FunkyRes

No.
I don't think it is dodging it.
The text leads me to believe he saw a physical Jesus, though I can understand how a "spiritual" Jesus could be interpreted.

btw- Paul never says "I saw the Spirit of Jesus" or "the ghost of Jesus" in _any_ of his testimonies of the event.

Skeptical

Ok, what is your _evidence_ that he saw a physical Jesus? I think I asked this before and you didn't really answer: "are you claiming that Paul's "appearance" is qualatatively similar to the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke". If you are making this assertion, can you explain why Paul would not find this worth mentioning?

And yes, I'm fully aware that Paul doesn't say anything about "spirit" or "ghost" of Jesus (you may have a hard time believing this, but I have probably read the letters of Paul as many times as you have). If he did we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, although I have no doubt some believers would not find a way to interpret this as meaning Paul actually still experienced a physical resurrection.

I don't find it all that curious that he did not specifically say anything about "spirit" or "ghost" since it certainly seems to be implied throughout his letters. What I _do_ find interesting is that Paul clearly does not reference a physical meeting with Jesus anything like Mat. and Luke. This, it seems to me, is undeniable and it is equally undeniable that this would have been a significant event for Paul, certainly worth mentioning.

FunkyRes

Paul did not have the same type of meeting as the apostles.

Jesus ate with the apostles, and even let one of them put a finger in his wounds.

With Paul, Jesus talked to him and then struck him with blindness.

Paul could have either seen a physical Jesus or a heavenly manifestation- the account he gives could be the same, and does not indicate that he did not believe in physical resurrection from the dead.

I think he saw a physical Jesus, but that is opinion and not scholarship. I don't claim it as scholarship either, and I think that bothers you.

I could say he saw a spiritual manifestation- that might make you happy, but would do absolutely nothing to indicate that Paul did not believe Jesus physically rose from the dead.

FunkyRes

btw- I don't know how much Paul you read- but no doubt, when you read Paul, it is in a search for info to discredit Paul and/or Christianity.

When I read Paul, it is to glean whatever I can from what this Apostle of Jesus had to say.

Skeptical

Ok, great. We agree.

If you equate a disembodied voice with "physical", then fine. I never said he didn't believe in a physical resurrection. I think there is evidence that he did not, but it's not necessary to believe that he did to assert that his personal "appearance" was nothing like that of Mat. and Luke. Since we agree on Paul's personal "appearance", I'll leave it at that.

What bothers me is when someone "hand waves" about a question of the text in the NT by saying the text is "inexact" and uses this as an excuse to hold onto a belief that is not consistent with what the text actually says. It also bothers me when someone says, "well, that's just an opinion".

As I said before, all historiography is, at some level, opinion. The question is what is the evidenciary basis for that opinion. So far as I can tell, there is no evidence whatsoever that Paul saw a "physical" Jesus and you have not presented any postive evidence that he did. In my view, this means you hold an opinion with no evidence. That is your right. However, if your going to argue for a position, it's generally accepted etiquette that one provide evidence for ones opinion. I get annoyed when people do not provide evidence for their opinion and refuse to acknowledge that there is, in fact, no evidence to present.

I don't want you to "say" anything, I would find it refreshing if you would actually examine the text openly and assess it against your preconceived notion that Paul saw a "physical" Jesus. If you believe the "light" and disembodied voice that Paul heard are "physical", I guess there's not much more to be said.

In any case, you seem completely hung up on the question of Paul's view of the resurrection. While I have an opinion on this based on the evidence in Paul's letters, it's not necessary to say that because Paul's own experience was not of a physical Jesus, he disbelieved in a physical resurrection. It's a related, but separate question.

Skeptical

I have read all of Paul's letters carefully at least 3-4 times each, along with more readings of particular passages than I can remember. When I read it is to try and understand what Paul's point of view was, what he believed and what he had to say about the Christian movement. I see the Christian religion just like most other relgions: some truth, some history and a lot of mythology and things intended to teach lessons and not be understood as "factual". I consider context, both personal and cultural to be incredibly important.

I don't hold any particular hostility towards the Christian religion, but I do find a lot of the people who claim to follow it annoyingly obtuse and some even downright dangerous. (just to be clear, I'm not specifically speaking about you, just some I have encountered)

In general, it is usually not wise to think you know someones motives simply because they don't agree with you. My motives for reading Paul are probably pretty close to what you state your motives are. I just read his letters with fewer assumptions about the factual basis than a believer does.

Toto

How do we know that Paul even heard Jesus' voice? That scene is from Acts, but has no support in Paul's letters that I can find:

I see nothing in here about Paul hearing from Jesus except through revelation. His conversion experience came from God, not Jesus.

MOJO-JOJO

Ladyshea, I almost bought that book yesterday at B&N. The title alone is worth getting it.

Do you recommend it so far?

Viti

Mojo, yes it is good so far (and the title got me too....plus it was 75% off so what the hell).

Unfortunately I do not have the background knowledge (either historical or cultural) of Judaism in general and/or what day to day life might have been like in first century Israel (which the author uses extensivly as a basis for his theories) to determine if his "set up" is accurate. I have read about the author a bit and he is apparently a well respected scholar so I have chosen to accept the information as presented for now.

Paul5204

To all:

May I scream? That other Paul was writing letters to the various fledging churches. He was not trying to write the life history of the Christ. And to those who see some conflict between that other Paul and Jesus, I can only echo the words of Cheers' Frazier to Cliff Claven: what color is the sky in your world?