CX

I think you're tilting at windmills here. Does anyone on this forum suppose that Paul wrote the gospels? The very idea is absurd on the face of it and I know of not one person who advances that position. It is clear that the books that ended up in the canon endorse Pauline themes, but that is a very different thing than supposing that Paul wrote any of the gospels. And he certainly didn't write acts or there wouldn't be such discrepancy between his itinerary in that volume and that described in the Pauline epistles.

FunkyRes

CX-
Read the first post in this thread:

Viti

My OP mentioned the possibility of Paul writing the Gospels. It was just a musing, I thought maybe Paul was some ancient Joseph Smith, then the title of the book led me to think this was a theory.

CX

Fair enough but this sounded more like a question to me than an establishment of a thesis.

Radcliffe Emerson

As far as I'm concerned, any book that claims to be an inspired word of a supreme being is lies.

CX

Nah. The Judeo-Xian equivalent of Joseph Smith in antiquity was King Josiah in the 7th century who "discovered" a heretofore lost "second book of the law" while renovating the Jerusalem temple.

Skeptical

Well, I can only say that when you read that Paul saw a "light" and heard a voice and then notice that he says nothing whatsoever about having any conversations with a physical Jesus, that is prima facia evidence that Paul did not think he saw a physical Jesus in anything like the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke.

This is not "proof" since such a term is meaningless with regard to history, but it is pretty compelling evidence and I think you would be hard pressed to find a single bibilical scholar who thinks that the "appearance" to Paul even vaguely resembled the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke.

If you are aware of a respected biblical scholar who holds this view, please post your info. (and yes, I do read "conservative" scholars and I have _never_ come across anyone who had the sort of conception you argue for)

I personally find it inconceivable that Jesus would have appeared in the flesh to Paul and he would not have mentioned a word about it.

Atticus_Finch

Here is the account of Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus,

9:3 As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 9:5 So he said, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 9:6 But stand up12 and enter the city and you will be told what you must do.” 9:7 (Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.) 9:8 So Saul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open, he could see nothing. Leading him by the hand, his companions brought him into Damascus. 9:9 For three days he could not see, and he neither ate nor drank anything.

Sounds like a physical encounter to me. The companions heard the voice.

Regards,

Finch

Skeptical

Equating a disembodied voice with the physical "appearances" in Mat. and Luke is ridiculous. Are you going to also argue that when the prophets of the OT heard the voice of god from the heavens, that was a "physical appearance" as well? Did god become "physical" prior to Jesus in order to speak with the prophets? It's no less ridiculous to claim this than to claim the "appearance" to Paul was "physical".

The "apperance" to Paul is clearly different from the "appearances" in Mat. and Luke. Can you honestly believe that if Jesus had not physically "appeared" to Paul in the same manner he "appeared" in Mat. and Luke that Paul would _not mention a single word about it_? (and please do not say "he did, he heard the voice!", I am specifically talking about the type of "appearance" recorded in Mat. and Luke)

As far as I can tell from my research, not a single biblical scholar, conservatives included, holds the sort of view you are proposing. Do you really think its because they're all wrong and your right?

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

FunkyRes

When the prophets heard a voice, though- did others also hear it?

And if Jesus came to paul in a spiritual sense, does that mean that Paul didn't believe in the physical resurrection?

Does it demand that the word paul used for appear could not also indicate a physical?