Posted on 02/27/2004 2:26:39 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
In reply to your statement it is very well possible that Saul (Paul) was at the crucifixion of Jesus b/c it was the Passover so at the very least he would've been in Jerusalem, and since he was a Pharisee, as you pointed out, this would have been the death of all deaths for him and his parents as his father was also a Pharisee. Now I know that we could never say exactly whether or not he was there, but the likelihood is overwhelming, and as to why he might not of mentioned his encounter at the cross. If you would have been all for the killing of a man you just found out to be God and then went on to kill His followers for years would you have written about it?
There's no evidence from tradition that there were three men named "James" involved.
James the Lesser was the "brother of the Lord," the son of Alphaeus (and his wife, who may have been one of the "Marys" present at the crucifixion) and later the bishop of Jerusalem. Also probably the father of St. Jude.
Except for the vision of Jesus himself appearing to Paul, and the Lord speaking to Ananias to go to Paul since he had seen Jesus, and the convinced 12 Apostles to the fact, and the Brothers in Tarsus and Jerusalem who were convinced, there is no scripture indicating that Paul actually met Jesus.
Of course, with that kind of evidence, I am convinced he did meet Jesus through a vision and his teaching was accepted by those who did know Jesus, so I would say that those who knew Jesus and Paul were in agreement that Paul preached what Jesus taught.
No way!Some things are best left unsaid.
St. Jude, or Judas, was another brother of Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.