aa5874

The Pauline writer did NOT ignore the Great Commission in the Gospels because in the Jesus stories Paul was NOT present when Jesus visited the disciples.

The Pauline writer was COMMISSIONED by God through the Revelation of the resurrected Jesus to Preach to the Heathen when he was a Persecutor of the Church of God.

In effect, the Pauline writer was COMMISIONED or Called at a LATER time than the Apostles BEFORE him.

Galatians 1 The Pauline letters attempted to explain HOW Paul was Called to preach the Gospel to the Heathen and NEVER claimed that Paul was called before those before him.

Galatians 1 The Pauline writer attempted to claim he was the LAST to be called by God to PREACH the Gospel.

1 Cor.15

Sheshbazzar

Makes one wonder in what kind of condition all of those risen cadavers in Matthew 27:52-53 were in?

Duvduv

Yes, I was wondering the same thing.

Duvduv

The didactic sermon interpolated into 1 Corinthians as chapter 15 must have filled in the gaps and answered questions for folks who were joining the 4th century church movement. In fact, my impression is that much of the epistles is nothing more than sermons to teach people ideas dressed up in the form of letters written by "Paul" way back in the 1st century.

But speaking of 1 Corinthians 15 I note that there is no distinction at all between the perception of Paul of Christ and the other apostles and disciples. Of course there is no indication that Jesus had holes in his hands or side, but there is no mention that PAUL'S perception was of the RISEN Christ as a spiritual being versus the others who saw him resurrected into a physical body.

In other words, he is included with everyone else who was around after the crucifixion even if he was the last. The language concerning Paul makes no distinction at all. So the reader doesn't know who saw the physically resurrect Jesus and who saw the risen spiritual being later.

What did the term "abnormally born" mean? It certainly didn't shed any light on how his encounter with the Christ differed from anyone else's.

For that matter, with SO MANY apostles and disciples around HOW IS IT that there is no mention in either Acts or the epistles of what Paul knew about Jesus before or right after the crucifixion in Judea? Surely this gaping hole was noticed by the earliest literate Christians.

Of course there is a partial answer, if Paul were to describe anything about his life in the period of Jesus's ministry the natural question would be: How and why did Paul avoid encountering Jesus then?

And that would have affected what the risen Christ would have said in the revelation and required too many changes and revisions to the story.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Sheshbazzar

You seem to be missing my point. 'Paul' (or his 'Pseudo-'Paul' ghost writers) make the claim that 'Paul' holds an exclusive authority and comission to preach the Gospel to the gentiles.
And that the Jerusalem Apostles -who were directly commissioned to preach the Gospel, to;
and;
and;
The "their" and "you" being referenced in these passages, are the then present Jerusalem Apostles who were the first hand 'witnesses' to these things', and whom were explicitly directed to preach the gospel to "ALL NATIONS" and "INTO ALL THE WORLD" and "AMONG ALL NATIONS" ('Nations' here being identical in meaning to 'Gentiles')

Now come these latter 'Paul' and pseudo-'Pauline' bogus writings (which you yourself proclaim to be lies) that attempt to restrict these originally Commissioned Apostles to a ministry that is to be limited to only preaching to Jews, those "of the circumcision", while allowing 'Paul' to cop a claim to be exclusively THE Apostle to the Nations ('gentiles') Thus effectively handing over 99% of all of humanity to the 'Paulinian' faction while hobbling all of the original Apostles and their converts to preaching only to Jews.
Now, according to 'Paul' and his 'Paulinians', Peter and the Jerusalem Apostles are to be Apostles to the Jews, and not to "ALL NATIONS", "ALL THE WORLD" or "AMONG ALL NATIONS beginning at Jerusalem."

That is certainly not what these original ELEVEN Apostles were explicitly directed to do by their Commander in Chief, in spite of what "Paul', the 'Pseudo-'Paul's' and continuators might claim.

Duvduv

AA doesn't understand the contradiction of how the apostles such as Peter et al could only be preaching to Jews when the GC told them to go to all the nations, which itself contradicts the calling of Paul.
Anyway, take a look at my last posting. I'll be interested in your comments, Shesh.

Sheshbazzar

I tend to concur with this impression.


Well the Gospels are quite clear that the original Apostles and disciples walked with, talked with, ate with, and worshiped with a flesh and blood Teacher, and were allegedly 'witnesses' to the existence, and to the words, and actions of such a living person.

Paul, however by his own admissions, falls into a different category. His first encounter with Jebus allegedly being only seeing a blindingly bright light, and a disembodied voice speaking to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-9, 22:5-11, 26:13-19)

As to whether 'Paul' ever actually at any time ever beheld any actual figure of a human shaped christ/messiah god/man, his other scattered statements remain quite ambiguous as to the circumstances of just where, when and under what circumstances any of these other alleged encounters may have took place.
Notice that in his speech to Agrippa, he does not go beyond his profession of the Damascus incident, where he saw no man.
He does not even attempt to claim that Jebus has came and spoke to him again just a year ago, or just last month, or last week, or last night.
Or that he 'talks' to him daily in dreams and visions. Nope. Just he recites that old Damascus shtick.
Throughout the Epistles he remains very elusive as to when or where or upon what occasion(s) or under what circumstances it is that Jebus is allegedly 'downloading' all of that extensive 'Pauline Doctrine' that is not at all evident within that short conversation on the road to Damascus.

Make of it what you will.

I think it is mostly nothing more than church fabricated crap, and that if there ever was a real Saul ne 'Paul of Tarsus', he wouldn't recognize or endorse even one tenth of this fabricated horse-shit that has been attributed to him.

aa5874

What you say is completely in error.

The contradictory claim by the Pauline writer does NOT show that the Pauline letters predate the Jesus story.

Duvduv

So WHAT does it show then??

aa5874

The Gospels are QUITE clear that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator that WALKED on water, Transfigured, Resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Such a character is NOT human and could NOT have been an actual living person.

Please, examine Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.48, and Mark 9.2

In Galatians 1.1-12-the writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being and that he did NOT get his gospel from any man.

This is compatible with the Gospel, It was a RESURRECTED dead that AUTHORIZED preaching of the Gospel.

No such story can be found in the short-ending gMark.