“I have come to believe that, while the case is not an unproblematic certainty, there is … evidence from the Gospels, Acts, and especially Paul’s letters that indicate that Paul may well have met Jesus during their common time together in Palestine, so that, when Paul encountered the risen Jesus on the way to Damascus, he recognized the person and voice and knew who was calling him… I have also come to believe that the encounter or encounters with Jesus that Paul had before the Damascus road experience had a positive formative influence upon Paul and his thinking… I believe and will argue that the influence was significant enough so that when Paul embarked upon his own Christian missionary and teaching ventures, there was a much stronger line of continuity between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul than many, especially highly critical, scholars wish to admit.”
Now would this be NPP friendly where people like Wright believe Paul wasn't converted at that moment but merely turned into a gentile missionary? An Implicit premise is that Paul didn't disagree with Jesus just that Gentiles must be circumcised and thus become Jew
In his "Paul in Acts", Porter clearly states that he believes "the tradition view of Paul and the law is correct, "contrary to much recent discussion led by Sanders, Dunn, and others, regarding the so-called New Perspective on Paul" (pg 190).
From the book's description: "After examining the positive arguments raised, it considers the negative influence of Ferdinand Christian Baur, William Wrede, and Rudolf Bultmann on such an idea, as they drove a growing wedge between Jesus and Paul. In response, Stanley E. Porter analyzes three passages in the New Testament - Acts 9:1-9 and its parallels, 1 Corinthians 9:1, and 2 Corinthians 5:16 - to confirm that there is New Testament evidence that Paul encountered Jesus."
Thanks Trent, I'm continuing to work hard at work and to take care of my daughters. Those are my first priorities. I'm also trying to stay focused on Roman Catholic issues, and I hope to be able to start contributing here more in the near future.
Now would this be NPP friendly where people like Wright believe Paul wasn't converted at that moment but merely turned into a gentile missionary? An Implicit premise is that Paul didn't disagree with Jesus just that Gentiles must be circumcised and thus become Jew
ReplyDeleteIn his "Paul in Acts", Porter clearly states that he believes "the tradition view of Paul and the law is correct, "contrary to much recent discussion led by Sanders, Dunn, and others, regarding the so-called New Perspective on Paul" (pg 190).
DeleteFrom the book's description: "After examining the positive arguments raised, it considers the negative influence of Ferdinand Christian Baur, William Wrede, and Rudolf Bultmann on such an idea, as they drove a growing wedge between Jesus and Paul. In response, Stanley E. Porter analyzes three passages in the New Testament - Acts 9:1-9 and its parallels, 1 Corinthians 9:1, and 2 Corinthians 5:16 - to confirm that there is New Testament evidence that Paul encountered Jesus."
Thank you! I hope and pray you are doing well Mr. Bugay!
DeleteThanks Trent, I'm continuing to work hard at work and to take care of my daughters. Those are my first priorities. I'm also trying to stay focused on Roman Catholic issues, and I hope to be able to start contributing here more in the near future.
Delete