How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected?

[Secret Alias]

A gentile/pagan 'church'/community:

Where do you find a 'pagan Christian' church? Must we be forced into continuing to indulge these non-existent personal fantasies of members?

[MrMacSon]

a pagan Christian 'church'/community

[Secret Alias]

So what's a pagan church?

[MrMacSon]

So what's a pagan church?

A non-Christian or non-Jewish religion

[Secret Alias]

So this is important?

I also wonder if Paul was interacting with a non-Christian or non-Jewish religion)

What reason to we have for wasting our time introducing this into the discussion? I understand that you 'like' pagan religions. Cool. But that's like me trying to argue that Paul was interacting to people like these:



or if you prefer:

[Secret Alias]

Some more clues. Irenaeus provides more fragmentary information about what the heretics believed always juxtaposing the Pentacost story in Acts witj another story involving at its core 'Jesus' who was crucified and 'Christ who watched impassably. So we read in Book Three:

These [are the] voices of the Church from which every Church had its origin; these are the voices of the metropolis of the citizens of the new covenant; these are the voices of the apostles; these are voices of the disciples of the Lord, the truly perfect, who, after the assumption of the Lord, were perfected by the Spirit, and called upon the God who made heaven, and earth, and the sea,--who was announced by the prophets,--and Jesus Christ His Son, whom God anointed, and who knew no other [God]. For at that time and place there was neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor the rest of these subverters [of the truth], and their adherents. Wherefore God, the Maker of all things, heard them. For it is said, "The place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness" to every one that was willing to believe. "And with great power," it is added, "gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus," saying to them, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye seized and slew, hanging [Him] upon a beam of wood: Him hath God raised up by His right hand to be a Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are in this witnesses of these words; as also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that believe in Him." "And daily," it is said, "in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Christ Jesus," the Son of God. For this was the knowledge of salvation, which renders those who acknowledge His Son's advent perfect towards God.

But as some of these men impudently assert that the apostles, when preaching among the Jews, could not declare to them another god besides Him in whom they believed, we say to them, that if the apostles used to speak to people in accordance with the opinion instilled into them of old, no one learned the truth from them, nor, at a much earlier date, from the Lord; for they say that He did Himself speak after the same fashion. Wherefore neither do these men themselves know the truth; but since such was their opinion regarding God, they had just received doctrine as they were able to hear it. According to this manner of speaking, therefore, the rule of truth can be with nobody; but all learners will ascribe this practice to all [teachers], that just as every person thought, and as far as his capability extended, so was also the language addressed to him. But the advent of the Lord will appear superfluous and useless, if He did indeed come intending to tolerate and to preserve each man's idea regarding God rooted in him from of old. Besides this, also, it was a much heavier task, that He whom the Jews had seen as a man, and had fastened to the cross, should be preached as Christ the Son of God, their eternal King. Since this, however, was so, they certainly did not speak to them in accordance with their old belief. For they, who told them to their face that they were the slayers of the Lord, would themselves also much more boldly preach that Father who is above the Demiurge, and not what each individual bid himself believe [respecting God]; and the sin was much less, if indeed they had not fastened to the cross the superior Saviour (to whom it behoved them to ascend), since He was impassible.

and again:

These men do, in fact, set the Spirit aside altogether; they understand that Christ was one and Jesus another; and they teach that there was not one Christ, but many. And if they speak of them as united, they do again separate them: for they show that one did indeed undergo sufferings, but that the other remained impassible; that the one truly did ascend to the Pleroma, but the other remained in the intermediate place; that the one does truly feast and revel in places invisible and above all name, but that the other is seated with the Demiurge, emptying him of power. It will therefore be incumbent upon thee, and all others who give their attention to this writing, and are anxious about their own salvation, not readily to express acquiescence when they hear abroad the speeches of these men: for, speaking things resembling the [doctrine of the] faithful, as I have already observed, not only do they hold opinions which are different, but absolutely contrary, and in all points full of blasphemies, by which they destroy those persons who, by reason of the resemblance of the words, imbibe a poison which disagrees with their constitution, just as if one, giving lime mixed with water for milk, should mislead by the similitude of the colour; as a man" superior to me has said, concerning all that in any way corrupt the things of God and adulterate the truth, "Lime is wickedly mixed with the milk of God."

[MrMacSon]

I understand that you 'like' pagan religions.

I don't like pagan religions beyond thinking that Paul may have been interacting with them and some of their tenets may have found their way into the books of the NT. I am seeking assessment of that speculation. I appreciate it doesn't light your fire.

eta: this is what I think the early-Christian era needs -

.. to me this is a really fascinating group. I'm always trying to think outside of the box which the modem forms these religions tend to put us in, and a group like this is a perfect example of the fluidity of these categories in the ancient times - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 145#p51145

[Clive]

According to most classical Muslim commentators the Quran teaches that Jesus did not die. On the day of the crucifixion another person – whether his disciple or his betrayer – was miraculously transformed and assumed the appearance of Jesus. He was taken away, crucified, and killed, while Jesus was assumed body and soul into heaven. Most critical scholars accept that this is indeed the Quran’s teaching, even if the Quran states explicitly only that the Jews did not kill Jesus. In the present paper I contend that the Quran rather accepts that Jesus died, and indeed alludes to his role as a witness against his murderers in the apocalypse. The paper begins with an analysis of the Quran’s references to the death of Jesus, continues with a description of classical Muslim exegesis of those references, and concludes with a presentation of the Quran’s conversation with Jewish and Christian tradition on the matter of Jesus’ death.

https://www.academia.edu/24493806/_The_ ... 009_237-58

How does the traditional Islamic teaching fit with your ideas? Is this supporting them?

[Secret Alias]

There are ways to make this view fit the early second century environment especially the tradition of Basilides and a Nag Hammadi text. But I am not sure whether it is entirely applicable or important yet.

[Secret Alias]

I don't like pagan religions beyond thinking that Paul may have been interacting with them and some of their tenets may have found their way into the books of the NT.

Based on what?