Christians: Paul/Saul article - do you agree?

[sun rise]

I can't ask this in the Christian DIR. I can't post this in the Articles area because of insufficient privileges. So I'm asking here:

This is a quite lengthy piece with a lot of claimed information about the Biblical Paul. There was quite a bit that I had never heard before. I'm wondering what Christians here think of this. I'd appreciate a response from reading the entire article but I'll put two excerpts here to give the flavor of the piece:

The Untold Truth Of Paul From The Bible

In the New Testament, a fair amount of squabbling goes on between Jesus and the Pharisees, a first-century Jewish sect (via Britannica). So, it's surprising that one of the most significant Christian missionaries in history grew up as a Pharisee. We know him as the Apostle Paul. Born in Tarsus, Paul received a Pharisaical education in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Acts 22:3). This upbringing put him on a crash course with the followers of Jesus, who referred to themselves as "The Way," per Catholic Online.

(and)

According to the Classical Resource Centre, "Roman citizens (male) had a complex system of names, which distinguished them from all other peoples of the ancient world, who mostly used a personal name with a patronymic." "Saul" represented Paul's Hebrew name, and "Paullus" or "Paul" his Latin one. Essentially, a Pharisee named Saul chose to be known as the Roman citizen called Paul. In other words, instead of taking on a completely new name, he chose to emphasize a different aspect of his identity.

Did the name change hold other significance? Scholars have considered the question without coming to a consensus. Some think he took the name as a "victory title" of sorts after bringing Sergius Paulus, a proconsul of Rome, into the fold. But many others disagree with this interpretation, including the National Catholic Register. What's their take on the name-swap matter? "A more plausible view is that Saul began using the name Paul because it was more familiar to the Gentile audience to which he was now ministering."

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can't ask this in the Christian DIR. I can't post this in the Articles area because of insufficient privileges. So I'm asking here:

This is a quite lengthy piece with a lot of claimed information about the Biblical Paul. There was quite a bit that I had never heard before. I'm wondering what Christians here think of this. I'd appreciate a response from reading the entire article but I'll put two excerpts here to give the flavor of the piece:

The Untold Truth Of Paul From The Bible

In the New Testament, a fair amount of squabbling goes on between Jesus and the Pharisees, a first-century Jewish sect (via Britannica). So, it's surprising that one of the most significant Christian missionaries in history grew up as a Pharisee. We know him as the Apostle Paul. Born in Tarsus, Paul received a Pharisaical education in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Acts 22:3). This upbringing put him on a crash course with the followers of Jesus, who referred to themselves as "The Way," per Catholic Online.

(and)

According to the Classical Resource Centre, "Roman citizens (male) had a complex system of names, which distinguished them from all other peoples of the ancient world, who mostly used a personal name with a patronymic." "Saul" represented Paul's Hebrew name, and "Paullus" or "Paul" his Latin one. Essentially, a Pharisee named Saul chose to be known as the Roman citizen called Paul. In other words, instead of taking on a completely new name, he chose to emphasize a different aspect of his identity.

Did the name change hold other significance? Scholars have considered the question without coming to a consensus. Some think he took the name as a "victory title" of sorts after bringing Sergius Paulus, a proconsul of Rome, into the fold. But many others disagree with this interpretation, including the National Catholic Register. What's their take on the name-swap matter? "A more plausible view is that Saul began using the name Paul because it was more familiar to the Gentile audience to which he was now ministering."

Have they analyzed any other names?

Looking through Acts, the name 'Saul' is used up until chapter 13, long after Paul's conversion. He preaches with Barnabas as 'Saul' in chapter 11 or 12, then in chapter 13 verse 9 it tells us that Saul also goes by the name 'Paul'.

After that the book refers to him as Paul and then happens to immediately (verses 21 and 22) recount the story of King Saul (different Saul) from the book of 1 Kings and how Saul was replaced by David. I don't know if that is relevant to his name 'Paul' or not, but the writer of Acts stops referring to him as 'Saul' slightly before recounting the story. Then in verse 25 it recounts that John the Baptist is replaced by Jesus. The theme here could be replacement, and its introduced with Saul's own name change.

I suspect with %10 confidence and do not know. I think Saul's name change is more significant than only a change to Roman citizenship. Jesus in the gospels promotes peace with the Roman empire. Saul's name change could be about the Roman church or something like that. Judaism --> Roman Church...maybe. The church is called Roman, so do you see where my curiosity is headed?

 

[Estro Felino]

What saddens me is that certain Christians (and certain Churches) forget the importance of the Gospels and seek the truth in Paul's epistles.

This saddens me. That Christians unconsciously tend to consider Paul's words more authoritative.
More reliable.
Whereas the four Gospels are Jesus's words. God's words.




Back to the topic.
In Rome there was a noble family, gens Paulla.
A representative of this family was Lucius Aemilius Paullus Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus - Wikipedia

I believe that as a Roman citizen, Shaul took a surname already existiting, and so he called himself Paullus/Paulus .
A noble Roman usually had
1) praenomen (first name. There were very very few male names, like Gaius, Lucius)
2) nomen (surname, name of the family)
3) cognomen (nickname, second name to distinguish the countless cases of homonimy).

Example
Gaius Iulius Caesar
Gaius= first name
Julius= surname
Caesar= nickname

 

[Teritos]

I can't ask this in the Christian DIR. I can't post this in the Articles area because of insufficient privileges. So I'm asking here:

This is a quite lengthy piece with a lot of claimed information about the Biblical Paul. There was quite a bit that I had never heard before. I'm wondering what Christians here think of this. I'd appreciate a response from reading the entire article but I'll put two excerpts here to give the flavor of the piece:

The Untold Truth Of Paul From The Bible

In the New Testament, a fair amount of squabbling goes on between Jesus and the Pharisees, a first-century Jewish sect (via Britannica). So, it's surprising that one of the most significant Christian missionaries in history grew up as a Pharisee. We know him as the Apostle Paul. Born in Tarsus, Paul received a Pharisaical education in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" (Acts 22:3). This upbringing put him on a crash course with the followers of Jesus, who referred to themselves as "The Way," per Catholic Online.

(and)

According to the Classical Resource Centre, "Roman citizens (male) had a complex system of names, which distinguished them from all other peoples of the ancient world, who mostly used a personal name with a patronymic." "Saul" represented Paul's Hebrew name, and "Paullus" or "Paul" his Latin one. Essentially, a Pharisee named Saul chose to be known as the Roman citizen called Paul. In other words, instead of taking on a completely new name, he chose to emphasize a different aspect of his identity.

Did the name change hold other significance? Scholars have considered the question without coming to a consensus. Some think he took the name as a "victory title" of sorts after bringing Sergius Paulus, a proconsul of Rome, into the fold. But many others disagree with this interpretation, including the National Catholic Register. What's their take on the name-swap matter? "A more plausible view is that Saul began using the name Paul because it was more familiar to the Gentile audience to which he was now ministering."

The name Paul means "the little one". He changed his name to Paul because he was ashamed of what he did to the Christians. He mentions that in 1 Corinthians 15:9-10.

For I am the least of the apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

 

[Teritos]

What saddens me is that certain Christians (and certain Churches) forget the importance of the Gospels and seek the truth in Paul's epistles.

This saddens me. That Christians unconsciously tend to consider Paul's words more authoritative.
More reliable.
Whereas the four Gospels are Jesus's words. God's words.

Paul's letters explain the four gospels. Without Paul's letters, it is impossible to understand the words of Jesus. Paul was chosen by Jesus to be an apostle and he was fulfilled with the Holy Spirit, which means that Paul's words are God's words.

 

[Estro Felino]

Paul's letters explain the four gospels. Without Paul's letters, it is impossible to understand the words of Jesus. Paul was chosen by Jesus to be an apostle and he was fulfilled with the Holy Spirit, which means that Paul's words are God's words.

I don't agree with that. The four Gospels are about Jesus' teachings.
Does Paul mention Jesus' parables?
Not even one.
Paul exclusively speaks of sexual repression, of his inner struggle, of his past.

 

[Teritos]

I don't agree with that. The four Gospels are about Jesus' teachings.
Does Paul mention Jesus' parables?
Not even one.
Paul exclusively speaks of sexual repression, of his inner struggle, of his past.

I have read the letters of Paul and he mentions very often the words of Jesus and also passages from the OT he mentions.

Jesus even calls Paul his instrument in Acts 9:15.
But the Lord said to him, Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to take my name to Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have read the letters of Paul and he mentions very often the words of Jesus and also passages from the OT he mentions.

Jesus even calls Paul his instrument in Acts 9:15.
But the Lord said to him, Go, for this man is my chosen instrument to take my name to Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.

What are epistles?
Epistles are letters written by Paul to the Gentiles.
That is, the first Christian communities used to ask questions about religion, faith and Paul would answer.
They are not teachings. They are opinions. Advices.
Any saint used to advise the faithful. But a saint is not God.

 

[pearl]

An exceptional, informative post. For some controversial, for others the attempt to recognize the christological, theological purpose of the sacred writers is welcome. There have been and will continue to be volumes written concerning the difficulties with Paul's theology. Loved the reference to Walter Wink who explains Jesus' reaction as subversive to Roman protocol.

 

[Teritos]

Epistles are letters written by Paul to the Gentiles.

and to the Israelites. Jesus own words: for this man is my chosen instrument to take my name to Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.

That is, the first Christian communities used to ask questions about religion, faith and Paul would answer.
They are not teachings. They are opinions. Advices.
Any saint used to advise the faithful. But a saint is not God.

Paul's letters are from the Holy Spirit, and therefore from God and not from Paul. Paul said: If I would write anything to you, let me be accursed. With this he wants to say: The letters do not come from me, but from God. Jesus only used Paul, the real author of these letters is Jesus.

These letters also contain teachings. No one can understand the Gospels or the OT without these.

 

[Estro Felino]

and to the Israelites. Jesus own words: for this man is my chosen instrument to take my name to Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.

Paul's letters are from the Holy Spirit, and therefore from God and not from Paul. Paul said: If I would write anything to you, let me be accursed. With this he wants to say: The letters do not come from me, but from God. Jesus only used Paul, the real author of these letters is Jesus.

These letters also contain teachings. No one can understand the Gospels or the OT without these.

I deeply understand that. But the centrality of the Gospels is a given in Christianity.
In Catholicism Gospels come first anywhere.
In the Catholic Mass the sermon is about a passage of the Gospel.
It is neither about a OT passage, nor a NT passage.
And btw...at Catechism I had a little book called "Gospels and Acts".

 

[Deeje]

What's their take on the name-swap matter? "A more plausible view is that Saul began using the name Paul because it was more familiar to the Gentile audience to which he was now ministering."

As Paul was assigned as "an apostle to the nations", (Romans 11:13) this is in keeping with his assignment.
He was a Roman citizen as well as an educated Pharisee, so armed with these things, (which made him different from the 12) he was able to address rulers as well as the Greek philosophers at the Ar·e·opʹa·gus in Acts 17:22-31.

 

[pearl]

I deeply understand that. But the centrality of the Gospels is a given in Christianity.
In Catholicism Gospels come first anywhere.
In the Catholic Mass the sermon is about a passage of the Gospel.
It is neither about a OT passage, nor a NT passage.
And btw...at Catechism I had a little book called "Gospels and Acts".

Yet the order of readings begins with Hebrew Scripture, to the Epistles, before the Gospels, of which the centrality elevated in the Liturgy. The homily will often include reflection on the previous. Do you really think that Luke could have written his Gospel without references to Paul?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yet the order of readings begins with Hebrew Scripture, to the Epistles, before the Gospels, of which the centrality elevated in the Liturgy. The homily will often include reflection on the previous. Do you really think that Luke could have written his Gospel without references to Paul?

We cannot deny that Paul's epistles are letters. They are not treaties of theology.
They are letters containing advises and personal opinions, and answers to questions.
Unfortunately we lost the 90% of Paul's letters.

 

[pearl]

We cannot deny that Paul's epistles are letters. They are not treaties of theology.
They are letters containing advises and personal opinions, and answers to questions.
Unfortunately we lost the 90% of Paul's letters.

Paul's writings reflect his developing theology. Paul has taken apocalyptic background and applied it to his Christian faith. The result is an original Pauline theology. The challenge for each of us today in understanding this Pauline theology is to see if and how Paul's interpretation of Jesus' Gospel is still in continuity with Jesus. Paul is confident that his Gospel is directly from Jesus (Gal. l: 11-16) and that he speaks as one who is trustworthy even where he is developing his teaching beyond Jesus (1 Cor. 7: 25).

 

[Estro Felino]

Paul's writings reflect his developing theology. Paul has taken apocalyptic background and applied it to his Christian faith. The result is an original Pauline theology. The challenge for each of us today in understanding this Pauline theology is to see if and how Paul's interpretation of Jesus' Gospel is still in continuity with Jesus. Paul is confident that his Gospel is directly from Jesus (Gal. l: 11-16) and that he speaks as one who is trustworthy even where he is developing his teaching beyond Jesus (1 Cor. 7: 25).

I perfectly understand, but I have to disagree.
Let's not forget that it is Pauline theology that created the fertile soil for the birth of Protestantism.

I am not even sure that Paul would understand the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Robert Eisenman has brought forward items from Josephus that raise some interesting questions about Paul.

Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian"

 

[paarsurrey]

Christians: Paul/Saul article - do you agree?

I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim.
I ,understand, that Paul was never a follower of Jesus. To me, Paul was a persecutor and an enemy of Jesus and his followers, please.
Right?

Regards