Paul's belief in Christ - Lets get it STRAIGHT this time!

by lovelylil 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    O.k. I need to vent. I am SICK and TIRED of people claiming that Paul did not believe in the Jesus Christ of the bible. There are many articles on the web (someone sent me one today) that claims that Paul's writings DENY that a historical Jesus existed. The claim is he never mentioned that he saw Jesus in person at anytime and since his writings are older than the gospels, we should take this as evidence Jesus did not exist.

    Well DUH.....it is not unknown to Christians that Paul was not converted to the faith until AFTER Christ's death and ascension to heaven. Of course he never saw him in the flesh! Why would he write about seeing him on earth then? His experience with Christ was one of the most beautiful, supernatural events recorded in the Bible. And he most certainly did believe in the real person of Christ. .

    Here are the facts;

    Paul's conversion to Christianity - Acts 9

    1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

    5 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

    "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

    7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

    10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"
    "Yes, Lord," he answered.

    11 The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."

    13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."

    15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

    17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

    Evidence in Paul's writings that he believed that Jesus of Nazereth Lived and died (in other words he was a real person)

    Romans 8: 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

    1 Corinthians 1:16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

    1 Corinthians 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

    Galatians 2:19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

    It is obvious from these texts that he believed in the SAME Jesus that the gospel writers believed in and that is a real person of Christ who came, died on a cross, and was raised up to heaven. He believed Jesus spoke to him from heaven, struck him blind, healed him and sent him out to preach the gospel to the nations.

    The content of his writings will of course be different than the gospels. He did not walk the earth a follower of Christ. His job was not to record Christ's life and ministry. He was not even a Christian until much later. He stoned Christians believing they were a sect against Judiaism, for goodness sake he was a Pharisee! Christ chose him for a specific purpose which was to preach to the nations (gentiles), as Paul says in his own words.

    How can anyone read these simple verses in the bible and still say Paul did not believe in a historical person of Jesus?

    It is partly because of Paul's writings that I myself became a Christian. And his historical writings which many Bible Scholars believe are older than the Gospels (as far as the date of writing, not content contained) are what helped me see the Bible's NT is trustworthy when he comes to Christ. Peace everyone, Lilly

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Take it easy Lilly

    Paul's essential "Christ Jesus storyline" is, indeed: the Son of God came from heaven in the likeliness of mankind (Romans 8:3; Philippians 2:7), was crucified and rose from the dead for the salvation of the believers.

    The basic question mythicists ask about this story really refers to its genre: is it a legendary development and a theological interpretation of some previous specific (and so far unattested, if we go by the usual datation of NT texts) historical fact (which would reduce itself to: "a particular man, of whom we know nothing from this story, was crucified")? Or is it a mythical construction with only a generic connection with history (the contemporary Roman practice of crucifixion as one of the most apalling forms of capital penalty)?

    This is rather difficult to decide when you think of it. For it is clear that the interest of this story essentially rests on its mythical (non-historical, or supra-historical if you prefer) aspects: it's not about a "mere man" but the Son of God who came from heaven in the likeliness of mankind and rose from the dead for the salvation of the believers.

    From the "historical" standpoint, the Pauline story cannot confirm more than what it says: a man (apparently) was crucified. In fact, thousands were. And it's not completely unlikely that a myth came up suggesting that "once upon a time" a "god" was, too. Reference to a specific past event would be likely if Paul's original interpretation struggled against other independent and conflicting interpretations of the same event. It is possible but not obvious. Most debates with Jewish antagonists focus on other issues (e.g. circumcision, or the observance of the Law). And when "another Jesus" is mentioned (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6ff) Paul seems to dismiss it as a falsification of his Christ (or, more broadly, the Christ of the Hellenistic churches he builds on).

    Don't misunderstand me: I am not entirely convinced by the mythicist case -- I really believe we cannot know for sure. Or at least it's not as simple as most may think.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Narkissos,

    Thanks for your input. I disagree with you on a few points though. Maybe I am misunderstanding your post but this is my take on it.

    When reading Paul's statement in 2Corinthians11:4, it is obvious to me that Paul did not mean an entirely different person of Christ was being preached but that the gospel of Christ was being preached by some in such a way as to try and bring the jewish christians back under bondage to the Mosaic Laws. Remember Paul had to deal with the legalistic "judaizers", those who wanted to keep the law covenant. They were preaching the same person of Jesus of Nazereth (the one Paul also believed in) but were casting their version of Jesus in the mold of Judaistic teachings.

    In other words the Judaizers were trying to paint a different picture of Christ, so that they could keep the mosaic laws that they were used to keeping AND still say they accepted Christ.

    The entire point of 2 Corinthians 11 - is to show that there is only one Christ, one gospel to preach about him, and one spirit to preach in. And the spirit was not that of bondage to the laws.

    My big problem with some who do not understand Paul and his conversion is that they claim he either did not believe in Christ as the Son of God, which is a complete lie. Because this man went to his death as a martyr for believing exactly that. Or, some claim he believed in a different Christ than the other Apostles. I just do not see that according to the scriptures. But I do see that his writings were written for an entirely different purpose than the gospels and his audience and purpose for preaching was different.

    Anyway, this is my view as I see it in the gospel. But mind you I am just plainly reading scripture and using the bible to interpret itself without using aides from outside sources such as those written for the purpose of criticising the NT writings.

    I have read such writings in the past but have not found anything that will sway my faith in the historical accuracy of the NT when dealing with the person of Christ. Or, with Paul's view of who Christ was. And that is taking in consideration for me that yes, the NT has been "edited" over time to suit certain audiences. But I feel the main purpose and message of the writings have remained virtually the same. This has been proven when our Bible texts today have been compared to the dead sea scrolls for instance.

    Anyway, I was NOT directing this thread specifically at you, so I hope you don't think that. I was speaking in general because this topic comes up a lot for me both on and off this board.

    Thanks again for wieghing in. Peace, Lilly

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    lovleylil

    You are right. Paul is not understood because of his unique postion in the Faith. Jesus picked Paul to be his 12th apostle because? Because the other 11 apostles were not doing their jobs and could not be depended upon to put a stop to the apostasy taking place right before their eyes. For a time they were part of it. Paul stumbled some in the beginning as he was dependent on them to get started but Paul was always out in front fighting for the truth. And he came to know more than the rest and corrected the thinking of such apostate Jews mostly like the ones in Corinth.

    Joseph

  • ChattyCathie
    ChattyCathie

    Hi Lil

    Yes, we have the example of Paul going to put them right on the issue of circumcision,- trying to hold on to the Messianic Law. I understand 2 Corr 11:4 (looking at the context of chapter 11) to be speaking about watching out for False Prophets and being weak and being stumbled.

    Gal 1:6 Paul is again speaking of false prophets, but if we look back at the context from verse 1 Paul is showing a distinction between Jesus who gave himself for our sins with undeserved kindness and verse 6 Paul can't believe that some, obviously in the cong at Galatia are 'being so quickly removed from the one who called you with Christ's undeserved kindness (God) over to another sort of good news (or gods)'.

    This wasn't a warning, this was actually happening they were turning away or being 'led' away (in view of the word "removed" being used). In verse 7 Paul says "it is not another" it is only certain ones wanting to cause trouble. Paul obviously knew what was going on at that time.

    Looking back at the context of verse1 Paul is quite clearly not denying Jesus Christ as he is explaining to them that he is an apostle through Jesus and God, just as all the others and those in Galatia. This is how he begins his reasoning with them in verse 1 by stating 'who he is and through whom he is'.(sorry this is in red, clicked my curser on the colour by mistake & can't get back to black)

    Regards to you all

    Cathie (oh black is back!)

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Joseph,

    Thank you so much for your comments. I see things the same as you.

    Paul was chosen by Christ because of his boldness. Christ turned Paul's situation totally around from being a persecutor of Christians to being the number 1 defender of the faith. At first the other Christians were suspect of him but then I believe they came to respect him. Christ in his wisdom knew all that Paul could accomplish for the faith, and thus miraculously gave him a "change of heart". Who else would preach so boldly to everyone including the gentiles and kings?

    Acts 9:

    13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name."

    15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

    In a way I personally feel like a "Paul". I used to make fun of born again Christians myself. When I was a witness, I called them demon possessed and would not even try to reason with them on scripture. I laughed at them thinking they were going to heaven. I felt I knew it all and had a type of self-righteous attitude abut it. But, I had a zeal for God and Christ and wanted to fully know the truth. After finally submitting to Christ, I was born again about 4 years ago. I lost all my friends for the past 12 years in one single day and almost lost my husband. My children think I am now a "jesus freak", and a little Kooky. Maybe I am now.

    I did not associate with any other Christians for nearly 4 years but had been preaching and involved in Ministry work, on my own until recently when I joined some other born again Christians to help in cult ministry work. I also never relied on other Christians to "teach" me, I believe that is the job of the Holy Spirit. And at first, I was treated "suspect" by other real born again Christians because of my past. Maybe this is why I have such a love for Paul and can understand him.

    Peace, Lilly

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    cathie,

    Thank you for that beautiful reasoning on that text. Peace, Lilly

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC
    to the faith until AFTER Christ's death and ascension to heaven. Of course he never saw him in the flesh! Why would he write about seeing him on earth then?

    They were contemporaries yes? He met stephen, but didnt ever meet the boss? Find that hard to believe if they were contemporaries.

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    IP SEC,

    Like you avatar.

    Actually, Paul did meet the boss but not in the flesh like the other Apostles. Christ was already in heaven when he spoke to Paul. Paul had a spiritual meeting with Jesus, not a face to face. But Christ certainly was as real to Paul as he is to Christians today who have never met him "in the flesh". Lilly

  • Burger Time
    Burger Time

    lovelylil, please don't take this the wrong way, but when I see post like this it always makes me chuckle a little bit. It reminds me of when someone posts a scholarly theory and someone comes back with a religious theory as if this is going to put the scholarly theory to rest. Well it never does. As Nark pointed out the debate isn't about Paul denying or not believing in the Christ of the gospels. It's just a scholarly debate that if you really truly believe in the bible shouldn't make one hill of beans.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit