• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Paul know anything about the historical Jesus?

Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
angellous_evangellous said:
I'm very sorry that I was too concise in my first post.

And for the time being I'll have to answer from memory... it seems to me that most Pauline scholars (at least I feel that way after reading a lot) think that Paul's understanding of Jesus is almost exclusively the resurrected Lord (as opposed to the historical Jesus).

Now if Paul did visit with Peter and receive some teachings of Jesus - which is evidenced by at least two things that I recall: Paul's teaching on divorce and Paul's recounting of the Last Supper. There may be one or two more, but I see Paul focusing more on developing his theology than the historical Jesus. And, if Peter did give Paul some traditions, that doesn't mean that the historical Jesus is accurately represented - so while Paul has some traditions, he may not "know of the historical Jesus" because either the tradition is imprecise or he misinterprets it.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between knowing the historical Jesus and understanding Him. Pilot knew the historical Jesus but found him inscruatable. The Pharisees knew the historical Jesus but their lack of understanding is nothing short of phenomenal as though they simply put blinders on.

I can see where scholars would take this view of Paul knowing the historical pre-resurrected Jesus since he never mentions meeting Him before his Damascus Road encounter.

Although Paul doesn't say anything about meeting Jesus he does mention the fact that Jesus was the news of the day. He tells Felix that he should know all about it because things wre not done privately (in a corner) but publically. It is safe to assume that Paul, since he was studying with Gamaliel, was in Jerusalem when the crucifixion and resurrection took place. Howeever the likelihood is that he heard the Pharisaical account not the Christian account first. Chances are that he was told that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy and his body stolen by His disciples.
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Muffled said:
There is a huge difference between knowing the historical Jesus and understanding Him. Pilot knew the historical Jesus but found him inscruatable. The Pharisees knew the historical Jesus but their lack of understanding is nothing short of phenomenal as though they simply put blinders on.

I can see where scholars would take this view of Paul knowing the historical pre-resurrected Jesus since he never mentions meeting Him before his Damascus Road encounter.

Although Paul doesn't say anything about meeting Jesus he does mention the fact that Jesus was the news of the day. He tells Felix that he should know all about it because things wre not done privately (in a corner) but publically. It is safe to assume that Paul, since he was studying with Gamaliel, was in Jerusalem when the crucifixion and resurrection took place. Howeever the likelihood is that he heard the Pharisaical account not the Christian account first. Chances are that he was told that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy and his body stolen by His disciples.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in any of Paul's LEGIT writings does he even act like he heard of a Jesus, Paul was very likely a gnostic, a believer in a spiritual Christ only.:thud:
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
logician said:
Nowhere in any of Paul's LEGIT writings does he even act like he heard of a Jesus, Paul was very likely a gnostic, a believer in a spiritual Christ only.:thud:
Click to expand...

Hence the talks about Jesus eating, being born according to the flesh, having a brother, etc. But we've been over this. You read a book by two nobodies and ignore any actual scholarship. None so blind as those that will not see.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Oberon said:
Hence the talks about Jesus eating, being born according to the flesh, having a brother, etc. But we've been over this. You read a book by two nobodies and ignore any actual scholarship. None so blind as those that will not see.
Click to expand...

He hasn't thoughtfully read Paul's letters.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Oberon said:
I don't think he has actually read Paul's letters. Actually, I don't think he really has an idea about what "gnostic" refers to. But hey to each their own.
Click to expand...

He's mistaking Bauer's argument concerning gnosticism with Paul in general.

The logic is this: the majority of the earliest Christians were most likely gnostic, therefore Paul must have been gnostic - even though there's very little [if any] gnosticism in Paul's letters.

The flaw in this thinking is that logician has no grasp of what gnosticism was, what their writings contain, and the substance of the NT. This is where reading the original material is useful.:D
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Oberon said:
Or rather, Freke and Gandy (logician's source), who actually don't even cite Bauer, are mistaking this view of early christianity.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that. I read the Jesus Mysteries quite a while back - maybe three years ago or longer. It can't even pass as a good comic book.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
Maybe he forgot. being chased by his fellow Jews, getting stoned, being in jail, ship wrecked, the poor guy had a lot going on.
 
Prophet

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
Bunyip said:
If Paul knew anything about the historical Jesus, he never mentions it. You would think it would be important.
Click to expand...

Not only have we covered this personally ad nauseum, but this thread which we've resurrected to no discernible end has as well.

Oberon said:
Hence the talks about Jesus eating, being born according to the flesh, having a brother, etc. But we've been over this. You read a book by two nobodies and ignore any actual scholarship. None so blind as those that will not see.
Click to expand...
 
InChrist

InChrist

Free4ever
I'd say Paul knew Jesus Christ extremely well...

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. Philippians 3:8
 
Prophet

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
Bunyip said:
Not that you ever had a meaningful contribution.
Click to expand...

If I have offered nothing, you offer less than nothing, what with your evidently fake credentials (Are you an historian today? Or perhaps today you are an expert on ancient espionage? :p), your denials that one can have a human brother without being human himself, your refusals to understand what "contemporaneous" means, and your constant drive to strike evidence from the record by erroneously equating the means by which we admit evidence regarding ancient history with court of law,
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Prophet said:
If I have offered nothing, you offer less than nothing, what with your evidently fake credentials (Are you an historian today? Or perhaps today you are an expert on ancient espionage? :p), your denials that one can have a human brother without being human himself, your refusals to understand what "contemporaneous" means, and your constant drive to strike evidence from the record by erroneously equating the means by which we admit evidence regarding ancient history with court of law,
Click to expand...
Moving on.....
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Prophet said:
If I have offered nothing, you offer less than nothing, what with your evidently fake credentials (Are you an historian today? Or perhaps today you are an expert on ancient espionage? :p), your denials that one can have a human brother without being human himself, your refusals to understand what "contemporaneous" means, and your constant drive to strike evidence from the record by erroneously equating the means by which we admit evidence regarding ancient history with court of law,
Click to expand...
Hello! :D
It's meeeeee! :D
Now let's ask ourselves...... 'Who re-starts the personal insults on HJ threads?' :p
But you're lovely! I like you! You're fun! You make me smile!
biglaugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top