Paul says (Gal 1:21) that he remained unknown by sight to Christ’s congregations in Judea. After his first return to Jerusalem it seems that he travelled from Damascus to Jerusalem by land through Galilee but then went by boat from Caesarea on the return journey.
If the disciples had really had life-changing hallucinations in Galilee which resulted in their resurrection belief, why did Paul not visit places where these events occurred, hoping to “see” Jesus again or just to compare his experience with that of the disciples which had happened less than a decade previously? Why is there no record of where these crucial events occurred?
If the disciples had really had life-changing hallucinations in Galilee which resulted in their resurrection belief, why did Paul not visit places where these events occurred, hoping to “see” Jesus again or just to compare his experience with that of the disciples which had happened less than a decade previously?
But why do that when Jesus himself is appearing to you regularly in visions and giving you personal instructions? Paul visited the “Pillars” and that seems to have exhausted his curiosity.
But why do that when Jesus himself is appearing to you regularly in visions and giving you personal instructions?
Yes, it seems simply bizarre to assume Paul thought that manifestations of the risen Christ would be somehow geographically bound even when he had himself had at least one such experience. The entire premise of the argument seems, at best, unfounded.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)