That would be the way to bet, in my opinion.
It's intriguing, isn't it? We have so little Paul, probably just the seven genuine letters, and a lot of them are a response to mudane problems in his far-flung network of churches. And this rare glimpse at Paul teaching something from Jesus' biography, it seems to be there to refresh the congregation's memory of the Lord's Supper re-enactment ritual, something they already know.
But what do they know? There's no "Gospel" in the sense we know it for them to consult; maybe there's a "Passion Narrative," now either lost or incorporated into the canonical Gospels.
Here's a heretical thought: some in Paul's audience might know more about the biographical details than Paul does. Paul complains that other teachers with different Gospels are repeatedly showing up. Maybe all Paul knows, apart from what he gets in his visionary interviews with Jesus, is what he picked up when he was persecuting the Way.
I do love this stuff.
All this time it's long been speculation and of course we don't really know but it's a breath of fresh air to not feel nuts in seeing not just sympathy for Judas but see him as a "good guy" per se.
Indeed what do they know? That certainly is an issue since his writings predate Mark.
LMAO while someone following Ireneus or such would find that heretical it makes a lot of sense. For the longest time after all Acts and Ireneneus had masses decieved into believing everyone was in agreement and organized until the surface of all these "heretical" works showed just how little agreement and organization there was. That said...how "heretical" of you.
The department of seperating which letter Paul truly wrote and didn't are foreign to me. There is this one murky instance after all in one of the letters where he seems to be condemning Peter (perhaps condemn is a bit strong but certainly criticizing Peter) and calling him a hypocrite. Perhaps that was one not written by Paul at all? That he would travel with Peter and make statements about a "brother" in Christ?
The other is as mentioned the narcisism presented in the letter where he states that Jesus died because he loved Paul so much. That certainly now in retrospect seems more suspicious and likely not written by Paul but a follower to make such a declaration.
Is it incorrect to assume that even though Paul embraced Jesus Christ and his message, he still worshipped the same God he always did? I am under the impression that he came to see that his God had new plans for him in a sense. Or did he embrace a "new" god when he converted?
Paul, "Who are you Lord?" "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."
And then an even more grave scenario. The Bible points out that Paul was blinded by light. This leads one to question is this literal or a metaphorical attempt to convey that he was "blind" to the persecution he was involved in and this "light" opened him to an awakening of sorts?
I would reason that that's exactly the point of the New Testament; saved by the blood... yadda.
Well, to any extent, it appears to be quite the paradox.
However, as with the nature of religion, the true meaning is never as clear as the lie being propagated.
Indeed some texrts more then others perhaps. Some argue that natural disasters are part of God's plan as well. Certainly it's a matter of how literal one accepts such and perhaps also in part to how invested one is in "faith."
You present a great point. Adolf Hitler could be seen as an instrument of Gods plan, just like the Jews who had a hand in the creation of the Atomic Bomb. Perhaps God's divine plan is for mankind to destroy ourselves?