Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Did Jesus or angels speak to Paul?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frich107 AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Did Jesus or angels speak to Paul?
  • Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 05:31:54 EDT


In a message dated 8/28/02 11:46:05 PM, david AT colonialcommerce.com writes:

>I would like to enquire if it is allowed to even discuss on this list (or
>any related lists) whether Paul did (or even could) have actually received
>information from a resurrected Jesus or from angels. It seems to me that
>to disallow this possibility completely shows a rather closed 'mind set'.

I'm assuming that as this post came through the subject matter is allowed by
this list. I would agree with David that to disallow the possibility of
'spiritual', or perhaps even 'supernatural' explanations per se is
unreasonable within a scholarly context.

>To bring the
>matter back to Paul, IHMO Paul's words and actions can only be explained
>by one of the following:
>
>. Paul really was spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus;
>. Paul had a 'brain storm' which caused him to really believe that he
> was spoken to by Jesus;
>. Paul invented the whole thing;
>. It was all an invention of someone else, and perhaps Paul never even
> existed.
>
>IMHO the third and fourth options are total non-starters, unless
>Christianity is simply a scam and all the apostles (if they even existed!)
>were also in on it too. If discussing the first option is totally 'out
>of
>court', then it seems to me that all is left is number two: Paul believed
>his own propaganda but was deceived. Does it really come down to this?

I would also agree that options 3 and 4 seem to be highly unlikely for
various reasons, not least of which is the quick spread of Christianity in
the Ancient World. Option 1 necessetates the need for divine revelation or
prophecy, two things that modern scholarship has, for the most part,
discounted out of hand. However, I can think of at least two major scholarly
works that challenge these assumptions. I am thinking particularly of Wayne
Grudem's 'The Gift of Prophecy' and Chris Forbes' 'Inspired Speech'. Both are
well respected professors whose work comes out of their own doctoral theses.

At this stage I would simply wish to say, along with David, that such
readings of Paul's calling should be given serious consideration. I look
forward to any discussion on these matters.

Regards,
Fred Rich
Ph.D. Student
Department of Biblical Studies,
University of Sheffield,
UK.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page