Did someone teach St. Paul about Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Could you provide evididence of this please, I haven’t been able to find it.
 
maryj said:
Could you provide evididence of this please, I haven’t been able to find it.
Click to expand...
“Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles, and he reported to them how on the way he had seen the Lord and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus.” – Acts 9:26

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” – Galatians 1:18-19

God bless,
 
Acts 9 describes Paul’s conversion. It does not say that either Jesus or Ananias instructed him but he began to teach immediately after his baptism. By that time, he was already instructed. How can this be? Perhaps because Paul was already highly educated in the Scriptures. Remember, he was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). As such, he probably already knew much about the Messiah from scripture. Until that point, he refused to see Jesus as that Messiah. Once converted, he could take everything he knew about the Messiah and teach Jesus as being one in the same.
 
Hi Maryj,

Paul first met with Ananias, (Acts 9), whom must have taught him something because a few days later he was preaching in the synagogues, proclaming that Jesus is the son of God.Then he went to Jerusalem, met the apostles and preached some more. He certainly met the right people to learn about the faith.

But his best “instruction” he got from God himself. See Cor. 12 :
Must I brag? (A worthless pursuit) Well let me talk about visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who, 14 years ago, (Was it in his body? I do not know; was it out of his body? I do not know. God knows. )… this man was taken up to the third heaven. And this man… was taken up to heaven and heard ineffable words, which man is not permitted to repeat.
Click to expand...
Paul was highly knowledgeable about the Bible before he became a Christian. He did not need much instruction to understand the teachings of Jesus, who was the promised Messiah and who said he came to fulfil the scriptures.
 
Paul received divine revelation from Jesus at his conversion and later (Acts 9:1-30, Acts 10:24). He also learned doctrinal matters from tthe Apostles when he attended the first Church council (Council of Jerusalem), and petitioned the Church for a solution to the problem of the circumcision party, which wanted all Christian men to be circumcised per the Mosaic covenant. Acts 15. In Galatians 2:9, he indicates that he had received graces from God as to the Gospel. I am sure there are other references, as well.
 
Luke wrote Acts, Luke was Greek, Paul was a Hellenistic (meaning Greek) Jew it’s also accepted the two knew each other.
 
Verbum said:
Hi Maryj,

Paul first met with Ananias, (Acts 9), whom must have taught him something because a few days later he was preaching in the synagogues, proclaming that Jesus is the son of God.Then he went to Jerusalem, met the apostles and preached some more. He certainly met the right people to learn about the faith.

But his best “instruction” he got from God himself. See Cor. 12 :

Paul was highly knowledgeable about the Bible before he became a Christian. He did not need much instruction to understand the teachings of Jesus, who was the promised Messiah and who said he came to fulfil the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Just a picky note…the Bible was not compiled until well after Paul was martyred. I do know that Paul conversion is in act 9 and also acts 21 (I believe) that scripture does not say that Ananias taught Paul, but does say that God “sent” Ananias…when God sends people doesn’t it mean that He sends them forth to teach? Just thinking…
 
Perhaps when he was knocked off his horse he was supernaturally infused with knowledge. Adam and Eve possessed this gift and lost it.
 
SonCatcher said:
**Acts 9 **describes Paul’s conversion. It does not say that either Jesus or Ananias instructed him but he began to teach immediately after his baptism. By that time, he was already instructed. How can this be? Perhaps because Paul was already highly educated in the Scriptures. Remember, he was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). As such, he probably already knew much about the Messiah from scripture. Until that point, he refused to see Jesus as that Messiah. Once converted, he could take everything he knew about the Messiah and teach Jesus as being one in the same.
Click to expand...
Then Barnabas took charge of him and brought him to the apostles, and he reported to them how on the way **he had seen the Lord **and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus.” – Acts 9:26
Click to expand...
Maybe I misunderstand…or maybe you did not see that the Lord “spoke” to Paul…if so…would you agree that He if He “spoke” to Paul…He also “taught” Paul what he wanted him to know about Himself (the Lord)…and then Paul began to preach?

Seems rather clear that whoever might have taught Paul anything after he left Damascus…He still learned everything first from The Lord Himself.

Pax Christi
 
SonCatcher said:
Acts 9 describes Paul’s conversion. It does not say that either Jesus or Ananias instructed him but he began to teach immediately after his baptism. By that time, he was already instructed. How can this be? Perhaps because Paul was already highly educated in the Scriptures. Remember, he was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). As such, he probably already knew much about the Messiah from scripture. Until that point, he refused to see Jesus as that Messiah. Once converted, he could take everything he knew about the Messiah and teach Jesus as being one in the same.
Click to expand...
And this is what I was thinking…
 
Lancer said:
Maybe I misunderstand…or maybe you did not see that the Lord “spoke” to Paul…if so…would you agree that He if He “spoke” to Paul…He also “taught” Paul what he wanted him to know about Himself (the Lord)…and then Paul began to preach?

Seems rather clear that whoever might have taught Paul anything after he left Damascus…He still learned everything first from The Lord Himself.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
He “spoke”…Saul,Saul, why are you persecuting me? He said" Who are you sir?" the reply came, " I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do"
Not so clear to me…but that’s why we are discussing it!
 
po18guy said:
Paul received divine revelation from Jesus at his conversion and later (Acts 9:1-30, Acts 10:24). He also learned doctrinal matters from tthe Apostles when he attended the first Church council (Council of Jerusalem), and petitioned the Church for a solution to the problem of the circumcision party, which wanted all Christian men to be circumcised per the Mosaic covenant. Acts 15. In Galatians 2:9, he indicates that he had received graces from God as to the Gospel. I am sure there are other references, as well.
Click to expand...
Thank You!!
 
maryj said:
That’s it, was he taught by someone about Jesus?
Click to expand...
The short answer is Jesus did. Paul was selected directly by Christ. Throughout Paul’s letters you can see him struggle to describe divine revelation. You can see this in Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, and other places – Paul will refer to things like the “height and width and breadth and depth” of the faith, and the “peace that transcends all understanding.”

The term was never used, but this is scriptural evidence of contemplative prayer.
 
Remember that Paul started out as Saul, who was a young Temple priest who was part of a pack of hooligans the High Priest (Jonathan?) set loose on the Christians, starting with Stephen.

According to Hagan’s timeline, this was in the year that Jesus was crucified, A.D 36. Saul was a bright young man, so he knew a little of the philosophy of the Nazarenes, but probably the “good” aspects of it were overshadowed by the crypto-cannibalistic communion ceremony, and the challenge that the Christians represented to the Temple priesthood. The Nazarenes were a dark and unnatural bunch.

Interestingly, Saul would have been working in the Second Temple all the time that Jesus was supposedly there preaching daily in the months leading up to the crucifixion, but Paul mentions nothing about meeting him or even seeing him. Unless there is more to the interaction that Paul does want us to know. After his roadside epiphany, perhaps Paul saw no reason to be forthcoming about the more despicable details of his actions against the Christians. So they must have been REALLY bad. Would Paul have admitted it if he had, for instance, spat upon Jesus as Jesus was carrying his cross on the way to Golgotha?

But, apart from whatever divine information he received during his epiphany from the Holy Ghost, Paul spent three years in Damascus, and he probably held deep discussions with the Christians there, many of whom had probably heard Jesus preach first-hand.
 
steve53 said:
Remember that Paul started out as Saul, who was a young Temple priest who was part of a pack of hooligans the High Priest (Jonathan?) set loose on the Christians, starting with Stephen.

According to Hagan’s timeline, this was in the year that Jesus was crucified, A.D 36. Saul was a bright young man, so he knew a little of the philosophy of the Nazarenes, but probably the “good” aspects of it were overshadowed by the crypto-cannibalistic communion ceremony, and the challenge that the Christians represented to the Temple priesthood. The Nazarenes were a dark and unnatural bunch.

Interestingly, Saul would have been working in the Second Temple all the time that Jesus was supposedly there preaching daily in the months leading up to the crucifixion, but Paul mentions nothing about meeting him or even seeing him. Unless there is more to the interaction that Paul does want us to know. After his roadside epiphany, perhaps Paul saw no reason to be forthcoming about the more despicable details of his actions against the Christians. So they must have been REALLY bad. Would Paul have admitted it if he had, for instance, spat upon Jesus as Jesus was carrying his cross on the way to Golgotha?

But, apart from whatever divine information he received during his epiphany from the Holy Ghost, Paul spent three years in Damascus, and he probably held deep discussions with the Christians there, many of whom had probably heard Jesus preach first-hand.
Click to expand...
Saul of Tarsus, born a Pharisee, of the Tribe of Benjamin. He was sent to the Jewish Sacred School at 13 years old and taught by Gamaliel, a famous teacher. Being a Pharisee, this means he was part of the strict class that persecuted Jesus and His followers. Paul consented to the stoning of Stephen in Acts 8 so that in itself is bad.
 
Lancer said:
Maybe I misunderstand…or maybe you did not see that the Lord “spoke” to Paul…if so…would you agree that He if He “spoke” to Paul…He also “taught” Paul what he wanted him to know about Himself (the Lord)…and then Paul began to preach?

Seems rather clear that whoever might have taught Paul anything after he left Damascus…He still learned everything first from The Lord Himself.

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
Acts 9, which I cited, records the conversation between Jesus and Paul. They certainly spoke to each other. No instruction is recorded or inferred, however. It is possible to speak without instructing.
 
SonCatcher said:
Acts 9, which I cited, records the conversation between Jesus and Paul. They certainly spoke to each other. No instruction is recorded or inferred, however. It is possible to speak without instructing.
Click to expand...
But does God speak to us “without” instructing us??
 
Sounds as though there is not just one answer to this question. I have asked this question to two different priests, with two different answers being given. I am going to be reading, and re-reading a lot of Scripture this weekend it looks like!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top