Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In The God Who Wasn't There the narrator says how Paul knew largely nothing of what we call the story of Jesus.That he only knew of Christ erected on the cross, his resurrection, and the ascension. Yet, Paul did not place any of these events on Earth.

Is this claim supportable from primary evidence?

Could someone elaborate on this period immediately following the death of Jesus?

share|improve this question
4  
There are quite a few problems with the video. John does not "clearly" borrow from Mark at all. The fact that Mark mentions a prophecy of the Temple being destroyed does not mean it was written after it was destroyed, anymore than Isaiah 7:14 had to be written after Jesus was born. Actually the book of Acts tells us about history between 30 and 70 A.D. as well. Just because Paul doesn't mention the story of Jesus doesn't mean he didn't know about it. Paul definitely places the death, burial and resurrection in the physical realm--not the mythical. –  Narnian Dec 28 '12 at 20:58
3  
Jesus wasn't a Levitical Priest, but one according to Melchizidek. To suggest that Paul doesn't believe Jesus was ever a human being is absurd. There was no "forgotten" period either. No myth created 40 years later could have ever caused the explosion of Christianity against so many forms of persecution. This video is just completely inaccurate in too many ways to number. –  Narnian Dec 28 '12 at 21:02
2  
You could probably ask a dozen or more questions from this, but this video is wrong on all of them. –  Narnian Dec 28 '12 at 21:08
5  
This reads like a "refute-this" question, which is not a good fit for the site. The video is a typical atheistic view, and per the FAQ answers are expected to come from a Christian view. Since the content of the video would be dismissed as drivel by any Biblical scholar, it would be pointless to address it other than to point out that it doesn't represent an accepted Christian view. This isn't the place to argue Truth, and it's not constructive to argue every made-up claim of some skeptic. –  David Stratton Dec 28 '12 at 21:12
1  
@AffableGeek - Good edits. The addition of that one question and the change to the title made a huge difference. –  David Stratton Jan 2 '13 at 4:18

1 Answer 1

Faulty Premise: Paul knew nothing of Jesus

Paul summarizes his own life story in Galatians 1:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

By his own testimony, Paul had at least two weeks' direct contact with Peter (aka Cephas) and James, two obvious eyewitnesses of Christ. Even if you discount the personal encounter with Jesus in Acts 9, Paul clearly had access to those who did know Christ.

Indeed, in his time, Paul was being accused not of not knowing who Jesus was, but rather of trying to claim the other disciples' experiences of his own. Hence Paul going out of his way in vs. 19 to distance himself from the apostles...

When he says earlier that the Gospel he preaches is not of human origin, he is referring to his direct encounter with Christ, through whom we surmise he learned of Christ. Later, Peter, who clearly knew Christ, attests that the encounter was genuine and that this is the same Gospel.

To say Paul knew nothing of Christ simply does not square with the primary sources.

share|improve this answer
    
You may also want to check out: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11436/… and christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9485/… to get a sense of the timeline –  Yuletide Geek Dec 28 '12 at 21:21
    
By the way, the Hebrews 8:4 reference is (a) not written by Paul and (b) there is an error in putting Jesus as the "he" in that verse. (At time point 2:17) –  Yuletide Geek Dec 28 '12 at 21:25
1  
I gave up at 3:00 when the video claims "Everyone forgot." Um, no. The Gospels were all written by eyewitnesses (Matthew & John) or by people with direct access to the Apostles (Mark = Peter). Possibly, you could put Luke=Paul in the secondhand category (again, discounting Paul's experience), but then you leave out what is probably the most human of the Gospels - not the one with the most audacious claims. –  Yuletide Geek Dec 28 '12 at 21:28
    

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.