Diogenes the Cynic

This is probably your strongest argument for a pre-Pauline appearance tradition but it still does not negate the fact that Paul claims he did not learn it from any man.
He makes the claim that he received his info directly from Jesus (and explicitly denies that he learned it from any man) in the Galatians passage that I quoted above. Did you read it? Here it is again:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Because that would still have meant that he acquired his information from other people. Something Paul explicitly denied in Galatians.

Zeichman

Which, in fact, he does not do here. Nor have you attempted to resolve this enormous problem in any way.

But again, he does not deny this TO THE CORINTHIANS, nay, your interpretation is imcompatible with what he says in 1 Cor 15. I'm not sure which of Paul's correspondences with the Corinthians 1 Cor 15 is attributed to, but it is quite clear in Galatians that Paul, who is already known for using hyperbole, is having large problems with his authority ("I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one having called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to another gospel..." [1:6]). If you're also going to try to convince me that Paul never exaggerates, uses hyperbole, or said different things to different people, then you've got a lot to argue against. Is there any reason why THE CORINTHIANS would have needed to think that Paul had only recieved this via divine revelation?

That Paul knew nothing from the Christ cults he persecuted is inconcievable, unless you're going to assume some sort of fundamentalist inerrancy of the Galatians epistle. Which seems more likely, that someone with problems of authority would use hyperbole to show that he is at least equal with "the troublers" of the Galatians, or that he remained in an entire vacuum when persecuting the early Church, despite strong evidence otherwise in 1 Cor 15?

Besides, all he's saying is that the content of his preaching was not learned from anyone else, not that he was totally unfamiliar with Jesus. I don't doubt that Paul's gospel originated with him.

Also, patronizingly posting the same thing in a larger, brighter text is not especially helpful unless accompanied by counterarguments. Please do me the respect of not turning this into a shouting match and I'll do likewise.

Diogenes the Cynic

The reason is because he said so in Galatians and because he said nothing counter to that in Corinthians. Are you suggesting that Paul used different definitions of his "gospel" for different audiences?

Paul's claim that he recieved his gospel directly from Jesus and that he did not learn it from people cannot be dismissed as "hyperbole." It's a straight up claim of divine revelation, it's not an exaggeration of anything.
What evidence is there outside of Acts that Paul actually persecuted any Christ cults (I know he makes a vague claim about "persecuting the Church" in Phillipians but it sounds kind of figurative in context)? Moreover, what evidence is there that Paul's version of Christianity had any relationship to the cults he allegedly persecuted?
Again, I see nothing hyperbolic in his Galatians claim. It sounds like a pretty literal claim to me and it's a claim he never refutes or contradicts in any of his other letters.
Well the content of his preaching is exactly what we're discussing. He claims he got ALL of it from personal revelation. While there probably was some kind of Jesus movement before Paul, we simply can't consider Paul to be a reliable source as to what traditions or beliefs preceded him since he was so willing to supplement those traditions with messages recieved from the bugs in his brain as well as his own liberal interpretations of scripture.
I posted it in larger letters because you did not offer any response to it the first time I posted it.

Chunk

I dont pretend to know anywhere near as much as everyone else here at IIDB. However, i have done a bit of reading and I am fairly unbiased in terms of Christian/Non Christians. I have no real stance on anything, so I dont really care about defending one point of view over another.

With that said, I have found my self taking the Christian and HJ side more often than not, because most people here and Non Christian and MJers. This way I get to see both arguements.

Anyway, on to something more relevant.

Why cant it be true that Paul knew a small bit about the Christian movement from his time persecuting them? AND that he was converted to Christianity through what he thought was an encounter with Jesus AND that he then visited the apostles and filled in the gaps in his knowledge.

To me, this makes most sense. This way, he can (and does) refer to his conversion as the point at which he got his "gospel". I.e. the message of Jesus being the messiah/saviour:

Galatians 1:11

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-16

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles

And Paul can still then make reference to the parts he was taught by the Apostles. I think this would be the appearences and possibly things about the life of Jesus too:

1 Corinthians 15:3-11

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

If you dont believe that his conversion by Jesus was real, the things he learnt through his persecutions could explain the "experience" he had. Maybe he knew enough to have that "experience".

Obviously, this shows Paul is using the truth in a way to try and convert people to his way of thinking. He isnt lieing, hes using what best suites his argument. Is this such a supprise though? I mean, who wouldnt do that? It doesnt mean he is making things up.

Chunk

Further to my post above. Acts 9 says this:

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Paul could also have learned about Jesus when he was at Damascus. I think when he was claiming his gospel was from God/Jesus, he was basically saying he had been converted by Jesus and that Jesus himself had appeared to him. It makes sense for him to say this to try and give credibility to what he was saying.

Toto

There is no good reason to accept that story in Acts as real history (there are three different versions of it, for one thing.)

Paul could have learned about Jesus from a number of sources, but there is just no evidence that he did.

Zeichman

Except I, and others, believe he does.
What Paul cites in the Corinthians creed is certainly not his gospel. There is no idea of redemptive death, a mission to the gentiles, or freedom from the Law in there. It can hardly be said that it contains his gospel, which the Galatians quote limits itself to.

While I'm not that great with Acts, and likewise am very skeptical of its historical reliability, I think that it's reasonable to think that the Phillipians quote merges well with the evidence from Acts.
This is precisely the issue which we are disputing, I've suggested that this claim in Galatians is limited to the content of his gospel, and that what he says in 1 Cor relates to his previous knowlege of Jesus himself. Galatians and 1 Cor cannot be harmonized, I believe, by assuming what Paul means is his knowlege of the historical Jesus. Not to mention that the Galatians quote ONLY extends as far as the gospel, according to Paul. Not to mention that I'm still waiting for a plausable explanation for why Paul would have invented apparations, which certainly would legitimize their authority, to people with whom he'd had at least a few heated conflicts.

In Galatians, the word "gospel" assuredly does not refer to knowlege of the life of Jesus. It is painfully obvious that what he means in this epistle is his gospel to the gentiles and of freedom from the Law. There is no reason to assume he meant anything more than that, as the life of Jesus is not mentioned much outside of "Born of a woman, born under the Law" in this epistle, and cannot be said to be a part of his gospel. Not to mention that you are ignoring evidence that the words used in 1 Cor 15 had been applied to Rabbinic traditions being handed on.

mikem

Galatians 1:13:For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it;

If that's figurative I'm a Martian.

And why would anyone persecute a religious group unless they dislked what that group was saying? Paul knew what the church believed before his conversion.

Sarpedon

The bible does say that Joseph went to Pilate to ask for permission to take away Jesus's corpse. Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent, and the charges against him trumped up. So he gave Joseph permission, to assuage his own concience. Seems perfectly plausible. I've read about dozens of similar situations.

There are no accounts of Jesus' life outside the bible and the Apocrypha. None of these accounts give weight to Jesus being an 'insurgent.' All that stuff is modern interpolation. The fact is that, in this respect, the bible account, paraphrased above, is believable.

As for the tomb, there is no account of jesus being given funeral rites. Its possible to bury someone in a tomb without the approval of the authorities. Back when it was forbidden to bury suicides in cemetaries, relatives and friends frequently snuck in and did it anyway. So Joseph bought the tomb, and didn't tell them who would be buried there, and didn't have a priest present to give rites. Simple.

There are so many better arguments against christianity than this. Why are you wasting your time? If you raise these objections in public, and some intelligent christian gives the explaination I just did, it will discredit you and and credibility to him.

Toto

It seems rather unlikely from the descriptions of Pilate that we have from Josephus and Philo, and Joseph appears to be a fictional character from a fictional town. Where have you read of dozens of similar situations?

There are no accounts of Jesus' life outside religious literature - which make the Biblical accounts rather suspect. The idea that Jesus was an insurgent is modern historians desparate attempt to make some sense of the Biblical stories (not "interpolation.") The reason that some modern scholars try to make Jesus an insurgent is that the whole story is not believable otherwise. Crucifixion was generally reserved for those who threatened the security of the state, not wandering philosophers.

This forum is for discussions of the Biblical text and related historical matters, not necessarily for constructing arguments against Christianity.