How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected?

[Secret Alias]

I just don't understand why it is necessary to bring in pagan religions and Paul's possible correspondences with 'pagan churches.' It doesn't seem like the logical 'next step' in the discussion. There is no evidence to support such a situation. None whatsoever. Let's stick to ancient testimonies and build up from a solid foundation.

[MrMacSon]

...Let's stick to ancient testimonies and build up from a solid foundation.

Yes, your're right. Having re-read the first few pages of this thread I can see You were doing a good job of that before I interrupted (though my intention was only to encourage a 'broad'-mind).

I won't interrupt with peripheral stuff anymore.

[Secret Alias]

I think it's important to recognize that Paul by his own definition got the idea that Jesus was resurrected from his own vision. This would suggest that there is no historical foundation to the resurrection. It started with Paul. Unless you believe 'it happened' in the real world and the information was sent to Paul separately in a vision. I think that's a stretch. It all begins with Paul and ends with Paul. As such it strengthens the idea that the gospel began as a vision (or hallucination) of Paul.

[outhouse]

'it happened' in the real world and the information was sent to Paul separately in a vision.
.

Why cherry pick the text ?


You ignore the same text that states he joined a movement in progress and hunted leaders down. A movement wide spread.


Because Pauls community claims rhetorically he received divine knowledge does not indicate it was the only place Paul learned traditions from.

[outhouse]

So your point is that it doesn't matter that Paul said he never accepted 'tradition according to men' or was understood never to have consulted with any men to establish his gospel. You see no conflict or difficulty.

Not at all. I'm just not ignoring the rest of the text in context.


How did he hunt down a Jewish Proselyte sect and differentiate its teachings from other Proselytes if he did not know the theology and people behind it?


You leave larger questions in your wake, then you solve

[Clive]

I think it's important to recognize that Paul by his own definition got the idea that Jesus was resurrected from his own vision. This would suggest that there is no historical foundation to the resurrection. It started with Paul. Unless you believe 'it happened' in the real world and the information was sent to Paul separately in a vision. I think that's a stretch. It all begins with Paul and ends with Paul. As such it strengthens the idea that the gospel began as a vision (or hallucination) of Paul.

During the 1950's psychotic visions included references to TV, X Ray and UFO's, I am not sure what they reference now. Maybe our prescribing habits are stopping them but the root of all evil now seems to be cyclists?

Paul would have used ideas that were around at his time in his visions and his thinking about his visions.

We know about these - the good man, the anointed one, emmanuel, death where is thy sting, born of a woman ...

I propose that it is quite reasonable to propose that Paul invented the resurrection. And then a massive industry kicked in to improve the greatest story ever told.

[Ulan]

1. there is strong evidence to suggest that Paul claimed to have not been influenced by previous traditions of Christianity
.

Only if you read the text literally like an apologist, and take it out of context.

That's not an apologist reading. An apologist needs to make the literal sense of what Paul says go away without damaging the figure of Paul too much, while at the same time keeping the narrative of the Jerusalem ur-community up.

Paul claims that everything he knows comes from revelation and not from any man and that he is the origin of the crucifixion/resurrection story. That's still part of the text that made it into the NT.

In principle, the whole discrepancy between your viewpoints is what kind of communities Paul interacted with. Were those "Christians"? If those people in Jerusalem were just some Jewish sect, with their leader having the rank of a high priest (per Hegesippus), then things become murky. Or, to put the question into a different context, how much faith do you put into Acts?

[outhouse]

That's not an apologist reading.

The problem here is he is ignoring text that states he hunted down this sect, so he was not blind to the theology or he could not have hunted then down.

next he also claims other teachers existed

he also claims he joined a movement already in progress. And NO credible reason has ever been provided this was not the case.

And by the way, apologist are very diverse in theory perversion of historicity.


Paul lived and wrote in a historical framework, while there are questions unanswered about this time period, you need to apply the cultural context, not just pick and choose sound bites to run with.

[outhouse]

Paul claims that everything he knows comes from revelation and not from any man and that he is the origin of the crucifixion/resurrection story.

So like an apologist you take a literal interpretation of such?

He never stated he was the origin of the crucifixion or resurrection, nor do we believe that he did such.

[Ulan]

That's not an apologist reading.

The problem here is he is ignoring text that states he hunted down this sect, so he was not blind to the theology or he could not have hunted then down.

next he also claims other teachers existed

he also claims he joined a movement already in progress. And NO credible reason has ever been provided this was not the case.

These your statements are all beside the point. There's no way to know from Paul's writing what the others taught. If we further entertain the notion that they talked about some Christ figure, there's still the option that this was a Christ figure like you find it in the Didache: No crucifixion, no resurrection.
Edit: To be clear, I don't say this was so. However, everything related to the Jerusalem sect isn't exactly clear-cut.

And by the way, apologist are very diverse in theory perversion of historicity.

They still have all to achieve what I said they have to achieve, which makes your point moot.

Paul lived and wrote in a historical framework, while there are questions unanswered about this time period, you need to apply the cultural context, not just pick and choose sound bites to run with.

That's one of your typical, fundamentally hollow, roundabout statements. In principle, you are also picking and choosing from the number of options we have.