Julian

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

TedM

Yes, this is consistent with orthodox views about a second coming, and originates from expectations for the Messiah which arise from Messianic passages in Isaiah and elsewhere in the OT. The 'everything' in this case is the final judgement of evildoers, and the setting up of God's kindgdom which would rule forever.

Where's the evidence of that? The fact that Paul doesn't say "second" coming is not particularly a strong point, as I've stated this is the same language found in the synoptics, which clearly present Jesus as being on earth. It also doesn't help your view regarding Paul's 'vision' and your view that he appeared in visions to Peter, James, the twelve, the other apostles and the 500 since that would qualify as a 'first' appearance so powerful as to set up a high expectation for an imminent return, would it not?

Why should the the trump sound when his Savior was crucified and is no longer on earth? To Paul, the ultimate victory is yet to come with the life in heaven which follows this one.

ted

dongiovanni1976x

1 Corinthians 15:9 "For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
Galatians 1:13 "You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it."

dongiovanni1976x

Why do you believe that Paul did not think Jesus was hear before, if he said that Jesus died and was buried and rose three days later? Doesn't death imply that Jesus was here already?
And why does he say that Jesus appeared to Peter, the twelve and over five hundred others, including himself, AFTER his (Christ's) death? (1 Cor 15:4-8)
What is YOUR reason for believing that Paul thought Jesus had never been back after his death?
Are you suggesting that he did NOT think that Jesus appeared to the 500? What are you saying?

TedM

It's hard to believe that this thread has gone on as long as it has without Clive answering these questions. Clive, aren't you a supporter of Doherty's thesis that Paul was writing about a crucifixion in 'another sphere' other than earth? Isn't this thread here to explore one of Doherty's Top 20 points, which you ALSO got from HIM?

ted

Toto

A reasonable case can be made that this section is a later interpolation, and was not written in the first century.
(Essay by Robert M. Price.) Why do you assume that Paul actually wrote this?

Clivedurdle

I thought I had answered that here!

There are several major issues here. The Jesus recorded in the Gospels does not obviously say he and Christ are the same! There are a range of responses! They are ambiguous.

The vast majority of biblical studies assume a jesus but are unclear about which one they are assuming! This means there arguments start with that presumption. Try a thought experiment, for example with Toto's link above. Ask what differences happen to the arguments if you start with an MJ? As I see it a whole different set of assumptions about who said what and why and who might have interpolated something occurs.

I have come to my views separately to Doherty about this.

I think there are real problems that when ancient writers talk of life and death, earth and heaven etc THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS AS WE ARE!

Any word has a set of meanings that links to it. When we think air we think gas, molecules, oxygen nitrogen etc.

When the ancients spoke of air they had none of the above concepts - they thought breath, life, spirit. (ALCHEMY!)

When they brought together their understanding they got utterly alien results - like the belief in the eucharist - wine into blood - water into wine are possible miracles in their world view, not because God can do the impossible, but because that sort of thing - like walking on water - was also possible in their belief system. They believed the dead could be raised, the blind made to see.


We can now resuscitate someone who has been under freezing water for half an hour! We can transplant hearts!

We understand these miracles are impossible, but then they thought they were not that miraculous - they were signs and portents - unlikely but in the realm of the possible!

Toto's link comments that some commentators have stated Paul was writing "gnostically" in a sort of ironic fashion.

I go for the simple solution - he was writing gnostically! Once you accept we are talking secret knowledge, "I was taken up to the third heaven" stuff it is sensible not to reject this stuff but look at it carefully from his worldview!

There is no need to see the 500 as an addition if you accept that the only way anyone could see the risen christ was via a vision! Then no problem, loads of people have visions all the time!

There is a real problem that Paul did not meet a living human called Jesus and the way he talks of himself as equal to the apostles contradicts any concept that those who knew this living breathing Jesus.

He had visions. It seems he thought god was continuously telling him things.

At the alleged crucifiction there are events that if true should have been recorded - veil of the temple rent, earthquake, darkness, dead rising.

Knowing Paul's gnostic leanings, I see Paul clearly expecting the first coming of Christ.

TedM

What is his worldview, and where is your evidence to support it?

He is protesting against OTHER'S who said he WASN'T equal to the apostles, and Paul himself said he laid out his gospel before Peter, James and John "lest I had been running in vain". There is SOME reason that others and Paul perceived that those apostles may have had a more accurate understanding than Paul. Having known Jesus personally is a good possibility. What other one do you see?

So do certain orthodox Christians.

They were recorded! Actually, a crucifixion could have occurred WITHOUT these other events, so this argument against an earthly crucifixion is insufficient by itself.

Knowing Paul's clear references to a man who had already come, I see Paul clearly expecting a second coming in order to fulfill the rest of OT Messianic prophecy, since to Paul the first coming would have only fulfilled part of it. I still wonder..why weren't the first appearances in visions to Paul and others considered the first coming?

ted

Clivedurdle

Pagels - Gnostic Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk). (Read the introductory pages reproduced on Amazon.)

judge

If it is a later interpolation then how is it that all copies get changed.

Obviously at this later point the one who changes the text does not have access to all texts.