The Christ, as spoken of by St Paul, is Jesus as the Messiah. The fulfilment of Hebrew prophesy, rather than Jesus walking, talking, doing miracles etc. Someone can correct me on this, but I think that Paul never mentions any actual event from the life of Jesus in the whole of his writings. Why not?
True, but he was born about the same time as Jesus in 2AD. His conversion came just after Jesus's death, in 33 AD. Many of the Christians he met would have known Jesus personally. He spent 15 days in Jerusalem in 36 AD. He could have provided a great many more of Jesus's sayings and doings, but he chose to remain silent. The Gospels were written later, so his account would have been the first, and the most accurate. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, assuming there is any truth in any of the tales, real xtians would have avoided him like the plague since he was a noted persecuter of xtians.
I'm sure they would have been suspicious of him at first, but that would not have been an ongoing problem.
************* M*W: You are correct, but that's the same thing as Apollo describing the Sun as the creator of all. Just didn't happen.
I do not think this follows. Just as history books get more right than contemporary accounts, you have to look at the bias in the source. Paul's blathering can not be trusted, especially since his idea that the world was going to end in his lifetime colored his teachings in a harmful way. Since he thought we were all going to die or be saved before his generation was up, he taught abstinence where previously the Bible taught multiplication. He also turned Jesus into the REAL son of God, when Jesus previously saw himself (and all of us) as symbolic sons of God. Look at Joseph Smith's followers and L.Ron Hubbards and tell me if knowing someone who knew someone kept the facts straight...
Paul knew the events of Christ's life because he spent much time with the surviving apostles...but when he wrote he revealed only the Jesus as he experienced him, as a spiritual being.
Thanks Carcano. At least you are attempting to answer the question. Where are all the Bible Christians with their answers? Ask a question about evolution, which they know nothing about, and they arrive in droves. But ask a question about St Paul........... Silence. I'm starting to get Flipping annoyed.
They would have preferred that Paul said something about the life events of Jesus...it makes them uneasy to be reminded that he did not.
Your question was not a question. It was you setting up an attack on Paul. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
A pathetic answer. And an insult to myself. I have posted nearly 3,000 posts on this site. Can you find a single one in which I have set up an attack on a religious subject? If you don't want to discuss the question, bugger off!
We do not know if Paul ever met Jesus face-to-face. We can only assume he did not. Paul was a pharisee, which is a highly respected religious leader among the jewish faithful. He was converted on the road to Damascus as he set out to persecute the followers of the christian faith. Paul was highly educated, and zealous about his faith in OT judaism. According to his testimony he was confronted by a risen Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus, and was asked why he set out to persecute christian believers. Paul was then smitten with blindness and he converted his faith. Paul knew what the OT said about a coming messiah and wrote quite a lot to reconcile the OT with the NT. In the gospel accounts Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit after his resurrection, and there would be a chosen vessel to receive it who would then expound on the new covenant. Christians believe Paul was that chosen vessel.
The "Modern Bible" describes the gospel of St John The Divine as the essential theme of modern Christian belief.
St Paul is an intriguing character. With his travels, he would seem an ideal subject for the film medium. Apart from being the source of theological Christianity, he is neglected as a person, which is ironic really. If he had written a definitive gospel, it would have prevented a lot of the subsequent splits in Christian belief.
Surely he would have mentioned that. But he must have been familiar with his name at least. Could it be that he felt that the risen Christ was so important, that his earthly life was of little importance? I'm just putting that forward as a suggestion. I don't really like the idea.
My version of Paul and his doctrine (you'll love this), is that he represented the "conversion" of the enemy of Judaism = pagan Rome. Thus the Judaeo-Christian mythology defeats the people who destroyed the Temple. Maybe the original idea took off (found its own momentum) and flew farther than its inventors were expecting.
