Paul’s Ministry: Jesus was Revealed to Paul


ponsuda wrote:

“From the Bible, Paul’s revelation only claims that Jesus existed in the Heavenly Tabernacle, and not in the earthly Tabernacle.” This is entirely false, as 1 Corinthians 15 (amongst many of Paul’s writings, confirms.) Here’s a small sample in VERY plain English: “3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-8) In a nutshell….Christ DIED (therefore obviously lived a mortal life); Christ was BURIED and Christ WAS RAISED from the dead (and as we know from the Scriptures is now seated at the right hand of God the Father until the time appointed for Him to return to earth to complete His Mission as The Lion of Judah and commence an earthly reign from the City of Jerusalem.) If you can’t see the absurdity of your above claim with which I began this comment, I must conclude what I suspect anyway, that you have no interest in truth.

Also she said:

Escaping into huge swathes of Copy & Paste again I see Amuhd….. How about addressing the glaring inconsistencies in your own ill-researched claims? I can enumerate them for you if that would help? Btw….have you taken a more careful look at 1 Corinthians 15 yet? See my comments and quotes below ūüôā

My Point of view: Most Christians take their Bible literally and would accept Biblical text as the infallible word of God, without hesitation, without question and without thought as exampled above. Most are so obsessed with their faith that they are as passionate with such beliefs with as much zeal as Jihadists have with the Word of Allah expressed in the Quran. They become blinded to the precise meanings of phrases and terminology because of their obsessions that ¬†their interpretations ¬†can become warped in their interpretation about the Word of God. According to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 the most important words that have been overlooked are, “according to the Scriptures.” Paul was referring to what was contained in the Scriptures; he did not say that that is what he believed in. Then we can extend it further, who were the authors of the Gospels who wrote about Jesus? They were assigned names but most were written by several anonymous authors and added to the Gospels without verification; in fact most of the Gospels were not historical but hearsay and cannot be verified historically or scientifically. Nowhere has there bee any verification of any of the legends in the Gospels found. Paul would not have referred to, “according to the Scriptures” if he had believed in any of it. Thus the significance of, “according to the scriptures” has very great significance when reading the text. Why do you, “Copy and Paste” verses from the Bible? So that you can be precise with the exact words and its precise meanings, and to provide the authenticity of its source. That is why people “quote” other authors. They quote (copy and paste with source) because they do not wish to be accused of plagiarism, and to give the appropriate recognition or credit to the original author. But you are using the term C&P as derogatory slur. It shows you do not know how to use English literary protocol. The Gospels are full of plagiarism. E. Doherty concluded:

When we allow Paul to speak for himself, rather than impose upon him the narrative world of the evangelists, we find a consistent picture throughout the letters. The governing force in his life’s work, as it is with all the competing apostles who roam the byways of the empire preaching the divine Christ, is the power of God’s Spirit, manifested through revelation and a study of scripture. No historical man (Jesus) who had recently begun the (Christian) movement hovers in the background of Paul’s thought. His gospel comes from God,

Expanding on a discussion with ludensian, ludensian said,

“There are many reasons to trust the Bible. ¬†….The Bible is filled with predictions, or prophecies. Its record, as documented by history, is clear. Bible prophecy is always right.”

Amuhd in a past discussion I gave you numerous accounts how eminent archaeologists have uncovered hard evidence supporting Biblical events…

“Amuhd in a past discussion‚ĶI gave you so many established facts that it covered at least three pages of well documented archaeological discoveries. Archaeology has served to confirm numerous historical features of Biblical accounts once held in question by modern critics.”

“What saddens me Amuhd is‚Ķ I‚Äôve known you and discussed with you for some time now and nothing I say actually sinks in. You are determined to prove that God or His Son Jesus does not exist‚Ķyet the sad tragedy is that you accept that everything‚Ķthe universe and all life was just a freak accident. You fully accept that we evolved from inanimate matter and eventually evolved from monkeys and apes‚Ķand while you demand to see certain incontrovertible proof of God‚Äôs and Jesus‚Äô existence you enthusiastically accept wild theories of Neo-Darwinism. “

A. Muhd’s Comments to the above summary from Ludensian

ludensian, It must be frustrating for you that you do not seem to have been able to get your points across, so it is essential that your understand the reasons. The biggest difference is our approach and perception of the Bible.

(1) I believe that you accept that the Bible is the infallible word (or inspired word) of God and that what is recorded in the Bible is irrefutable. And above all, you accept the Biblical stories, especially of Jesus, as historical, and therefore authentic, hence you freely refer to it(quote from it) to prove your point. These are all the Hallmarks of an Evangelical Christian. And I fully accept your position on this subject of the infallibility of the Bible stories.

(2) In my early days, ¬†too accepted the Bible on its face value until some of the Biblical discrepancies began to surface like, “Did the Great Flood and Noah’s Ark historical or legendary?” of “Did Adam and Eve really exist?” or “Did God really make man from a lump of clay?” Like others, for much of my life, I took the stories as for granted that they had validity. But I began to ask, “Is my Father in heaven so cruel as to send those who do no believe in Jesus to the Fires of Hell when 2/3rds of the world never even heard of Jesus?” Do we Christians believe we are the chosen peoples for Heaven and that others like Hindus, Taoists, and Muslims are all condemned to Hell? Is this the God I worship and willingly lay down my life for? Let me dig deeper to see what the Bible really says. Will I be a heretic for trying to find out the origins of my faith? If so, have I found the right faith? Perhaps Islam with Allah as the ONLY god is the right way?

(3) Thus began my quest for the origins of the Bible and of Christianity. (a) Who wrote the Bible?

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.”

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It’s the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means “writing that is inscribed with a lie.””

The above would rattle any Christian and get his back up. But I decided to find out more. (b) Were the Biblical stories historical facts or were there legends? (c) What was the historicity of the Biblical characters? (d) Why was the time scale of the Bible so out of step with that with the time scale of the evolution of man and incompatible with science? It took considerable research and the reading of many books for me to be convinced that the Bible is a human construct and totally mythical without any historicity throughout the whole Bible. Believe me, as a Christian, I wanted to prove the historicity of the Bible authentic, but my researches led me further and further away from that hope. No one has been able to prove that I am wrong. Evangelical Christians attempt to justify their arguments by producing yet more Biblical quotations to prove the point, but I cannot seem to accept that one myth and validate an earlier myth. I cannot be convinced.

So this is why, ludensian, when you said, “I gave you so many established facts that it covered at least three pages of well documented archaeological discoveries. ” I have found all the information you have provided unconvincing, and so have other world renowned Biblical researchers never found it convincing, especially when you quote for Biblical sources. Otherwise you would have already been able to silence all those who disagree with your views. For example there has been no reference to a Jesus by all these early historians:

There is no historical reference to Jesus‚Äô life, death or the crucifixion‚Äēnothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

Apollonius Persius                                    Appian Petronius

Arrian Phaedrus                                        Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus

Columella Phlegon                                    Damis Pliny the Elder

Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger             Dion Pruseus Plutarch

Epictetus Pompon Mela                             Favorinus Ptolemy

Florus Lucius Quintilian                             Hermogones Quintius Curtius

Josephus Seneca                                       Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus

Juvenal Statius                                          Lucanus Suetonius

Lucian Tacitus                                           Lysias Theon of Smyran

Martial Valerius Flaccus                             Paterculus Valerius Maximus


I can’t be any more convincing than posting this list.

illity of the Bible.




Amuhd, I have to go out shortly and it will be late when I get back. In the meantime why don’t you address the contents of my comment and explain what it is I am unable to see. During all our discussions you will be aware of my beliefs and the biggest stumbling block to accepting Jesus is the false claim that he was God incarnate…a claim he never made. The Son of God yes… God almighty…no!


Let‚Äôs imagine that someone fabricated a person called Jesus Christ. Suppose that person was clever enough to come up with the teachings credited to Jesus in the Bible. Would he not contrive to make Jesus and his teachings as palatable as possible to people in general? Yet, the apostle Paul observed: ‚ÄúBoth the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness.‚ÄĚ (1 Corinthians 1:22, 23) The message of Christ crucified was attractive neither to the Jews nor to the nations. That was, though, the Christ that first-century Christians proclaimed. Why the depiction of the Christ crucified? The only satisfactory explanation would be that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures recorded the truth about Jesus‚Äô life and death.

Another line of reasoning supporting Jesus‚Äô historicity is found in the untiring preaching of his teachings by his followers. Only some 30 years after Jesus started his ministry, Paul could say that the good news ‚Äúwas preached in all creation that is under heaven.‚ÄĚ (Colossians 1:23) Jesus‚Äô teachings spread throughout the ancient world despite opposition. Paul, who was himself persecuted as a Christian, wrote: ‚ÄúIf Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain.‚ÄĚ (1 Corinthians 15:12-17) If preaching a Christ who had not been resurrected would be in vain, preaching a Christ who had never existed would be even more in vain. As we read in the report by Pliny the Younger, first-century Christians were willing to die for their belief in Jesus. They risked their lives for Christ because he was real; he had walked the earth and had lived as the Gospel accounts record.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: