Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[Ken Brown]

Well that is factually impossible.

You can claim supernatural aspect until the cows come home, but you have only faith and wish and want, nothing more.

Hi outhouse, come on, bring in one of your experts. KB

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, come on, bring in one of your experts. KB

I don't need them for you.


You cannot get past me let alone a scholar. Your having a hard time getting past reality.

You invoke the supernatural and expect everyone to believe only what you do.

 

[steeltoes]

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

Philo may have influenced Paul, and from there Paul made a lot of stuff up by drawing from his ancient scriptures, what we now call the OT. Paul was not the inventor of Christianity but he was a chief architect.

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, come on, bring in one of your experts. KB

Expert? you want me to raise the discussion here up a few levels when you cannot even grasp reality at lower levels?



Did Paul write using rhetoric?

Aristotle influenced Paul in his education?

Did he use different ethos for each community?

Did he use different levels of pathos?

Did he use logos as a tool?


Which mode did he use, Judicial, deliberate or epideictic the best?



When ignorance uses only a literal interpretation, all these become jumbled together and the reader is unable to process the proper context in which Paul was trained to write.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Actually it is contrasting Adam and Messiah -

and pointing out that MOSES was a type of the coming Messiah. He was given the law. He offered them life free of sin.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

MOSES - Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.


YHVH - Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Hi Ingledsva, NO, the writer of Romans 5:14 says they are similar, and he is not contrasting Adam and Messiah, he is saying that Adam is a "type" or "figure" of Messiah.

To understand what Paul says here, it would help tremendously if one properly understood Paul's teaching on Grace. KB

Pure bull, and misreading of the text.


In Deu 18:15 MOSES says it is himself!!!


In Deu 18:18 YHVH says the Messiah will be like MOSES.



Therefore Romans 5:14 HAS to say MOSES is like Messiah. And that is exactly what it says when read correctly.


Forgot to add - look at the glaring clue in 13 -


Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


MOSES WAS GIVEN THE LAW - as it says until MOSES all were under sin.


Again - MOSES is the one Messiah is supposed to be like.




*

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, come on, bring in one of your experts. KB

What can Pauls Epistles headers tell us in each of the following

Superscripto?

Adscripto?

Salutation?

 

[Ken Brown]

What can Pauls Epistles headers tell us in each of the following

Superscripto?

Adscripto?

Salutation?

Hi outhouse, it's amazing that someone as yourself, with all your tremendous knowledge, can't even explain one simple little verse. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Pure bull, and misreading of the text.

In Deu 18:15 MOSES says it is himself!!!

In Deu 18:18 YHVH says the Messiah will be like MOSES.

Therefore Romans 5:14 HAS to say MOSES is like Messiah. And that is exactly what it says when read correctly.

Forgot to add - look at the glaring clue in 13 -

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

MOSES WAS GIVEN THE LAW - as it says until MOSES all were under sin.

Again - MOSES is the one Messiah is supposed to be like.*

Hi Ingledsva, NO, Paul was saying that ADAM was a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Why are you trying to change what he said? Now, I am going to give you a hint. The FIRST sentence of verse 15 states absolutely HOW Adam was a "type" or "figure" of Messiah. Doesn't that make sense, that he makes a claim in one sentence and then the next sentence he clarifies that claim? KB

 

[Boyd]

I dont think he ever converted to the Jewish movement at all.

I agree. I don't think Paul converted. He was born a Jew, and stayed a Jew. His outlook just changed.

I dont think there were real apostles in Jerusalem.

How do you get to this conclusion though? All of our sources state clearly that at least Peter, and John, to lead apostles, were in Jerusalem, along with the brother of Jesus. There really has been no debate on this.

And if there were, why would he go there and expect to be welcomed after hunting down sect leaders for years?

We are not told how long Paul persecuted "Christians" or exactly who. It is doubtful it was for years. There simply is not enough time for Paul to have went on a long persecution. It was probably less than a year, and then he had a change of heart. He also didn't persecute the leaders, at least not those in Jerusalem. Paul makes it clear that he had not been to Jerusalem, and those followers there did not actually know him (they had heard of him, but that was it).

More so, Paul doesn't think he will be warmly welcomed. He actually mentions that he was somewhat afraid, as he had persecuted the movement.

And next, why would he go knowing full well his version was not a Jewish movement within Judaism like the original apostles? .

That is actually quite simple. His version was founded on Jewish ideology. Yes, he wasn't preaching a message to Jews, but he was preaching a Jewish message to Gentiles.

The message he has is inspired by the prophets of the Hebrew scripture, in particular Jeremiah. The Hebrew prophets mention numerous times that in the end, all nations will come to Zion, to Jerusalem, and worship G-d. They will come as they are, as in, they won't convert, but still they will follow G-d.

Paul puts himself in this tradition, and, thinking it was the end times, went on a mission to the nations. His motivation, ideology, etc are fully within Judaism.

And last, Pauls Jesus lived in Heaven, Paul would have known all to well what daily life was like in Galilee. He would not have been concerned about a Galilleans daily activities or teachings.

Paul's Jesus did not necessarily live in heaven. The idea of heaven really didn't exist for Jews at that time. Plus, what was important about Jesus was not necessarily his life, but his death. In particular, what his death signified.

For Paul, Jesus was not unique in the fact that he was resurrected. What made Jesus stand out was that Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection. As in, the general resurrection had begun, and soon they would all be resurrected.

So it isn't even his death that was important, but the resurrection, as it meant, to Paul, that the end was near, they would all be resurrected very soon, and the kingdom was going to be here.

Why would Paul care, when he purposely changed the movement far away from what Jesus on earth taught??

When Jesus died, the movement would have naturally changed from what he taught while living. With the supposed resurrection, everything changed. The life of Jesus didn't really matter, as it was the resurrection that was important. The change was only logical.

Pauls movement was night and day different then Jesus movement in Galilee, so Paul could not focus on a earthly Jesus.

No one could really focus on an earthly Jesus. It was not the earthly Jesus that matter for them. He died, he failed as a messiah. His movement should have vanished. It was his supposed resurrection that changed everything. It was no longer the life of Jesus that mattered, but the resurrection and what that meant (as in the general resurrection).

Im not sure he got to any of the real apostles, but if he had, he would not tell us.

I have to disagree. I think Paul would have told us. If for no other reason that he would have had to. As we both know, there were other missionaries working as well. Paul was not alone. And we know that others were going to the churches that Paul founded and saying things about him. That is why Paul has to go on the offense.

If Paul had killed an apostle, that certainly would have gotten around, and Paul would have had to deal with it.

Yes.


I dont think the Peter in Jerusalem would be one of the Galilean peasants.

I think he was a Hellenist who was a fierce follower of the movement.

What leads you to this conclusion? It seems to be opposed to what all scholars believe, and what our sources say. So I'm just curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.


I hope it doesn't appear that I am picking on you. But you seem interested in learning, and I think the back and forth can also help others interested as well.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For Paul, Jesus was not unique in the fact that he was resurrected. What made Jesus stand out was that Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection. As in, the general resurrection had begun, and soon they would all be resurrected.

So it isn't even his death that was important, but the resurrection, as it meant, to Paul, that the end was near, they would all be resurrected very soon, and the kingdom was going to be here.

Hi, Boyd. So why do you think that Paul didn't rush immediately to Jerusalem, at his conversion, to question the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Boyd]

Hi, Boyd. So why do you think that Paul didn't rush immediately to Jerusalem, at his conversion, to question the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus?

I don't think it was a conversion. Kristen Stendahl, in a great article titles "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," refers to it as a calling, in the same vein as the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures.

As to why he didn't rush to Jerusalem. To me, I think Paul knew he wasn't going to be accepted. He just finished persecuting this new sect, and if he went to Jerusalem, empty handed, as a new follower, he probably thought he would be rejected. There just would not have been the trust.

Instead, I suspect he went to Arabia, on what would be his first actual mission, and tried to bring others into the movement. Ultimately, he failed in that, but at the same time, gained what would be trust.

After his mission in Arabia, he would then be able to go to Jerusalem, and show them something. Enough time would have passed between his persecution and that period that people could be sure he was done. He also would have had a mission under his belt, and a path forward. It would have been a reason to actually let him in.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As to why he didn't rush to Jerusalem. To me, I think Paul knew he wasn't going to be accepted. He just finished persecuting this new sect, and if he went to Jerusalem, empty handed, as a new follower, he probably thought he would be rejected. There just would not have been the trust.

Sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't think that way about it. I think the Jerusalem leaders would have been overjoyed, elated, and would have paraded him through the streets as proof of the power of their religion. The prodigal son has been filled with the spirit of truth and has returned home.

Anyway, do you think Paul was raised in Jerusalem? That he would have known Jesus in real life?

 

[Boyd]

Sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't think that way about it. I think the Jerusalem leaders would have been overjoyed, elated, and would have paraded him through the streets as proof of the power of their religion. The prodigal son has been filled with the spirit of truth and has returned home.

Anyway, do you think Paul was raised in Jerusalem? That he would have known Jesus in real life?

I think there is a possibility that Paul grew up partially in Jerusalem. It appears he underwent some sort of Pharisaic training (or schooling), which makes it a likely possibility he spent time in Jerusalem for some portion of his life.

I don't think he was born or raised in Jerusalem though. I would venture to say that by the time of the ministry of Jesus, in the late 20's or early 30's C.E., Paul was no longer in Jerusalem, but elsewhere. I would find it highly unlikely that Paul ever met Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think it was a conversion. Kristen Stendahl, in a great article titles "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," refers to it as a calling, in the same vein as the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures.

As to why he didn't rush to Jerusalem. To me, I think Paul knew he wasn't going to be accepted. He just finished persecuting this new sect, and if he went to Jerusalem, empty handed, as a new follower, he probably thought he would be rejected. There just would not have been the trust.

Instead, I suspect he went to Arabia, on what would be his first actual mission, and tried to bring others into the movement. Ultimately, he failed in that, but at the same time, gained what would be trust.

After his mission in Arabia, he would then be able to go to Jerusalem, and show them something. Enough time would have passed between his persecution and that period that people could be sure he was done. He also would have had a mission under his belt, and a path forward. It would have been a reason to actually let him in.

You also forget, [maybe] that he was on a money making tour, trying to raise money so he could take money back to the Jerusalem sect.


The bible is silent on if he ever made it back and delivered.

 

[outhouse]

I think there is a possibility that Paul grew up partially in Jerusalem. It appears he underwent some sort of Pharisaic training (or schooling), which makes it a likely possibility he spent time in Jerusalem for some portion of his life.

.

We dont kow this and are placed into trusting Paul who used massive amounts of Rhetoric influenced possible from Aristotle's previous teachings.

Paul factually built himself up to help persuade his position. Ethos.

Pauls Judaism matches a Proselytes Judaism to a T, as we would expect from a Roman citizen.

Pauls Judaism is still questioned today. He was a Hellenist more then a Jew, and his teachings reflect this.

 

[outhouse]

I think the Jerusalem leaders would have been overjoyed, elated, and would have paraded him through the streets as proof of the power of their religion. The prodigal son has been filled with the spirit of truth and has returned home.

Anyway, do you think Paul was raised in Jerusalem? That he would have known Jesus in real life?

Paul would have been Jesus mortal enemy, he was fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple, the same people that hired Paul to crush the movement in the Disapora.

Paul claims he violently persecuted these Jews. And real apostles if they were actually in Jerusalem, would have looked at this guy teaching the enemies of jesus, a version of the movement completely the opposite of what they were teaching, and would have looked at this stranger Paul as a wanna be false apostle.


I cannot see a real Galilean Peter even talking to Paul. We dont know if Paul knew Aramaic or Hebrew, and we dont know if Peter even knew Hebrew or Koine.

 

[outhouse]

I hope it doesn't appear that I am picking on you. But you seem interested in learning, and I think the back and forth can also help others interested as well.

.

Not at all.

Glad I yhave someone to debate with that has a high degree of intellect and knowledge on these topics.

I have my own opinions not backed by modern scholarships and all I can really do is plead my case. doesnt have to be accepted.

 

[Boyd]

You also forget, [maybe] that he was on a money making tour, trying to raise money so he could take money back to the Jerusalem sect.


The bible is silent on if he ever made it back and delivered.

That was only after the fact; after he went to Jerusalem.

If one closely looks at the situation, it appears that what happened is that Paul is accepted into the movement, and supported, but it comes with strings. The string here is that Paul has to take up a collection for the poor in all of the communities where he sets up congregations or preaches.

The collection was primarily a second thought. Paul never dwells on it, at least not that we know of. And it was something commissioned to him through the Jerusalem group, only after Paul met with them, and fell into line.

The NT is silent about the end result. Acts, quite curiously, just drops the subject when Paul gets back to Jerusalem. Instead of delivering the money to Jerusalem, as was part of the deal, Paul ends up getting into trouble. It could be that there was a breaking down of relations. It could also be that the author simply doesn't know.

We dont kow this and are placed into trusting Paul who used massive amounts of Rhetoric influenced possible from Aristotle's previous teachings.

Paul factually built himself up to help persuade his position. Ethos.

Pauls Judaism matches a Proselytes Judaism to a T, as we would expect from a Roman citizen.

Pauls Judaism is still questioned today. He was a Hellenist more then a Jew, and his teachings reflect this.

There was massive amounts of rhetoric in many Jewish writers though. It could be influence from Aristotle, but it is more likely that it was influenced from his Jewish upbringing. That is the simplest solution.

Paul may build himself up, but he also tears himself down. The entire point of building himself up is to state that none of that matters. Every time Paul builds himself up, he follows by basically stating that he has given that all up, as it no longer matters. We are equal in Christ.

There is reason to believe he was a Pharisee though. If he wanted to lie about his past, why choose to label himself a Pharisee? It doesn't really build him up. Claiming to be a Sadducee would have built him up much more. That, and later on, Pharisees, from a Christian perspective, were seen very negatively.

I do disagree that his Judaism fits a Roman proselyte to a T though. I doubt very much that he even was a Roman citizen, and most scholars would not claim he was today. The only reference is from Acts, and Acts is not credible when it comes to Paul.

His Judaism, which we don't fully understand, doesn't seem out of place. He heavily relies on the Hebrew scriptures (he seems versed in both Greek and Hebrew here). He takes his lead from the prophets (in fact, he models himself after Jeremiah). And he appears to be a Pharisee, someone who is devoted to the study of the Law. Yes, when he preaches to Gentiles, he doesn't preach to them as if they were Jews, but there was no reason to.

I also don't think Paul's Judaism is really up for debate. Besides one or two fringe thinkers, no one appears to doubt that Paul was born a Jew, and was a Pharisee. Even Jewish scholars, who have had a long history of disliking Paul (which isn't surprising), now see him as having been a misunderstood Jew, one that has been distorted by Augustine and Martin Luther (neither on purpose).

So I don't think it really is debated. Especially when one realizes that his audience weren't Jews, but Gentiles. So his message reflected him teaching Gentiles, and thus, he wasn't trying to make them Jews.

Paul would have been Jesus mortal enemy, he was fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple, the same people that hired Paul to crush the movement in the Disapora.

Paul was never hired. There is never any suggestion that Paul was hired by anyone. Instead, he tells us that his persecution was based on his zeal. Most likely he did it because the Jesus movement was dangerous. It was dangerous because people were holding up a "Roman criminal," which could make the Romans a little jittery.

Jesus also didn't really fight the "Hellenistic" corruption in the Temple. The corruption in the Temple had been there for quite some time, and it really stems down to who was running it and how they were placed there (it was actually a problem instigated by the Hasmoneans, and then worsened later on). Jesus message was about the Kingdom of G-d, and the end of the world. Paul had the same message.

Paul claims he violently persecuted these Jews. And real apostles if they were actually in Jerusalem, would have looked at this guy teaching the enemies of jesus, a version of the movement completely the opposite of what they were teaching, and would have looked at this stranger Paul as a wanna be false apostle.

From what we are told, that simply was not the case. The group in Jerusalem, from all accounts, accepted Paul in, and commissioned him to preach to the Gentiles. They sent him out, and he submitted to them. The version couldn't be completely opposite, as the Jerusalem group would not have supported and backed him up if that was the case.

I cannot see a real Galilean Peter even talking to Paul. We dont know if Paul knew Aramaic or Hebrew, and we dont know if Peter even knew Hebrew or Koine.

Paul most likely knew Hebrew. We can tell this from his quotation of scripture. That is strengthened when one acknowledges that he was a Pharisee. And if one knew Hebrew, they could communicate in Aramaic.

It is also likely that Peter, having been a fisherman, and being from Capernaum, knew some Greek.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul would have been Jesus mortal enemy, he was fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple, the same people that hired Paul to crush the movement in the Disapora.

So you think that Paul persecuted Christians in foreign cities? If so, who hired him to do that, and what authority did they have in foreign cities?

 

[Nakosis]

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

I've always thought that Paul was the source of much of Christian ideology. He maybe had certain resources or experiences to develop his ideas on but the "thinking" was his. Usually in asking a Christian about their theology they will more often then not refer you to something Paul wrote. There seems nothing else really to refer to. They may use OT passages to support something Paul said, but that is just support/justification.

I really think for much of Christian theology there is no reason to look past Paul.