Vivisector

Apologies if you've addressed this elsewhere, but how do you think "Mark" may have acquired these ideas? E.g., possession of some (or all) of the Pauline corpus, direct contact with Paul, membership in a Paul (or Paul-like) franchise?

Cheers,

V.

Ben C Smith

You go on to cite parts of 1 Thessalonians, especially the apocalyptic section in chapters 4 and 5.

Certainly, Mark has a lot in common with that section in his chapter 13; but Matthew has even more in common with that Pauline section in his chapter 24. What would your explanation of this be?

Thanks.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

Where does Paul say that himself?

Vivisector

That's a great point. Paul himself says he persecuted the Church, and he was obviously motivated by something he learned from other people (unless a prior revelation told him to persecute this group of people he knew nothing about). There was a story on the streets prior to Paul's "conversion."

It would be nice if he'd said, wouldn't it? What seems reasonable to me is that Paul knew of the crucifixion and claims of resurrection, and that he knew of the significance that early Christians attached to those events. I also think it's reasonable that Paul's new attitudes as a result of his revelation concerned maybe the truthfulness of the resurrection claims, the Christological implications of Jesus's crucifixion/resurrection and the significance of all this to the Gentiles.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

It may be that Paul thought that the birth, life, crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus was a pack of lies, i.e., total fiction and was persecuting so-called Christians for their propagation of that deceptive heresy.
Paul may have been in Tarsus or Antioch, hundreds of miles away, during the entire lifetime of gJesus.

Perhaps, it was only after his miraculous conversion and revelations from Jesus, while sitting on the right hand of God, that Paul came to "know" that the son of God was on earth, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to the third heaven.

And, if Paul claimed he persecuted Christians, that does not imply or guarantee certainty of such events.

Vivisector

Absolutely.

Again, I agree completely.

No argument here.

I'm not sure which events you're referring to. I think that, if Paul claims to have persecuted Christians (I know, it's an anachronistic term in this context), then that claim itself is evidence that Paul did, indeed, persecute Christians. If you're referring to the events of Jesus's crucifixion, resurrection, etc., then I agree . My only point was, in agreement with the earlier poster, that if Paul persecuted Christians (and I've no reason to disbelieve Paul here), then it seems he must have gotten some information on the group from somebody. After all, he knew enough about them to persecute them. The remainder of my earlier post was simply thinking aloud about the possible minimum content of that information.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

I would have probably believed "Paul", but only, if I could reasonably ascertain that there were Christians, as he described, in the 1st century.

karlmarx

Good question. I found:

Galatians 1:13-14 :

"13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers"

However, on second reading.... can we be certain he's referring to what we would call "Christians"?

Well, still in Galatians 1, he says:

"11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [3] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Later on he says:

"23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Huh? First he says that his gospel came from personal revelation and not from man, than he implies that it all predated his personal revelation? The "Lord" surely couldn't have picked a more confusing author. The only way I can reconcile this is if I interpret it this way: when Paul says his gospel did not come from man, but from revelation, he's really saying that no man converted him to Christianity. He's really saying that his conversion came as a personal revelation.

Could someone please clarify? This would imply that the notions of crucifixion, resurrection, etc, must have predated him.

Rich Oliver

Yes numerous people throughout history had mystical experiences that have they have interpreted within a pre existing mystical doctrine. Also Paul's revelation, which his letters suggest was on going or not simply a one off event, may have gone beyond and clarified all ready existing teachings. I don't see anything contradictory in this.

Ofcourse none of this explains why God after going to all the trouble of sending his only Son to Earth, should then give independant revelation to Paul, who could have spoken to Jeses's followers, but not to anyone from China the America's or sub Saharan Africa, who couldn't.

It also doesn't explain why Paul showed no interest in talking to the those who had walked, eat and been instructed by God incarnate and were still living with in a day or two's journey.

aa5874

I interpret the passages this way: Paul had no clue who Jesus was, none of his acquaintances ever met Jesus or had any actual knowledge of him, except as anecdotal superstition.
However, after his miraculous conversion, Paul came to realise that it was scriptural to believe in the superstition of the cross and resurrection.

And Paul's revelations may have come from the Septuagint or the OT, revelations through scripture is "not from man". At least, Paul may have thought so.