scholars you refer to. I have The Commentary on the New Testament: Acts by R.C.H. Lenski, Speaking about the noted scholar Sir W.M. Ramsay, Lenski says on page 8, 9:
"Ramsay…started with the view that the Acts were of little value historically because, like John's Gospel, they had been written with an ulterior purpose. But in his Bearing of Recent Discovery, p.89, he confesses: "The more I have studied the narrative of Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about the Greco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions and organizations in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet and found it here."
End of excerpt
I am no longer a follower of the Bible-worshipping crowd like TWI. I think that produces a cold, lifeless, legalistic religion that prohibits God from intruding. I view the Bible as a means to connect with God. Nor do I think the Bible or my faith will fall apart if I'm wrong on how many were crucified with Jesus. Because I focus on the central figure of the crucifixion – Jesus! I agree with your sentiment that Christians should be more concerned about following the teachings of Jesus and not getting hung up on doctrinal differences.
"Lets get real- Christians will never reach a consensus on such "basics" as the state of the dead, or how many crucifed, of the infallibility of super holy books, or how many demons it takes to dance on the eyeball of a chalatan, or how many gods it takes to fit into your toaster, - in the grand scheme of things, it all seems such piddly nonsense."
Indeed.
"But what if we all agreed to disagree, and to live by "Love your neighbor as your own self", and even "love your enemies"?
Far be it from me to get all touchy-feely, but you might have something there. I don't think the "let's kill everybody who doesn't agree with us" mantra is getting us anywhere...
Yup, doctrines are sure used as such divisive things.. Yet, if it's not one's belief over gods, it will be over one's political party, or belief that abortion is wrong, or your country shouldn't be doing this or that, or you have no right to walk on my grass next to your house.. Religions and doctrinal differences that cause division and wars and hate go so much further.. And rarely is it because of the religion itself , only the front, as much as it is people who haven't learned to love one another, and respect each other as equals.. Oh wait, no I am superior cause I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIII....
And yet I find many groups that are very open to discussion and disagreement. Heck, in Jesus' day you had the Saduccees and Pharisees, and although they had rifts between the two, they still functioned together and did many things that you wouldn't even dream of seeing a Roman Catholic bishop and a Baptist clergy doing together..
It's always those who are so insecure that they hold onto their doctrine like it's either they have it or they die.. Sure, I believe in Christ. I consider His God, my God. And I serve them the best I know. But I'm not pushed by fear to believe what I believe, and therefore I am not scared of changing anything I know. I don't accept just anything, and those things I do, is only by careful consideration. And I haven't a problem hanging out with any of any group be it Christian or not. I learn from them all. Maybe I won't learn about the God I believe to serve, but I may learn other things. From a Hindu, how to be peaceful, from a Muslim, how to have a passion. And sometimes its how not to do things!
How not to be a suicide bomber! lol! But at the same time, I wouldn'throw out my belief and never speak of them. I have nothing to hide. Maybe some need to hide their ears else their world built around their belief will crumble but maybe it needed to!
Anyone been in a Jewish synagogue (guys only) and discuss the scriptures? They disagree on so many things, yet they peacefully discuss their beliefs and differences. Probably they learned from the days they killed themselves off! lol..
Anyways.. I'm just wasting thread space.. Maybe even without a point.. Love.. Yeah, get back to living that in everything..
Recommended Posts
George Aar
I've always thought it odd how sheer age alone can lend credibility to an otherwise flakey bunch of yarns.
If the Bible or the Quran or the sayings of Buddha were written a few weeks ago, I wonder how much devotion they'd garner?
Not much is my bet...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Ok Lindy, we get it. You don't believe, you hate God, the bible is bs, what happened to Paul was bulls***t, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, you're much smarter and not taken in by all this superstitious religious mythology. Us poor saps just can't see how there really is no God and Jesus is the opium of the masses.
Whatever.
Troll thread.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yeah, well I'm talking and you seem to have the same attitude towards my words as any 'old' words.
What does devotion have to do with anything, except your apparently trying to put words and ideas in place of what I and others have said. And want to change their intended meaning to suit yourself, instead of trying to see what the other person is saying.
Just how would you like God to speak to you George?
And this 'flakey bunch of yarns' just might be here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
No, not a troll thread. But by all means don't address the topic and just attack the poster.
Yes, I hate God, and all the other things I doubt the existence of.
That damned Jolly Green Giant really gets my panties in a bunch.
It is not about being smarter or dumber or whatever. Don't take my opinion so personally.
I would like anyone's thoughts on this if they have anything to contribute. Is there anything in there that you have a different opinion on. Am I wrong on the unprecidented experience of Paul.
BTW, next time, look it up before attacking me! There are plenty of theists that have the same or a similar opinion of Paul
FYI, I don't think the Bible is bs, that was another poster on here. I think there are many good things to learn from it, including Pauls writings. What I won't do is swallow the whole thing without question. I don't think atheists and agnostics are the only ones that are like this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I don't have any problem imagining Paul as simply a early-day version of VPW, or Jimmy Swaggert, or Billy Sunday.
How could we know any different? Is it that it happened so long ago it MUST be true? He couldn't have been just another
narcissistic flim-flam man, after all, it was CENTURIES ago!
What do we use for verification of "real" acts of God or "real" men of God as opposed to phony ones?
Geeze, it seems to me that any explanation becomes so subjective as to be meaningless to anyone
other than the indiviual giving it. But, YMMV.
Personally I found it very difficult to "believe" without abandoning reason to a great extent.
Eventually, I guess I got tired of extending myself that much...
(And Clay, as usual, I have little or no idea of what you're talking about)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You don't want to know what I'm talking about Geo.
Which is fine with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Alright Lindy I'll bite...but I am going to call it a "unique" event in stead of an unprecidented one. Just a semantics thing that I am more comfortable with.
Let us assume for a moment that Paul was in fact trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his enemies the Christians. His ploy was fairly well conceived in its inception. He gained immediate access to the inner circle by pretending to represent the "other side of the coin" so to speak. He took the teachings of Jesus and found a loop hole. Someone was supposed to be trying to reach the Gentile nations. In steps Paul.
He manufactures a story that the new Christians are likely to believe, he describes their Lord Jesus in exquisite detail and spins a yarn that though outwardly suspicious it does fit into their agenda. After all Peter and the boys didn't really like the Gentiles and had no intention of inviting them to the eternal life party if they could get away with it. So it was a real boon to them that this man who once hunted them now claims to have seen the Lord and been given a ministry to convert the Gentiles. They readily accepted Paul and his story, so the first part of the plan has gone off without a hitch.
So now he's in. What to do now? His plan is to try and subvert the church from within. So he changed a word here and there, just subtle differences from the words of Jesus. But permanent change takes time. He tries to make a religion based on his own ideas.
But his plan went awry although slightly different than the plan of Jesus he managed to nurture a young church into adolesence. The numbers were growing exponentially and he himself had now made it to the top of the Roman goon squad most wanted list. He gets imprisoned and instead of denying his affiliation with the Christian movement he writes letters to his followers encouraging them and teaching them. Finally Nero calls for his head as a gift to his wife. Paul still does not tell his captors that he is really undercover and they shouldn't kill him because he has a better plan.
Paul loses his head and his martyrdom encourages his fledgling church to expand their numbers. So in death Pauls master plan of destroy from within is lost. He made some changes but they were not enough. The corps message of love, brotherhood and redemption still lived on past him. So ultimately he ran out of time if his plan was to destroy from within. His plan failed, so was it worth it? <_<
Just supposin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Okay – here's my 2 cents thrown in…Paul refers to his experience of seeing the resurrected Christ in Corinthians:
I Corinthians 15: 1-11 NASB
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
The above passage hits me that Christ's appearing to Paul wasn't unprecedented because of the other instances he mentions before his. And from my Trinitarian viewpoint – I consider the appearance of the resurrected Christ on par with the appearances of the Lord in the Old testament…Paul also indicated the experience was due to God's amazing grace – which puts the spotlight back on God rather than Paul's personality…I don't really see any contradictions between what Jesus said in the gospels and what Paul wrote in the epistles. I'm not saying there aren't any – I'm just not aware of any offhand – it may help if you could be more specific and cite certain passages.
Ephesians 2:19,20 mentions the foundation built BY the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone. It may be some who adhere to a strict dispensationalist's viewpoint see a big difference in the gospels and the epistles. In Galatians Paul does speak of a common authentic gospel – a message that he and the other apostles and prophets spread. And to me - the basic message in the epistles appears to be the same as what began in the gospels and continued in Acts: that Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead.
Galatians 1 NASB
1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Lindyhopper has participated in these forums for a long time, he is hardly a troll.
Also, I have heard a Christianm minister talk about the differences in Paul's theology and Jesus' theology, it is not a new 'troll' subjuct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I think we indeed know very little about the real “Paul” through the depiction posed by the Pseudo “Acts of the Apostles “ (written somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 AD, for the purpose of rewriting the story of the chief Apostle of the rival Marcionite movement, repackaging the “Apostle of the heretics” in an “orthodox” light .
Doesn’t anyone else here find it curious that Paul in those epistles directly attributed to him never so much alludes even once to this rather significant mind-blowing conversion experience played in Acts - no cgi fx withheld - on the “road to Damascus” ?
There have been a number of works written on the irreconcilable differences between the Paul/Saul of “Acts” and the “Paul” of the epistles, especially Galatians. Most notable is “The First Christian” by A. Powell Davies, who devoted a couple chapters to the problems which exists among these narratives. If it wasn’t bad enough that Acts and Galatians are at odds with one another, the 3 conversion accounts throughout the same work of Acts do not even match up
So who was this “Paul”?
Most intriguing, the Mariconites in “The Dialogue of Adamantius” claimed that Paul was an actual witness to the crucifixion of Christ, and that he had even written “The Gospel” - namely, the Gospel circulated by Marcion (which formed the basis for “Luke” in the later orthodox version).
I am of the preliminary opinion that Paul may have been one of “the seventy” called out by Jesus in Luke 10. Whether or not this was the case, I need to explore further.
Indeed, who was this Jesus presented by Paul?
The “Christ” of Paul is an angelic being, “the heavenly Lord” descended from above, not the baby born to a virgin in a manger (or a cave) in the orthodox gospels.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Lindyhopper
God loves you my dear friend
Ok I will give you a name
you wrote about Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe Paul is what so many people have believed him to be. First off, look at his "conversion." His particular experience is totally unprecidented. He is not a humble, meek, loving, guy trying to genuinely seek God when he finds Jesus. He is out on his way to try and kill and persecute more Christians. Unprecidented. Jesus speaks to him audibly and through a vision. There is no other record that I know of in which Jesus does anything like that. A random discple we have never heard of and never here about again is the guy that comes and heals him. What seems like overnight he goes from killing Christians to preaching to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses was Master and the Christians were the people he push around until one day something happen
This guy genuinely seeked God as did Paul
next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is he preaching? Not exactly the words of Jesus. The life of Jesus? Nope. How could he? He never knew Jesus. In fact many people see contradictions between what Jesus supposedly said and what Paul taught. Of course, the only evidence of what we believe Jesus said were things written after the epistles, but that is another topic. I think many of the things in Paul's epistles undermine many things in the Gospels. It is a Christianity that leans toward a new legalism, not the Christianity of the Gospels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses was preching unlike Abrham and others and one might find things that seem to contradicte Abrham teachings
next
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is almost as though Paul went from one plan of attack to another. He threw in a gas pumps and snow type story and claimed that he was the new apostle. The other guys were apostles to the Jews and he was the apostle to everyone else. It just all seems a little fishy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses went from master to brother
next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course so does the whole thing about there being no mention of Jesus anywhere until at least 40 years after his death, at which time he is "resurrected" by who?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe in the books of the bible but there is other writtens like "The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate - Memorials of Our Lord Jesus Christ Done in the Time of Pontius Pilate"
and there is more
along with more people like Paul
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It looks like Paul IS referencing his road to Damascus experience in Galatians 1 – where he does not emphasize the “special effects” of the incident – but the point of the experience – “to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles” [Galatians 1:16].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I like that Danny.
Got anymore, i'm ready....
pm if necessary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Or might this - from what we may gather from Paul's own words - allude to the event in 2 Cor. 12, of having been "caught away" to the "third heaven"?
The Marcionite version of Galatians (2:1f) has Paul "going up to Jerusalem" for the first time "after fourteen years" - cf. with 2 Cor. 12:2 - "I knew a man in Christ
fourteen years ago..."
Of course it may be possible this section in Galatians refers to neither of the events presented in Acts or 2 Corinthians.
There is a new book advertised on Amazon .com - "Marcion and Luke Acts: A Defining Struggle" by Joseph B. Tyson, which, though I have not yet picked up, appears to elaborate upon the position I've arrived at over the past 15 years concerning the reason behind the compilation of "Luke-Acts", namely, to battle Marcion. The "Book Description" is as follows:
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think there's enough noteworthy details to distinguish two different experiences mentioned in Galatians and II Corinthians.
There appears to be a three year time period [Galatians 1:17, 18] sandwiched in between Paul's conversion [Galatians 1: 15, 16] and his second trip to Jerusalem [Galatians 2:1]. In other words, when Paul is referencing his second trip to Jerusalem [Galatians 2:1] – it was fourteen years after his first trip there [Galatians 1:18] which was three years after his conversion on the way to Damascus. So, I don't think this fourteen year time-period is in reference to his conversion.
When these epistles were written is another matter to consider. Some scholars say Galatians was written around the Spring of 53 A.D. and II Corinthians around late Summer of 57 A.D. – and Acts about 63 A.D. Some place Paul's conversion at around 34 A.D…Roughly around 46 to 48 is Paul's first missionary journey. Subtracting 14 years from Paul's reference in II Corinthians 12 [written around 57 A.D.] of his third heaven experience would bring us back to 43 A.D. – 9 years after his conversion.
Also judging by how he refers to himself in each passage seems to show a distinction between the conversion and third heaven experience. In Galatians Paul says God "called me by his grace…to reveal his Son in me." In Corinthians Paul says "I knew a man in Christ" – already a convert, and to keep him from getting conceited was tormented by a messenger of Satan in the midst of insults, persecutions, hardships, etc. that befell this committed convert.
Galatians 1:13-2:2
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.
1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
II Corinthians 12:1-10
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
7 To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
T-Bone,
This section in Galatians - "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother, etc." - was missing from the earlier version of Galatians in Marcion's text, which may be reconstructed through citations against Marcion in the works of Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius.
IMHO, the process of harmonizing the Pauline epistles to the pseudepigraphic book of "Acts" (again, actually written circ. 150 AD) will ultimately prove something of a red herring. That there were efforts made by the editors of the orthodox canon to "harmonize" Paul with "Acts" is not doubted. To make matters worse for us centuries later, they added many interpolations throughout Paul's authentic letters. A monument to this practice are the bogus Pastoral epistles (1&2 Tim., Titus), as well as the existence of the longer and shorter versions of epistles attributed tp St. Ignatius.
The point about "the man in Christ" referring to one already a convert: you may be correct, but if Paul claimed that he was "chosen" or "selected" from his "mother's womb", when was Paul not "in Christ"?
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Invisible Dan, I guess it depends on which scholars you refer to. The following excerpt is from The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce – and I think your position is based more on a philosophical presupposition [see the bold red section below] than on historical evidence. The link to this article is
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
"…The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.
But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. But a more detailed examination of the Gospels will come in a later chapter.
The date of the writing of Acts will depend on the date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first. There are strong arguments for dating the twofold work not long after Paul's two years' detention in Rome (AD 60-62)Some scholars, however, consider that the 'former treatise' to which Acts originally formed the sequel was not our present Gospel of Luke but an earlier draft, sometimes called 'ProtoLuke'; this enables them to date Acts in the sixties, while holding that the Gospel of Luke in its final form was rather later.
The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence. The day has gone by when the authenticity of these letters could be denied wholesale. There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (I and ~ Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul.' I accept them all as Pauline, but the remaining eight letters would by themselves be sufficient for our purpose, and it is from these that the main arguments are drawn in our later chapter on 'The Importance of Paul's Evidence'.
Ten of the letters which bear Paul's name belong to the period before the end of his Roman imprisonment.
These ten, in order of writing, may be dated as follows: Galatians, 48; I and 2 Thessalonians, 50; Philippians, 54; I and 2 Corinthians, 54-56; Romans, 57; Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, c. 60. The Pastoral Epistles, in their diction and historical atmosphere, contain signs of later date than the other Pauline Epistles, but this presents less difficulty to those who believe in a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome about the year 64, which was ended by his execution.' The Pastoral Epistle can then be dated c. 63-64, and the changed state of affairs in the Pauline churches to which they bear witness will have been due in part to the opportunity which Paul's earlier Roman imprisonment afforded to his opponents m these churches.
At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short. For in assessing the trustworthiness of ancient historical writings, one of the most important questions is: How soon after the events took place were they recorded ?
3. What is the evidence for their early existence? |
About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament,including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated m their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date…"
End of excerpt
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
T-Bone,
Do you think it's possible that F.F. Bruce has it backwards, and is in fact speaking quite "philosophically" from his presumptions, indeed more so than "historically"?
Example, from the outset of his rather "philosophical" discourse:
Okay - sounds impressive - but where does he provide the actual historical evidence to support this particular claim? (not so much a snippet of an Ante-Nicene patristic citation?) -He gives none, really, outside of his sweet, eloquent assurances to his largely target Bible-worshipping audience
that they have little to fear from those darn godless critical scholars.
Bruce, like Wierwille, Bullinger, and countless others, doesn't like to question - at least *too much* - those "presuppositions" concerning the "integrity" of the Bible which he worshipped.
He was unable to set aside his own philosophy to examine the obvious stylistic/grammatical/ historical issues which exist between the authentic Pauline material and the so-called Pastoral epistles.
And contrary to what he wished to believe himself, the issues raised by higher critics have been anything but entirely unfounded
or dismissed. In Bruce's case, - as with so many other fundamentalists- a great many things raised by critical scholars were and are simply ignored .
But alas - they're not.
We're not talking about Homer's "Illiad" or Aschylus' "Promethius Bound" - religious literature is a whole different animal,
subject to a whole different set of historical circumstances and situations, often involving power struggles and rivalries between
various movements within the same religion. Out of this emerged the writings comprising the NT as well as many other sacred scriptures.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
IMHO if we had only the gospels Christianity would look a lot different today. For better or for worse Paul was a pivotal figure, or at least whoever wrote the epistles attributed to him was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps. I sincerely wish that the teachings of Christ concerning fellow human beings treating one other with the utmost dignity and respect
had come to occupy exclusively the realm of ethics, rather than being padded with oddball and hairbrain religious superstitions concerning gods and demons
and heavens and hells, and the like.
Brings my mind to the title to a neighboring thread started by Sunesis, "The Basics of Christianity".
Lets get real- Christians will never reach a consensus on such "basics" as the state of the dead, or how many crucifed, of the infallibility of super holy books, or how many demons it takes to dance on the eyeball of a chalatan, or how many gods it takes to fit into your toaster, - in the grand scheme of things, it all seems such piddly nonsense.
But what if we all agreed to disagree, and to live by "Love your neighbor as your own self", and even "love your enemies"?
That's a helluva challenge to us all.
The world might well indeed be transformed if all strived to emphasise the edicts of Christ on treating one another well as
the "basic" of Christianity, relegating doctrines and myths and other assorted mumbo-jumbo to the back seat.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Seems Paul was busy breaking up fights.
Yet within the writings are some shining gems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Invisible Dan,
Concerning historical evidence Bruce refers to early Jewish writings – especially the Jewish Historian Josephus http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc09.htm
The Works of Josephus is a good read for anyone that enjoys ancient history and touches on noteworthy people and events in the Bible. I'm not here to defend Bruce – just responding to you asking what evidence he provides. He does list some books for further reading of which I've read a couple
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocbib.htm
I'm not hung up in trying to defend the "integrity" of the Bible – or that I could prove it's infallible by doctrinal or philosophical argument. My opinion on any Bible stuff is going to be biased for sure – I'm a Bible-believing Christian. My point in these posts has been – from the things I've read, I believe the New Testament documents are reliable in terms of historical and geographical references, who wrote them, when they wrote them and because of my Christian bias [philosophical presupposition] view them as doctrinally and philosophically harmonious with the Old Testament.
Like I said before - I guess it comes down to which scholars you refer to. I have The Commentary on the New Testament: Acts by R.C.H. Lenski, Speaking about the noted scholar Sir W.M. Ramsay, Lenski says on page 8, 9:
"Ramsay…started with the view that the Acts were of little value historically because, like John's Gospel, they had been written with an ulterior purpose. But in his Bearing of Recent Discovery, p.89, he confesses: "The more I have studied the narrative of Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about the Greco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions and organizations in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet and found it here."
End of excerpt
I am no longer a follower of the Bible-worshipping crowd like TWI. I think that produces a cold, lifeless, legalistic religion that prohibits God from intruding. I view the Bible as a means to connect with God. Nor do I think the Bible or my faith will fall apart if I'm wrong on how many were crucified with Jesus. Because I focus on the central figure of the crucifixion – Jesus! I agree with your sentiment that Christians should be more concerned about following the teachings of Jesus and not getting hung up on doctrinal differences.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Dannny said:
"Lets get real- Christians will never reach a consensus on such "basics" as the state of the dead, or how many crucifed, of the infallibility of super holy books, or how many demons it takes to dance on the eyeball of a chalatan, or how many gods it takes to fit into your toaster, - in the grand scheme of things, it all seems such piddly nonsense."
Indeed.
"But what if we all agreed to disagree, and to live by "Love your neighbor as your own self", and even "love your enemies"?
Far be it from me to get all touchy-feely, but you might have something there. I don't think the "let's kill everybody who doesn't agree with us" mantra is getting us anywhere...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yup, doctrines are sure used as such divisive things.. Yet, if it's not one's belief over gods, it will be over one's political party, or belief that abortion is wrong, or your country shouldn't be doing this or that, or you have no right to walk on my grass next to your house.. Religions and doctrinal differences that cause division and wars and hate go so much further.. And rarely is it because of the religion itself , only the front, as much as it is people who haven't learned to love one another, and respect each other as equals.. Oh wait, no I am superior cause I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIII....
And yet I find many groups that are very open to discussion and disagreement. Heck, in Jesus' day you had the Saduccees and Pharisees, and although they had rifts between the two, they still functioned together and did many things that you wouldn't even dream of seeing a Roman Catholic bishop and a Baptist clergy doing together..
It's always those who are so insecure that they hold onto their doctrine like it's either they have it or they die.. Sure, I believe in Christ. I consider His God, my God. And I serve them the best I know. But I'm not pushed by fear to believe what I believe, and therefore I am not scared of changing anything I know. I don't accept just anything, and those things I do, is only by careful consideration. And I haven't a problem hanging out with any of any group be it Christian or not. I learn from them all. Maybe I won't learn about the God I believe to serve, but I may learn other things. From a Hindu, how to be peaceful, from a Muslim, how to have a passion. And sometimes its how not to do things!
How not to be a suicide bomber! lol! But at the same time, I wouldn'throw out my belief and never speak of them. I have nothing to hide. Maybe some need to hide their ears else their world built around their belief will crumble but maybe it needed to!
Anyone been in a Jewish synagogue (guys only) and discuss the scriptures? They disagree on so many things, yet they peacefully discuss their beliefs and differences. Probably they learned from the days they killed themselves off! lol..
Anyways.. I'm just wasting thread space.. Maybe even without a point.. Love.. Yeah, get back to living that in everything..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.