The historical Paul

[fallingblood]

Then how do you explain THIS ancient portrayal of Paul (c. 60 CE) found in various churches across Judaea:

quod erat demonstrandum

It must be a forgery by Eusebius.

 

[outhouse]

There is no mention that they were perceived criminals. You're simply making things up there. They are simply a different sect. Paul does not call them criminals, nor does anyone else. It should be kept in mind that not everyone who is persecuted are criminals. They may just have a different belief then you.

There is no suggestion that Paul turned these individuals over to the authorities, that there were no trials, or that they were killed. You're making things up again. Paul, and Acts, never tells us to what extent this persecution went. More so, it could have ended in nothing more than a whipping or the like. We don't know. Making things up though doesn't make them true.

And how do you know that Paul was responsible for terrible acts against the Christian sect? Paul and Acts are upfront that Paul persecuted such people. That really isn't silence. Now, he may not go into detail, but that doesn't mean one can base an argument on silence, like you are doing. In effect, you're making things up.

And no, we don't have other apostles saying they were in jail. We have Acts stating such. Acts never puts this with Paul placing them in jail, or leading them to jail, or associated in anyway. So you can't claim such. Especially when Paul is clear that he wasn't in Judea, nor was known there. So again, your suggestion is based on make believe.

When we come down to it, your entire argument consists of making things up.

These really are ridiculous questions. First, there is no suggestion he killed any. To ask such a question is misleading, and I think that is on purpose. There is no suggestion he was hired by anyone, and there is no need for that. Paul implies he did it on his own. To suggest otherwise is misleading. As for how long he persecuted (he did not hunt anyone, and to imply such is misleading), we don't know. But there is no reason to use that to make up an argument.

There is no reason to explore any of those questions besides, how long did he persecute Christians. The other ones are baseless.

So your argument then comes down to misleading people, and making things up. This isn't in the realm of modern scholarship, and is extremely extremely liberal.

You do not stay employed for years chasing down a sect of jews to have a stern talk with them :slap:

If your paid your getting results :yes:

the bible has a made up passage about Stephen as a example of what hapened to these persecuted people. murdered in cold blood in a horrifying death :candle:


and you have completely ignored what these results in such a primitive barbaric time might have been, despite death as their own example. Well see dis here nun gets here ruler out and told those apostles to hold their hand out and dont flinch now LOL whack OK you boys be good jews now and have a nice day!!! LOL


Results? well lets look at who hired him. The powers that be, those who were hand in hand with romans. Saducees comes to mind. Why would the bankers want these illiterate peasant wiped off the planet??

because this was about more then religion, a anti tax message that Paul himself says hey hey hey !!!! PAY DEM DAR ROMANS and be good little jews in gods eyes.

 

[Marcion]

Also, scholars who are not religious place the dating of Paul's letters in the first century and accept that Paul wrote them. So your argument fails.

No, your arguments fail. There are also scholars who place them after 145 AD because there are no convincing external arguments for an earlier date and there are convincing internal arguments for dating them in the second century.
We know nothing about the historical Paul from reliable sources and therefore the authorship of any of those texts in letter form is mere speculation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, your arguments fail. There are also scholars who place them after 145 AD

Such as?

because there are no convincing external arguments for an earlier date

How about, oh I don't know, Marcion?

and there are convincing internal arguments for dating them in the second century.

Such as?

 

[Marcion]

I support the ideas and arguments expressed in this article by Detering:

Hermann Detering, The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

 

[Marcion]

Reflected also by others:
Bold, Catholic and Fake epistles!

 

[outhouse]

yawn!

anyone have a real arguement?

 

[Evangelist-1]

Greetings,

I have just skimmed through some of the 106 responses.
Many of the topics are the same ones presented in the OP of the thread:
Hey, who really was this Jesus, the Son of God?
I'm sure you'll find it interesting reading.

 

[gnostic]

I have just skimmed through some of the 106 responses.
Many of the topics are the same ones presented in the OP of the thread:
Hey, who really was this Jesus, the Son of God?
I'm sure you'll find it interesting reading.

Hi evangelist

There are several topics about Jesus, of whether he was a historical figure or not. I'd prefer if we concentrate on Paul in this thread, instead of Jesus.

 

[Reverend Rick]

here we go




paul may not claim that, but its claimed.

Paul claimed many things, and I for one do not believe his story nor will I hang my salvation on his word alone.

I believe him to be a self hating homosexual who denied his urges and lied about his "religious experiences".

 

[outhouse]

Paul claimed many things, and I for one do not believe his story nor will I hang my salvation on his word alone.

I believe him to be a self hating homosexual who denied his urges and lied about his "religious experiences".

with his years of being a prisoner or criminal, im not sure about his sexual orientation, nor I have a studied it enough to make a decent determination. with what he has written it does leave it open though.


I dont trust him as far as I can throw him. what is there to trust about someone who hunts down the sect for a living.??

or a self proclaimed apostle who knew nothing of the original movement or its leader and then created his own religious movement.


I do believe he had his own feelings that were genuine towards his version of the jesus movement that he built his theology on. I dont believe he was writing fiction or straight 100% mythology. I think he learned enough about the movement hunting them and witnessed the perfect opportunity to take this wonderful message to the roman population worshipping in synagogues that were in need of their own religion.

I would not put it past paul to be a god fearer, and find it likely that was his place in all this. he was not a strict jew in any sense nor well trained to the point of adherance to jewish law. being in synagogues and learning the religion since a young age while being roman would have made him think he was in fact jewish.


im sure and its pretty obvious he used artistic freedom in his letters to not make himself more important, but im sure he used some fiction for himself to make sure his message carried more credibility.

 

[Evangelist-1]

Paul claimed many things, and I for one do not believe his story nor will I hang my salvation on his word alone.
I believe him to be a self hating homosexual who denied his urges and lied about his "religious experiences".

Paul was trained personally by God for approx. 17 years in the desert regions before really starting his ministry.
IMO, Paul's doctrines match perfectly with those of Jesus. So, what's not to like?

 

[Evangelist-1]

Ignorant, antisemitic drivel.

Want to see the Scriptures about something I've said?
If you do not believe your Hebrew Scriptures, please say so ... then I'll know for sure where you're coming from.

P.S. Historically, man has always been a spiritual moron.
And Satan has always been the greatest liar and deceiver in earth's history.
This makes for quite an incredibly bad scenario.

Born-again Christians have God's Spirit inside of them, teaching them, etc.
Messianic Jews are thus and so, and are NOT spiritually blind and deaf.

 

[outhouse]

P.S. Historically, man has always been a spiritual moron.

and yet god has never penned a word


only man has written scripture, and your reply is shown in the writings

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I just read some of Eisenman's ideas on Paul (and James). I can see why they aren't taken too seriously, and are considered eccentric. But hey, Robert M. Price agrees with him.

:biglaugh:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

and yet god has never penned a word

He did create the integers. Just check out Hawking's book.