A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I am just waiting for the wave that brings the time machine to the table.
I just want a 1985 sports alamac.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am just waiting for the wave that brings the time machine to the table.
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.
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.
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:
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.
He hasn't thoughtfully read Paul's letters.
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.
He's mistaking Bauer's argument concerning gnosticism with Paul in general.
Or rather, Freke and Gandy (logician's source), who actually don't even cite Bauer, are mistaking this view of early christianity.
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.
If Paul knew anything about the historical Jesus, he never mentions it. You would think it would be important.
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.
Not that you ever had a meaningful contribution.
Not only have we covered this personally ad nauseum, but this thread which we've resurrected to no discernible end has as well.
Not that you ever had a meaningful contribution.
Moving on.....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? ), 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,
Hello!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? ), 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,
I can feel it Badger......it's coming on.......a hj thread.Hello!
It's meeeeee!
Now let's ask ourselves...... 'Who re-starts the personal insults on HJ threads?'
But you're lovely! I like you! You're fun! You make me smile! View attachment 8303