aa5874

And it is that TONE and his Egocentricity that may allow one to come to the realisation that Paul was not from the 1st century at all.

The writers called Paul with the author of Acts of the Apostles are not likely to be witnesses of historical events with respect to Jesus or his supposed disciples, it would appear that they were invented for the fraudulent record called "Church History."

Solo

That is what the P-Cs maintain.

Peter (in the P-Cs) does not claim he has gnosis or instructions of the risen Lord. He walked and talked with Jesus when Jesus was alive.

Paul's letters never mention 'a lightning' even though he does transparently describe his Christ 'conversion' ecstasy in 2 Cor 12:2 - 4:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

Paul obviously is 'this man' and appears to convey that he (his ego) was not in possession of his self while in the ecstatic state. Be it as it may, Paul blows the cover in v.7 where he simply switches to first person singular.

So, the bolt of lightning that strikes Paul in the Acts, actually contradicts Paul himself, in that Paul describes the experience as hugely pleasurable (at first), while in the Acts the encounter with skylight Jesus bent on having his due from the nasty, self-righteous little prick kicking against his associates (, I hope that's right), is anything but. Saul is pressed into service under extraordinary duress, with an implied threat of being permanently maimed and/or starved to death.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Although there are problems and obscurities with Pauline chronology I have difficulties with Paul having been converted only 14 years before writing 2 Corinthians. I think chapter 12 is describing something that happened a few years after Paul's conversion.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

I suspect you have difficulties because you want to trust a chronology which places the whole 2 Corinthians later than 14 years after Paul's conversion. But as I am sure you are aware some scholars hold that 2 Corinthians is actually composed of two or more compositions and the "severe letter" (chapters 10-13) may actually have been written on another occasion before the generally affectionate passages of chapters 1-9. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia allows that the opinion of two separate letters for 2 Corinthians does not argue against the church doctrine of inspiration, though naturally it is not a view it favours.

For my part, I feel quite comfortable with the position that 2 Cr 12 describes Paul's inaugural 'conversion' ecstasy. The context of the passage is Paul's standing vis-a-vis the 'superlative' apostles and therefore one would expect him to defend his credentials with the best gnosis he has. It is hard for me to imagine that Paul believed God called him διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (through his grace) and revealed his Son in him (Gal 1:15) without granting that the 'conversion' experience was a singular event in Paul's life, one, a) unlikely to be held back in reserve by Paul when cutting down to size the spiritually inferior visionaries poaching in his Corinthian flock, and b) unlikely to have been construed by Paul to cover up the road-to-Damascus assault and humiliation he suffered by the hand of his new acquaintance.

Jiri