wondering what a "granny dude" might look like, I google images searched the exact term, and actually found one!
(Not often this ole granny gets called 'Dude')
WE have only Paul's word for it regarding his conversion - (Didn't Jesus establish the rule of "Two witnesses" to establish veracity?)
Paul is a self-appointed Apostle - after the Crucifiction, the manner of choosing Apostles was by choosing and annointing by the Twelve.
But Paul appoints himself on the road to Damascus and brushes off, with disdain, the need to confer with the leadership in Jerusalem.
He looked down on them - evident in his writings - and after suddenly turning from the murderer of any and all Christians he could find to an "Apostle" = he takes off, not for Jerusalem, but to Arabia and Damascus.
:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,
1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [The Apostles, the leaders appointed by Jesus]
1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
He was condescending to the leaders of the Church and there was a mutual dislike = "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles..." 2 Corinthians 12:11
and in 2 Cor. 11:5-6
11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
11:6 But though [I be] rude in speech, yet not in knowledge;
Paul was an arrogant, angry little man...and we have only his word for what Jesus supposedly taught him in visions - totally at valiance with the way Jesus conducted His 'business'...
Paul saw no need to 'confer' with the very people that Jesus hand picked and taught, the people that lived, ate, slept and took instruction from Him for 3 years.
There are books and books about the subject of Paul - and "Paulinism" -
I notice you rely on the words of Paul - Myself, I rely on the 'red letters' - even have a book that has ONLY the words of Jesus from the Bible.
I believe Jesus was capable of explaining His Gospel - and that He did it very well.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson - have his 'Bible' where he took out only the words of Jesus to print by themselves.
I don't think Jesus and His words need reams and reams of others interpretations of what he said.
What He said, he said. Simply. Beautifully.
And that is the most crank, messed up explanation I have ever read. If Paul is not an apostle, then you can just throw out half the New Testament. And if you throw out half the New Testament, then you can throw out the notion of divinely inspired scripture and the Holy Spirit, too. And if you throw out divinely inspired scripture and the Holy Spirit, you can just throw out Jesus along with it all.
What you believe is a heresy, a sort of "reverse Marcion". Marcion thought only Paul was divinely inspired and constructed his own Bible with only a severely edited version of the Gospel of Luke, and Paul's letters. He was branded a heretic, and rightly so. Your crank theory is just as heretical (in addition to making for a good belly laugh or two).
maine-iac7 writes:
“WE have only Paul’s word for it regarding his conversion - (Didn’t Jesus establish the rule of “Two witnesses” to establish veracity?)”
nevadan writes:
This is not the case. Paul’s conversion experience is recorded in Acts, which was written by Luke, one of the Gospel writers (as I’m sure you are aware). In Acts 9 we see that while on the road to Damascus, Saul (whose name was changed to Paul) had his dramatic confrontation with Jesus. Now you could say that this was just Paul’s word, but there were others with him when this happened (Acts 9:7):
“The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless;
they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 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. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.”
While its true that these traveling companions could not verify that Saul was talking with Jesus, they absolutely saw that something dramatic happened and they can attest that they did hear something. They also can verify that Saul was blinded.
A collaborating witness to Saul/Paul’s conversion experience is the Christian disciple named Ananias, who lived in Damascus. Ananias testifys that Jesus spoke to him and told him about Saul/Paul’s experience and that he was to go where Saul was staying and restore Saul’s sight. Ananias questions the Lord’s instruction because he knew perfectly well who and what Saul was. Ananias was scared of Saul (and rightly so). Interestingly enough, Ananias says to Saul/Paul in Acts 9:17,
“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.”
So, we do have Saul/Paul’s traveling companions who can verify that a dramatic event occured on their way to Damascus. They can verify that Saul lost his sight at that point. We also have Ananias’s testimony that what Saul/Paul experienced was true. These accounts were undoubtably verifiable by the writer, Luke, who, as previously mentioned before, was the author of the Gospel of Luke. Are you saying that Ananias lied about his story too? You trusted Luke to write down the Lord’s words, but you don’t trust his recording of the events in Acts? That’s inconsistent.
We also have the evidence of Paul’s conversion by his 180 degree turn-around in behavior. He, Paul/Saul, who formerly ravaged the church whenever he could, was now preaching the very faith he once tried to destroy.
You mistake Paul’s words of “asserting his calling” as an Apostle with “disdain” and “anger” toward the other Apostles. This doesn’t add up because, obviously Paul respected the other Apostles in that he did go to them and met with them, with Barnabas’s introduction, in Jerusalem. They apparantly concured on doctrine and theology. I do not see anywhere in Acts or in any of the other Apostles writings (Peter, James, John, etc.) that they questioned his teachings or his authority. The questions about his apostleship came not from the other Apostles, but from people in the areas he went to on his missionary journys. It’s true that Paul had to defend his authority, but not to the Apostles, but to “false teachers” who were trying to spread heresy in the early church. It was these religious frauds that accused Paul of not having Apostolic authority - not the other Apostles.
The Apostle Peter himself refers to Paul in one of his own letters, in 2 Peter 3:15 -
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
This doesn’t sound like Peter is at odds with Paul at all. Notice that he even compares Paul’s writings with other scripture (vs. 16). You must be very careful in handling the scripture.
I agree with you that the words of Jesus are beautiful. They tell us who He is. The writings of the Apostles are scripture too. It is they who put together the four Gospels. Their is no contradiction between their writings and the words of Jesus.
wondering what a "granny dude" might look like, I google images searched the exact term, and actually found one!