Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[Shia Islam]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

 

[chinu]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

The one who taught you to eat something after your birth.

 

[Marco19]

logically, since he was an apostate and fighter against Christianity, definitely he knew at least the basic elements of the faith.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

First, from Galatians 2:17-19
οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν
18 Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· 19 ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου

["neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but up into Arabia, and back again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to inquire into/learn from/get information from Peter and remained with him for 15 days. But none other of the apostles did I see, except James the brother of the Lord]

So he knew Jesus' brother. But this trip requires more analysis.

The following are excepts from a thread I wrote here: Critique of Doherty

Paul's visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place

The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre, that of historiography, and in Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay.

...in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly separates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line...where he states he has no command from the Lord

 

[Quirkybird]

In my opinion Paul created Christianity, we would probably not have ever heard of Jesus if he hadn't suffered from literary diarrhoea! I reckon he decided rather than killing the followers of Jesus he would join them on his own terms!

 

[Pegg]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

The account in Acts tells us that it was the Disciple Ananias who first made contact with Paul at Jesus direction. And Paul remained with the christians in the city of Damascus before he began preaching...so he would have been taught by them while in their company.

When Paul saw a vision of Jesus on the road, he was struck with blindness. Jesus then sent Ananias to him:

10*There was in Damascus a certain disciple named An·a·ni′as, and the Lord said to him in a vision: “An·a·ni′as!” He said: “Here I am, Lord.” 11*The Lord said to him: “Rise, go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man named Saul, from Tarsus. For, look! he is praying, 12*and in a vision he has seen a man named An·a·ni′as come in and lay his hands upon him that he might recover sight.” 13*But An·a·ni′as answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. 14*And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” 15*But the Lord said to him: “Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16*For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.”
17*So An·a·ni′as went off and entered into the house, and he laid his hands upon him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord, the Jesus that appeared to you on the road over which you were coming, has sent me forth, in order that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” 18*And immediately there fell from his eyes what looked like scales, and he recovered sight; and he rose and was baptized, 19*and he took food and gained strength.
He got to be for some days with the disciples in Damascus, 20*and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In my opinion Paul created Christianity, we would probably not have ever heard of Jesus if he hadn't suffered from literary diarrhoea! I reckon he decided rather than killing the followers of Jesus he would join them on his own terms!

Of all the gospel authors, only the author of Luke/Acts appears to know Paul, and know Paul well. Yet he shows no awareness of Paul's letters and he account of Paul disagrees with Paul's own account. Paul certainly played a central role in Christianity's first generation, but he didn't create Christianity.

 

[Quirkybird]

Of all the gospel authors, only the author of Luke/Acts appears to know Paul, and know Paul well. Yet he shows no awareness of Paul's letters and he account of Paul disagrees with Paul's own account. Paul certainly played a central role in Christianity's first generation, but he didn't create Christianity.

That is a matter of opinion!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That is a matter of opinion!

It's also a matter of evidence. Paul did not write much about Jesus, did not influence much of anything written about Jesus, and 60+ years after he died we find Christians still asking followers of Jesus' disciples (or their followers) for authoritative information regarding what Jesus taught. The Johannine literature was not only independent of the synoptics but likely relied primarily on the teachings of the authors' teacher (the "beloved disciple").

 

[Quirkybird]

Well whatever, I still reckon it might have been better if the world at large hadn't heard of Jesus as so much evil has been done in his name, probably outweighing the good.

 

[Boyd]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

No one. Paul was not a Christian, nor was there a "Christianity" at that time.

Paul was a Jew, and continued practicing Judaism. I know many Jews today would disagree with me, but the fact that Paul submitted to the Jewish authority reflects to me that he remained Jewish (even though misguided).

The ideas that Paul taught were a mix of Judaism that he learned growing up, and ideas about Jesus he would have heard elsewhere, such as from the siblings and disciples of Jesus.

To begin with, the first information he would have probably heard was just from random people.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well whatever, I still reckon it might have been better if the world at large hadn't heard of Jesus as so much evil has been done in his name, probably outweighing the good.

Maybe. It's hard to say. Two witch-trials in pre-Christian Rome resulted in the executions of more witches than most executions across all of Europe over an entire century of witch-trials. Until the c. 1100, the church stopped Germanic, Roman, and Gaulish execution of "witches". Likely the most horrific, systematic oppression, torture, and execution of populations occurred under a secular "religion" that combined Christian and Germanic belief systems. Whereas pre-Constantine rule of the Roman Empire executed and tortured Christian dissidents, Christian rulers destroyed sites and works (not lives).

Open-mindedness has never been standard ideological interpretation.

 

[Boyd]

Well whatever, I still reckon it might have been better if the world at large hadn't heard of Jesus as so much evil has been done in his name, probably outweighing the good.

And there has been a lot of evil done in the name of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, state religions, political ideas, out of sheer ignorance, etc.

People are not committing evil because any religion tells them to do so. Most religions are peaceful. The teachings of Jesus are peaceful. People commit evil for any variety of reasons, and justify it with whatever means they can.

 

[Quirkybird]

Of course there are some very wonderful Christians in this world, but they tend to be the ones who say very little about their faith, and let their deeds do the talking. But I suspect they would be that way anyway, faith or no faith.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Well whatever, I still reckon it might have been better if the world at large hadn't heard of Jesus as so much evil has been done in his name, probably outweighing the good.

It is true a lot of evil has been done in the name of Jesus but it wasn't his fault. He taught wonderful things. In fact if we all lived like he told us to this planet would be a fantastic place to live.

 

[Quirkybird]

It is true a lot of evil has been done in the name of Jesus but it wasn't his fault. He taught wonderful things. In fact if we all lived like he told us to this planet would be a fantastic place to live.

Hmmmmm. He said and did say some sensible things, but I think some were less sensible, like the 'miracles' hocus pocus and the silly casting out of imaginary demons!

 

[Sees]

Maybe. It's hard to say. Two witch-trials in pre-Christian Rome resulted in the executions of more witches than most executions across all of Europe over an entire century of witch-trials. Until the c. 1100, the church stopped Germanic, Roman, and Gaulish execution of "witches". Likely the most horrific, systematic oppression, torture, and execution of populations occurred under a secular "religion" that combined Christian and Germanic belief systems. Whereas pre-Constantine rule of the Roman Empire executed and tortured Christian dissidents, Christian rulers destroyed sites and works (not lives).

Open-mindedness has never been standard ideological interpretation.

Historical spin big time bro lol Church created and stopped such stuff - both. Part of the eradication and appropriation eras all over Europe.

 

[outhouse]

In my opinion Paul created Christianity, QUOTE]


Nonsense.

Study history and learn what really happened.


Paul admits there were plenty of other teachers, and the knowledge was already out there.

He started nothing, he was only remembered because certain sects found importance in his letters and decided to save them.

 

[outhouse]

As we know he did not met Jesus. So who taught him Christianity?

NO one


Christianity did not exist at that time.


The movement was spread throughout the whole Diaspora by people returning home from Passover with oral traditions of the Galilean, the mythology grew for decades before Paul taught a word.

 

[steeltoes]

First, from Galatians 2:17-19
οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν
18 Ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· 19 ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου

["neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but up into Arabia, and back again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to inquire into/learn from/get information from Peter and remained with him for 15 days. But none other of the apostles did I see, except James the brother of the Lord]

So he knew Jesus' brother. But this trip requires more analysis.

The following are excepts from a thread I wrote here: Critique of Doherty

Paul's visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place

The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre, that of historiography, and in Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay.

...in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly separates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line...where he states he has no command from the Lord

Over the course of 17 years after Paul's conversion he visited Jerusalem exactly once. That is what Doherty states, page 25, and he is correct about that because it was after 17 years beyond his conversion before he visited Jerusalem for the second time.