Paul says at
Romans 12:20
On the contrary, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in so doing, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Jesus says at
Luke 6:27-28
But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
= = =
But Paul does not seem to pick up any of the Lukan Beatitudes, when I look for cross-references to those verses.
= = =
Paul says at
Romans 12:14
Bless those who persecute you. Bless and do not curse.
Jesus says at Luke 6:28
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
= = =
Jesus commended the Gentile/Roman for saying, “Just say the word and he will be healed.” (Luke 7:6-7)
Mission-to-the-Gentiles/Run-to-Roman-emperor-Paul didn’t get the memo about this. LOL. The disciples, nor the Jesus in the Vision did not tell Paul about this?
Pick up at first paragraph at the top of p. 377.
Depending on the translation of Acts, Paul should have gone to the Hellenists.
Stephen was stoned, but there still were Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas (a convert to Judaism).
Paul needed to extend his sympathies to Stephen’s community (not just try to be on good terms with the Jerusalem Church and James). Paul wanted to be an apostle to the Gentiles, then start with the Hellenists (some bibles call them Hellenistic Jews or Greek-speaking believers; i.e., Hellenistic Jews vs Hebraic Jews, Greek-speaking believers vs. Hebrew-speaking believers, Greek-speaking Jews vs. Hebraic Jews).
A former minister of mine implied the seven (Stephen, Philip, etc.) were Gentiles.
If they were Jews, they were believers and Saul witnessed the stoning of Stephen, likely approving the stoning. So, having seen the light, the new Paul should have gone back to that community and expressed his sympathies.
If they were Gentiles, he definitely should have reached out to them.
For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.
Galatians 2nd Chapter 8th verse
Steefen
There were Christians in Rome when Paul got there.
Jesus did not give Paul the prime territory of Gentiles, or Paul is not telling the truth.
Paul would then be making more of himself and his “vision” so Peter was the apostle to the circumcised while Paul was categorically on equal footing with Peter.
Steefen said
Depending on the translation of Acts, Paul should have gone to the Hellenists.Stephen was stoned, but there still were Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas (a convert to Judaism).
Paul needed to extend his sympathies to Stephen’s community (not just try to be on good terms with the Jerusalem Church and James). Paul wanted to be an apostle to the Gentiles, then start with the Hellenists (some bibles call them Hellenistic Jews or Greek-speaking believers; i.e., Hellenistic Jews vs Hebraic Jews, Greek-speaking believers vs. Hebrew-speaking believers, Greek-speaking Jews vs. Hebraic Jews).
A former minister of mine implied the seven (Stephen, Philip, etc.) were Gentiles.
If they were Jews, they were believers and Saul witnessed the stoning of Stephen, likely approving the stoning. So, having seen the light, the new Paul should have gone back to that community and expressed his sympathies.
If they were Gentiles, he definitely should have reached out to them.
One could also say, if they were Jews, Peter should have extended his sympathies.
Victor Paul Furnish, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. – S.M.U. / “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann” (1965)
On the one hand, Wendt, Wrede, and Goguel regarded Paul’s theology as an essentially illegitimate development of Jesus’ message; thus the “Back to Jesus” slogan.
But, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, Kaftan, Meyer, Weiss, Moffatt, Morgan, Scott, Fridrichsen, Duncan, and Beare all regard Paul’s doctrinal teaching as a legitimate extension and development of Jesus’ message.
Steefen (2020)
Paul’s theology and doctrinal teaching are a prequel to the Jesus message.
= = =
Victor Paul Furnish, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. – S.M.U. / “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann” (1965)
Bultmann may be listed as the most prominent present exponent of the view that Paul’s theology
is not identical with Jesus’ message, nor explicitly an interpretation of it, nor historically a development from it,
either in the positive or negative sense.
Rather, for Bultmann, Paul’s theology is an explication of the kerygma of the Hellenistic church,
and its subject-matter is neither the message nor the deeds of Jesus,
but the present-ness of God’s address to men in the Risen Lord.
Victor Paul Furnish, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. – S.M.U. / “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann” (1965)
What factors determined the form and content of Paul’s theology?
Steefen
1) The failure of the three insurrectionists: Judah/Judas of Gamala, Galilee, Atronges in Judea, and Simon of Perea and the insistence that they would be regarded as worthy of gratitude and that their cause of rebellion would live on (see Gabriel’s Revelation, the Jeselsohn Stone)
2) the Samaritan Restorer who was ordered to be killed by Pontius Pilate
3) the Egyptian Prophet
4) and, even Paul himself.
Without Paul’s “vision” of Jesus no longer dependent on the crucifixion by order of Pontius Pilate of the biblical Jesus in 30 CE or the early 30s CE, but, perhaps on the death penalty of the Samaritan Restorer later in the 30s CE, form and content would have to be based on time:
Did Paul begin writing because of what he learned about Judas, Atronges, Simon of Perea, and Gabriel’s Revelation?
Did Paul begin writing because of execution of the Samaritan Restorer?
Did Paul begin writing because of the Egyptian Prophet?
Did Paul begin writing because Josephus changed from being a rebel against Rome to a supporter of Rome?
Returning to the text, let’s hear other answers to the question: What factors determined the form and content of Paul’s theology?
First is the view that Paul’s contribution to the church was in universalizing the gospel and that his theological statement of it
was called forth by the apologetic and polemical needs of his day.
Here one meets a historical explanation for Paul’s theology, and it is the position taken, for example, by
Mcllvaine, Wernle, Vischer, Meyer, and Morgan.
Pick up here, on p. 379 of 381
Victor Paul Furnish, B.D., M.A., Ph.D. – S.M.U. / “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann” (1965)
Paul was convinced Jesus was the Messiah.
Steefen
So many were not convinced – the Sanhedrin, for example.
= = =
End of my notes on Furnish’s article.
Also see: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Steefen said
Paul was Jewish, not Egyptian or Samaritan. Paul envisioned a Jewish Messiah, not an Egyptian or Samaritan Messiah.
Then why would Paul adopt an Egyptian or Samaritan Messiah?
Robert,
The Samaritan Messiah was a troublemaker who was slain by order of Pilate.
The Egyptian Prophet also was a troublemaker whose action was put down by Rome.
Paul, himself, was a troublemaker.
More important, these were real people. The three messianic heroes of the tax revolt of 6 C.E. were real people. A character of historical fiction is easier to produce than a totally fictitious one. The content of the messages/speaches/teachings/sermons/remembrances of what they said of the three messianic heroes of the tax revolt of 6 C.E., of the Samaritan Restorer, and of the Egyptian Prophet would have factor into what was inspirational for Paul and the gospel writers.
Someone else is going to have to explain these things to you, if you have anymore questions or comments. Thank you.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)