Paul’s Christology = diaspora Christology + Jesus?

[Thomas]

So, in that regard, no matter what Paul may have written or not written, or even, say, Peter, in his epistles, it is just their commentaries to the Word.

I don't see it that way. There's loads of biographical material in the Gospels, but the essential message is there in Paul.

And the Gospels are really the Evangelists' commentaries on the evangelium they received from the apostles, from the ekklesia, and from the immanent presence of the Holy Spirit.

Of the four, only John claims to have seen Christ. Paul claims to have seen Christ, so on that basis, it arguably shifts his understanding onto a more immediate footing than the Synoptic scribes.

If, for example, we only had Mark, then what have we got? An empty tomb, and an enigmatic ending.

And for instance, what Paul says that in Christ is the fullness of the Divinity bodily is quite in agreement with the Gospel,

Is that because the written Gospel agrees with Paul?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Paul claims to have seen Christ, so on that basis, it arguably shifts his understanding onto a more immediate footing than the Synoptic scribes.

Eh?
If I claim to "have seen Christ", would you then think that I had a good understanding?
No .. I'm sure you wouldn't.

Paul is no Messiah .. he became an educated Pharisee, originally from Turkey (Tarsus) who "changed sides", apparently due to a spiritual experience.

 

[Thomas]

Eh?
If I claim to "have seen Christ", would you then think that I had a good understanding?
No .. I'm sure you wouldn't.

If I thought Christ appeared to you, then I'd assume Christ was not playing pee-a-boo, and He had something in mind.

If Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus to put a stop to his persecutions (although he didn't stop far worse and more cruel persecutions), I'm sure He would have made a return visit if He thought Paul was peddling a load of poo.

Paul is no Messiah .. he became an educated Pharisee, originally from Turkey (Tarsus) who "changed sides", apparently due to a spiritual experience.

Paul never claims to be a Messiah, but it a sense he could be seen as one: "Thus saith haShem to his anointed (messiah), to Cyrus," Isaiah 45:1. Cyrus was the King of Babylon, not a Jew, but an instrument of HaShem to "subdue the nations".

Likewise Paul was an instrument of HaShem to carry the message of Jesus to the gentiles.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If I thought Christ appeared to you, then I'd assume Christ was not playing pee-a-boo, and He had something in mind.

My first thoughts would be skepticism .. I find that asylums are full of people who make
claims about religion.

I'm sure He would have made a return visit if He thought Paul was peddling a load of poo..

Why just pick on Paul(Saul) ?
Many people had their own ideas about "Christianity" in the first few centuries after
Jesus ascension.
I wouldn't expect any "return visits" done on their behalf.

..Paul was an instrument of HaShem to carry the message of Jesus to the gentiles.

Indeed so .. he was very enthusiastic, and had much success.
..but that does not mean he was the only one spreading the word, and his opinions were somehow
more important than what the Messiah was reported to have said in the Gospels.

 

[Longfellow]

My reading is that on the road to Damascus, Paul heard Jesus but did not see him, but that Jesus did appear to him before that, soon after He appeared to the others. On that previous occasion, Paul didn't connect Him with the Christians, and might not even have heard of them yet. Then on the road to Damascus, Jesus revealed that He was the one that Paul was persecuting. That meant that what he had been hearing from disciples before their execution was true, that all of the diaspora heavenly figures, and the promised king, and the suffering servant, were actually all one person, Him, Jesus, the one that Paul was defaming and whose followers he was executing. On top of that, Jesus told him to go and be told what to do by one of those people. That was a lot to digest, which in my reading he did on a 40-day retreat into the wilderness, not to learn anything new, but to reorganize it. I don't see anything saying that he was perfectly guided in that, but I have never yet seen anything in what he says that I can't agree with. Only, there is one thing that I haven't been able to decipher, what he says about resurrection.