Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.

by Emery 52 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ÁrbolesdeArabia

  Hi Doug, I don't think you read my post close enough, I took that into account when I wrote my original post about Paul and his access to first hand accounts.

  " Paul knew Mark, Matthew and Luke's accounts of the power Jesus Christ had over the unclean spirits. St. Paul was given different gifts including the authority to expel the unclean spirits under the name of "Jesus the Nazarene, The Messiah". The book of Daniel speaks of the angel Gabriel being stuck for forty days until the Arch Angel Micheal removed the Prince of Persia chains holding back Gabriel from delivering the message to Daniel and answer his prayers. Compare the power that Jesus of Nazareth to the angels who were hindered by the demons, "Legion" in the following scripture could have been ten to ten thousand if we use a Roman Legion average soldier count."

  Did Paul have access to talk with Peter, John, James, Mark, Matthew, Luke by the time he was in Rome and began to write the letters in the Twilight of his life? When we would visit with our JW friends who loved to discuss Bible apologetics the time flew by and we could sit back and talk for hours and hours with our Pioneer or Missionary buddies. Paul had access to the first hand accounts when he went to Jerusalem to combat the men trying to get the Gentiles to follow the Law. The books might not have been written as I presumed in my post, I believe Paul with his education and Holy Spirit helping him was able to get much of his questions anwsered.

  Hi Mp, I think Paul's words describe something far beyond a angel, throughout the book of Romans Paul speaks of the New Creation and how we can't be seperated by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul goes onto to establish men, angels nor Hell can seperate us from the love of God and his Son Jesus Christ who loved us so much and gave his life.

  Mp, according to the Greek Sciptures Jesus Christ was the first to be given immortality and a name above ever other name in Heaven. i wish I could be precise but that is exactly what get's us all into trouble, we are not privy to the substance Jesus Christ has now been honored with by the Father. Romans 5-8 are great scriptures that describe something beyond a Angel, being a JW for so long we were not good with studying these books we were told did not pertain to us. I think Jesus Christ revealed to Paul he was higher than a Angel, some creation much higher "Paul speaks of a vision of the third-Heaven and seeing things it was not legal to see", Pauls books show Jesus Christ was rewarded as the New Creation Jehovah made to honor his holy Son, parents are always willing to do the most for their kids, the love and joy Jehovah had for his first born creation after refuting Satan's lies, are show in Pauls writtings that Jesus Christ was the first "New Creation" and given that title.

  Mp, sorry if the answer seems convoluted because I wish I had the exact answer to provide you! Peace be with you Mp!
• 

  mP

  @Arboles

  Your overview of some of Pauls work, doesnt change the fact that Paul never mentions anythhing about jesus the man and has no knowledge of the gospels.

  Paul never mentions

  - never quotes the gospels, then again its obvious why as the gospels were written after Paul died.

  - jesus being born in Bethlehem

  - mary

  - joseph

  - the crucifiction

  - jesus earthly ministry

  - jesus miracles

  - the ressurrection,

  - herod

  - judas

  - the apostles

  - Paul visits jerusalem but never tells us about any galgotha, etc

  Of course if im wrong show me a scripture written by Paul that mentions a few or even one of the above aspects of jesus life.

  How is it that Paul never tells us any of these historical facts about Jesus ?
• 

  Doug Mason

  ÁrbolesdeArabia,

  I did read your post and I provided a few reasons for my disagreement.

  Paul claimed that he did not receive any of his instructions from any human. He claimed that he spoke with no one for 3 years after his conviction regarding Jesus Christ, that he spent 14 years without making any contact with Jerusalem, and when he gave them his gospel message, they added nothing. He speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John). When the 4th century Church at Rome decided which writings they would canonise (currently our NT), they wrote James out of the picture, even though he was Jesus' full brother and leader of the Jerusalem community.

  Paul indicated that his teachings came directly to him from the Lord, without any human involvement. Either he is deluded, telling a lie, or he is honest.

  Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death and re-edited during subsequent centuries. He created the ideas and others followed, some of which I mentioned in my previous response.

  Did Paul invent Christianity?

  Doug
• 

  Comatose

  Lars viewed himself as the messiah. He wasn't. It doesn't really matter how Paul viewed him... If you read Bart's books you realize the miracles in the stories you talk about with demonic possession probably didn't happen.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  I think 1 Corinthians 9:22 is a good bet for how the gospels may have originated.

  19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

  Paul may have been admitting here that he was guilty of what we today call pious fraud to gain as many converts as possible.

  The theory goes that there was an original oral tradition and quite possibly original Q documents of sorts, which Paul heard and perhaps carried with him in his missionary travels. These contained written accounts of Jesus's basic oral teachings and ministry, but these accounts quickly got corrupted and embellished by the heathens who soon elaborated the stories with themes from their ancient Roman myths. Paul tolerated it and perhaps even promoted this in order to gain more converts!

  The fact that there was a very strong tradition of numerous gnostic gospels being written (although quite some time after the original gospels) around which whole religious communities developed tends to support the idea that people back in those ancient times took a lot of pious and literary licence, tending to confuse and blend historical accuracy and tradition with their unique brand of religious mysticism.

  By the time the gospels were written long after Paul had been travelling for many years around the far-flung circuits of the Roman empire and with no original Jewish disciples around to place a check the embellishments (all in Jerusalem or thereafter killed or lost in the diaspora), the original oral tradition had become widely corrupted. Paul wanted to 'save' as many and as quickly as he could, so he let the embellishments go unchecked. Better that some falsehood is tolerated and more 'saved' than rigidly sticking to the original accounts.

  By the time Mark was written, the writer himself a pagan convert writing the account for a Roman audience, the damage was done. Then the other gospels flowed from Mark.
• 

  QC

  @Yadda

  "The theory goes"

  Interesting post, but “theory goes” can’t be taken as creditable Biblical evidence. You agree?

  "Mark was written, the writer himself a pagan convert"

  ALL Bible writers are Jews, not one was a pagan gentile convert.

  "Moses...received living words to pass on to us [Jews];" Acts 7:38 "Advantage...in being a Jew...Jews have been ENTRUSTED with the very words of god." Ro 3:1-2 NIV

  @Comatose

  Paul "speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John)."

  I disagree:

  YLT Ga 2:9 "Having known the grace that was given to me, James , and Cephas , and John , who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may go"

  "Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."

  I disagree:

  Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.

  
• 

  QC

  @Comatose: sorry, got you by mistake, my bad.

  @DMason

  Paul "speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John)."

  I disagree:

  YLT Ga 2:9 "Having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may go"

  Luke was written some 60 to 90 years after Paul had died.... "Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."

  I disagree:

  Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.

  
• 

  Band on the Run

  You need to read more history sources.
• 

  QC

  @Band

  You need to read more history sources.

  New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

  Mark

  From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem , such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3 , that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews , but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel , occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.

  Matthew

  Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension , hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius ( Church History III.5.2 ), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel , as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome , consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.

  Luke & Acts

  As regards the date of the Book of Acts , we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome . These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome , and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity . Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts . [Gospel Luke is earlier, Luke travels with Paul]
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  "creditable Biblical evidence"

  What "creditable evidence" about 2,000 year old books that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies....etc.

  Thomas refused to believe until he had hard physical proof with his own eyes, so why should I believe?

  It's completely irrational to believe in miracles claimed by ancient hearsay.