Although I admire and respect Bart Ehrman, despite the fact that he insists on a historical Jesus, I found this below in his latest book, "JESUS INTERRUPTED". The emphasis is mine:
"Paul taught that keeping the Law had nothing to do with entering the Kingdom. For Paul, only the death and resurrection of Jesus mattered. The historical Jesus taught the Law. Paul taught Jesus. Although as I have pointed out, PAUL DID NOT INVENT THIS NEW TAKE ON JESUS BUT INHERITED IT.
A rift naturally occurred as soon as Christians insisted that Jesus was the Messiah, that the Messiah had to suffer for sins, that the death of the Messiah was the means by which God made people right with him, that the Law could play no role in the act of salvation, and that Jews therefore had either to believe in Jesus as Messiah or be rejected by God. WE FIND THIS VIEW IN PAUL, BUT HE DIDN'T INVENT IT; IT WAS ALREADY BEING PROPOUNDED BEFORE HE CAME ON THE SCENE."
This goes back to something I Posted recently about just where Paul got his Christology. The vision on the road to Damascus don't exactly teach anything. It is just some kind of heavenly theophany and there is no narrative directly from his Christ. So where did he get his information that fills volumes of Epistles? Was a message dictated to him, as in the case of Mohammed? Was it as a result of scriptual exegesis?
Ehrman says Paul did not "invent" it but only used what was being said about Jesus before his own ministry. I can't find an explanation of this. What information was being propounded and by whom? Certainly he is not referring to Acts. Paul was the earliest source. Granted, the followers of Jesus may have been speaking of him in Messianic terms, but that meant something entirely different from Paul's perspective of Messiah.
It leaves me still wondering just what did happen of the road to Damascus.
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to: