The Gospels are first hand acconts. When did Paul meet Jesus except in being blinded on the way to Damascus?
Fact is — in the bible — Paul persecuted the Christians and did not meet Jesus and have first hand information.
“The Gospels are first hand acconts. When did Paul meet Jesus except in being blinded on the way to Damascus?
Fact is — in the bible — Paul persecuted the Christians and did not meet Jesus and have first hand information.”
You heard it here first folks! Salvation, the Roman Catholic, has hereby renounced Paul and all his epistles! This also marks the moment when I stop taking her seriously though.
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
(2Pe 3:15-16)
I guess you’re going to have to throw out the Papacy too, since Peter apostatized by endorsing Paul and his writings as Holy scripture?
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19
Come on, Salvation.
Even this is a stretch by Catholic standards.
This is an absurd argument, as
1., it makes the level of authority of words dependent upon the past or even present holiness of the instrument, and,
2. it ignores the fact that Paul did indeed have first hand information, and
3. it would make 2 gospels of lesser authority than the other writers as Mark and Luke were not first hand accounts, which fact is also ignored, or you are ignorant of.
As re 1, while being the Lord means Christ personally had more authority than any man, yet He is not known to have written anything except some words in the sand once, but wrote the NT by His Spirit thru chosen instruments. And the authority of which which words are based upon that (and didactically whether the form is teaching God's will simply recording things such as the conclusions of the natural mind as in Ecl. 2:24; 8:15) and not the past or even present holiness of the instrument.
If otherwise, we would have to reduce the worth of David's words since even as a believer he was guilty of adultery and murder. And also those of Peter as by his own confession he was a sinful man b4 conversion, and afterwards he was guilty as charged of hypocrisy, (Gal. 2) by Paul, whose words Peter affirmed as Scripture. And who is never charged with sin in his post conversion life, but is shown as being the primary theologian, writer of Holy Writ and church planter and disciple. In fact, excluding duplicate accounts, Paul is given more press by the Holy Spirit than Peter, and is so instrumental that he is called "pope Paul" in polemical parody in response to exalting Peter above that which is written.
As re. 2, Paul did have first hand information, as His writes in Gal. by the Holy Spirit,
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)
This likely most fully (at least) took place when during the three years before he went to Jerusalem, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia. (Gal. 1:17, 18)
And Paul states in refuting those, who like you, impugned his apostolic authority, "have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1Cor. 9:1) and labored more than the rest. (1Cor. 15:10)
As re 3, Mark and Luke are not 2 gospels of lesser authority than the other writers as Mark and Luke were not first hand accounts, with Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached, and Luke the historian writing what eyewitnesses from the beginning recalled. Meanwhile, your holiness hermeneutic Matthew, the tax collector for pagans.
Thus your reasons for the second class authority of most of the NT are not valid, nor is the reason you gave for so doing, . that of having to choose btwn the gospels and Paul. That being said, yet as said, the Lord, being the Lord, His words do reflect His primary anointing and authority, though these are by the same Spirit that inspired the rest, of which Christ foretold. (Jn. 16:12-15) And as a comparison of duplicate accounts indicates, sometimes we are not reading what Christ exactly verbatim said as the Spirit sometimes recasts them in giving a more comprehensive revelation.
SOMEone's definition of MEET is a bit lacking.
Really? You think that Saul, being a Pharisee of the Pharisees, who lived at the time of Jesus, didn't have knowledge of who Jesus was or that the possibility exists that SAUL actually did meet Jesus before He was crucified?
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it was pretty likely Saul DID meet Jesus at some time before He was crucified.
I'd lay money on the fact that Saul did know of Him, if not had at least seen Him.
Course, there's no way of knowing if that was the case until we die, but I would not be surprised.