spin

Next you'll be saying that as Paul didn't invent the word "christ" his messianic revelation must be derivative.


spin

spin

It's premature to talk of christian theology at the time of Paul's writing.


spin

Amaleq13

He was reminding them of how they came to accept Paul's preaching, yes.

"What happened to you guys? Who has tricked you into rejecting what you once believed after I described the crucifixion of Christ to you?"

aa5874

It is just not tenable that Paul could have preached a gospel within a few years of the death an historical or figurative Jesus. He would have been fodder for the skeptics, fodder for the Jews.

During the 1st century, Judaea was under the rule of the Roman Empire, Paul's, or even Peter's gospel is of no use to a Jew while the Jewish Temple is still in active use.

The Jews already had a process established for hundred of years for atonement of sins. The historical or figurative Jesus is of no benefit for a Jew, he knows already how to get his sins forgiven. The Laws are already written and circulated presumed to have been laid down by the God of the Jews.

The Jews needed to be delivered from Roman rule, from paying taxes to the Roman Empire, from deciding their high priests, and from being forced to worship or honor the Caesars. Jesus, with whatever "flesh", did not deliver.

And with the outrageous features that Jesus was a God, who was resurrected and ascended to heaven, and must be worshipped by Jews to be saved from their sins with the Temple was still standing, both Paul and Peter would have probably been found dead, the very first day they made their claim public, whether or not Jesus had "flesh".

Doug Shaver

But did he ever write it? More to my point, has any Christian since Paul ever written anything of that sort? And if Paul is the only Christian who ever said "I received my gospel from no man," maybe that's because no man before him had ever preached his gospel?

GakuseiDon

No, but he makes it clear that the gospel message he is now teaching, i.e. his "Gospel of Inclusion", was received via revelation and studying the scriptures.

I would say that, while we can't assume it, it is a reasonable assumption. (Though conversely, Pearson is not the first one to preach universalism, even though he now preaches it after a received revelation.)

aa5874

But, there was no Gospel of Exclusion. Acts of the Apostles claimed that when the day of Pentecost had come the Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost and was preaching a Gospel of Inclusion a Universal Gospel long before Saul/Paul was converted by a bright light that blinded him to reality.

The words of Peter in Acts 2.21 And Acts 15.7-8 Peter was already preaching the Gospel of Inclusion and even had converts who were filled with the Holy Ghost.

There is something radically wrong or contradictory about Paul's revelations. Paul is late with his revelations, Peter was already filled with the Holy Ghost of God.

Doug Shaver

Christians have been writing stuff for almost 2,000 years. Except for the stuff that didn't get preserved, there is no need to assume anything. It can be empirically determined whether any extant document records any Christian's claim to have learned his or her gospel from "no man."

And we know that because we have documentation of universalism being preached before Pearson's time. There is no documentation for whatever it was that pre-Pauline Christians believed.

aa5874

Now, if Jesus of Nazareth did really exist as just human, then the entire NT and church writers provided completely erroneous information about him from prophecies to ascension.

And, what is even more alarming, is that these church writers branded those who claim Jesus was only human as liars and deceivers of the devil.

If Jesus was only human, and was known by people of antiquity to be only human, that is, people of antiquity knew his mother and father, interacted with Jesus as a child, scolded him and played with him, saw him grow up to be an adult and knew he did not do anything supernatural, why did these very same people of antiquity worship him as a God, and did not worship his disciples as Gods also?

Why did not people of antiquity worship Peter as a God or Paul, why just Jesus, if he was only human?

If Peter, James, Stephen, Paul and Jesus were just humans preaching the gospel, and ALL of them were crucified or executed, why was Jesus singled out to be called a God, and was worshipped as a God who could forgive the sins of the Jews and Gentiles, violate the Sabbath and call the Pharisees agents of the devil?

Jesus was only in Judaea, Peter and Paul did more evangelical work than Jesus, they were all over the Roman Empire and had thousands of converts and started many churches, Paul and Peter were crucified or executed for the gospel.

How come they are not regarded as Gods?

Because only Jesus was a God. He existed before the world was created.

spin

The text is actually saying:

"Who has tricked you into rejecting what you once believed", namely christ crucified. "It was before your eyes that christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!... Did you receive the spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?"


spin