Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-10-2013, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. [1 Corinthians 9:1]

This seems to have been taken to mean by Tertullian as Paul having witnessed Jesus in the flesh (?):

Quote:

For although the Word was God, yet he was <God> in the presence of God, because he was God from God, because he was along with the Father, in the Father's presence. And we beheld his glory, <the glory> as of the only-begotten of the Father 1 - evidently of course the glory of the visible Son, glorified by the invisible Father. And consequently, because he had said that the Word of God was God, so as not to assist our adversaries' assumption as that he had seen the Father himself, but so as to distinguish between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he adds of superfluity, No one hath seen God at any time.2 Which God? The Word? Nay but, it was said before, We have seen and heard and handled, of the Word of life.3 But which God? Evidently the Father, in whose presence the Word, the only-begotten Son, who himself hath declared the bosom 4 of the Father, was God. He himself was both heard and seen, and lest he should be taken for a phantom was even handled. Him also Paul had sight of, yet he saw not the Father. Have I not, he says, seen Jesus? But he also has applied to Christ the name of God: Whose are the fathers, and out of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever 6. He also presents as visible the Son of God, that is, the Word of God because he who was made flesh is called Christ.7 But of the Father <he says> to Timothy, Whom no man hath seen nor can see 8 : and he piles it up even more, Who alone hath immortality and dwelleth in light unapproachable 9 : and of him he had previously said, To the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,9 so that to the Son we might ourselves also ascribe the contrary, mortality and approachability. Him also he testifies to have died according to the scriptures, and to have been seen of himself last of all 10 - evidently by means of approachable light: though even that he did not. experience without danger to his sight,11 as neither did Peter and John and James without danger to their reason and without astonishment,l2 and if they had seen, not the glory of the Son who was to suffer, but the Father, I think they would have died on the spot: for no one will see God and live. As this is so, our case stands, that from the beginning he always was seen who was seen at the end, and that he was not [Against Praxeas 16]

jgreen44 · 06-10-2013, 10:15 AM

But Paul describes the Jesus he met as being a talking light on the highway.

Toto · 06-10-2013, 10:29 AM

Paul also wrote that Jesus "appeared" to him. This is generally assumed to be a spiritual appearance, which the Book of Acts dramatizes as Jesus appearing post resurrection and knocking Saul/Paul off his horse with a blinding light.

Tertullian's passage reads like a word salad of Christian beliefs - Jesus is god, but appeared in the flesh, and people saw him, but no one can see God and live. Therefore the trinity. :huh:

aa5874 · 06-10-2013, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Paul also wrote that Jesus "appeared" to him. This is generally assumed to be a spiritual appearance, which the Book of Acts dramatizes as Jesus appearing post resurrection and knocking Saul/Paul off his horse with a blinding light.

Tertullian's passage reads like a word salad of Christian beliefs - Jesus is god, but appeared in the flesh, and people saw him, but no one can see God and live. Therefore the trinity. :huh:

The author of Acts did not claim at all that Saul/Paul saw Jesus.

Please see Acts 9.

Paul heard a voice but did NOT see Jesus in Acts.

It is extremely important to show that it is repeated THREE times in Acts that Saul/Paul HEARD a voice but saw NO-ONE.

1. Acts 9.3-4 KJV

Quote:

And as he journeyed , he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

2. Acts 22:7 KJV

Quote:

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 26:14 KJV

Quote:

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Again, we have evidence that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline letters.

Three times it is stated that Saul/Paul only HEARD a voice but in 1 Cor.15 it is claimed that Paul was a witness of God for the resurrection of Jesus and was seen by the resurrected Son of God.

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 06:58 AM

AA, why do you not consider an alternative, i.e. that the epistles and Acts were written as part of a pre-conceived SET, and therefore there would be no need to consider that the author of Acts did not know of the epistles? In other words, as a SET of texts, the author(s) expected the reader to be informed by all the texts which complemented one another. You have one interpretation for the absence of mention of the epistles in Acts, but there is an alternative.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, why do you not consider an alternative, i.e. that the epistles and Acts were written as part of a pre-conceived SET, and therefore there would be no need to consider that the author of Acts did not know of the epistles? In other words, as a SET of texts, the author(s) expected the reader to be informed by all the texts which complemented one another. You have one interpretation for the absence of mention of the epistles in Acts, but there is an alternative.

Why do you not consider an alternative to your preconceived idea when you have no supporting evidence?

It is impossible for me to argue your imaginative position when you have not ever produce supporting evidence from antiquity.

I no longer accept imagination as an alternative. I absolutely must see your supporting evidence from antiquity in BLACK and WHITE.

This is BC&H--Not Sunday School.

The author of Acts shows no indication that he was aware of Pauline writings where it is claimed Paul SAW the resurrected Jesus.

The author of Acts repeated THREE times that Saul/Paul HEARD a voice.

jgreen44 · 06-11-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, we have evidence that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline letters.

This evidence is also evidence that the author of the Pauline letters did not know of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Three times it is stated that Saul/Paul only HEARD a voice but in 1 Cor.15 it is claimed that Paul was a witness of God for the resurrection of Jesus and was seen by the resurrected Son of God.

But in Galatians 1 it is claimed that the risen Jesus was "revealed" in Paul.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,

Perhaps Paul considered the talking light to be Jesus. As such, Jesus was revealed in Paul. As such, Jesus "appeared" to Paul in 1 Cor 15.

outhouse · 06-11-2013, 09:33 AM

A batter translation used by Reed is this way.

"Paul had a feeling from within" basically a change of heart, emotion.

Paul never mentions any light, that's the author of Acts building divinity and excitement trying to get readers to keep flipping pages.

outhouse · 06-11-2013, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, why do you not consider an alternative, i.e. that the epistles and Acts were written as part of a pre-conceived SET, and therefore there would be no need to consider that the author of Acts did not know of the epistles? In other words, as a SET of texts, the author(s) expected the reader to be informed by all the texts which complemented one another. You have one interpretation for the absence of mention of the epistles in Acts, but there is an alternative.

He is right when he claims they are separate works from one another.

Each independent, less the oral traditions that the unknown author of Gluke and Acts was using to reconstruct his Paul. There were stories of Paul floating around. Gluke used these legends and mythology.

The same way we see Acts pervert Paul, is the same way we see all the authors pervert Jesus life.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, we have evidence that the author of Acts did not know of the Pauline letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

This evidence is also evidence that the author of the Pauline letters did not know of Acts.

What you say have zero effect on my argument because there is no mention whatsoever of the Pauline Corpus or the Pauline Revealed Gospel in Acts.

In fact, it is stated in Acts 15 that it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters and gave them to the Pauline group.

And further up to the time of Festus, procurator of Judea c 59-62 CE there is no mention of Pauline letters or any intention by Paul to write letters to Churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Three times it is stated that Saul/Paul only HEARD a voice but in 1 Cor.15 it is claimed that Paul was a witness of God for the resurrection of Jesus and was seen by the resurrected Son of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

...But in Galatians 1 it is claimed that the risen Jesus was "revealed" in Paul.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,

Perhaps Paul considered the talking light to be Jesus. As such, Jesus was revealed in Paul. As such, Jesus "appeared" to Paul in 1 Cor 15.

I do not accept what you imagine as evidence. I no longer accept "perhaps" and "maybe" as evidence from antiquity.

The author of Acts made SPECIFIC claims.

In Acts it is claimed Saul/Paul was blinded and that Saul/Paul SAW ANANIAS in a vision--NOT Jesus.

Acts 9

Quote:

10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said , Behold , I am here, Lord.

11And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold , he prayeth ,12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in , and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight...

The author of Acts did NOT know of the Pauline Corpus because he claimed that the Blinded Paul SAW ANANIAS in a vision.

Saul/Paul did CONSULT with Flesh and blood in Acts 9--Ananias and the disciples in Damascus.

Acts 9

Quote:

..... Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

The author of Acts knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2013, 10:15 AM	#2
jgreen44 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: About 120 miles away from aa5874 Posts: 268	But Paul describes the Jesus he met as being a talking light on the highway.

06-10-2013, 10:29 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Paul also wrote that Jesus "appeared" to him. This is generally assumed to be a spiritual appearance, which the Book of Acts dramatizes as Jesus appearing post resurrection and knocking Saul/Paul off his horse with a blinding light. Tertullian's passage reads like a word salad of Christian beliefs - Jesus is god, but appeared in the flesh, and people saw him, but no one can see God and live. Therefore the trinity. :huh:

06-11-2013, 06:58 AM	#5
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	AA, why do you not consider an alternative, i.e. that the epistles and Acts were written as part of a pre-conceived SET, and therefore there would be no need to consider that the author of Acts did not know of the epistles? In other words, as a SET of texts, the author(s) expected the reader to be informed by all the texts which complemented one another. You have one interpretation for the absence of mention of the epistles in Acts, but there is an alternative.

06-11-2013, 09:33 AM	#8
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	A batter translation used by Reed is this way. "Paul had a feeling from within" basically a change of heart, emotion. Paul never mentions any light, that's the author of Acts building divinity and excitement trying to get readers to keep flipping pages.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.