Robert said
It is not clear whether or not Acts was written before or after the fourth gospel, but that hardly seems relevant. Luke is merely describing what the Christian movement was called prior to the followers being called Christians.How does the use of ‘the Way’ (the halakhah taught by Jesus) as an early term for the early Christian movement have any bearing on whether or not Paul was lying about having persecuted these followers?
I withdraw the question because Paul, at Gal. 1 and 13, Phil. 3 and 6, and 1 Cor. 15 and 9, does not use Church of God and the Way.
Luke is not merely describing what the Christian movement was called prior to the followers being called Christians. What Christians movement? Jewish followers or Gentile followers? Non-Pauline Gentile followers? Paul did not address churches by that term.
What bearing does this have on the topic? I already told you what I was exploring, but I’ll make it clearer.
If Saul was persecuting those of The Way, that would mean either
1) The Way was a reference to a gospel written after the persecution of Saul
or
2) As you say, it was a reference to a way of life taught by Jesus, a term of summation not mentioned in the gospel of Luke but appearing in a later work, also after the persecution of the church found in the Pauline letters.
The problem with #2 is that some of Jesus’s teachings were not unique to him so his followers would not really be followers solely of his way. One can take a look at “The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” published by Oxford University Press.
I reject how you have been misled by the author/s of Acts.
= = =
Break the original resolution I doubt the claim, “I persecuted” into two parts
1) I doubt the claim, “I persecuted” in Acts
and
2) I doubt the claim, “I persecuted” in Gal., Phil, and 1 Cor.
So far, the claim in Acts has embellishments beyond plausible facts.
So far, the claim in the Pauline letters have insufficient details. Second, was Paul’s persecution of Jewish followers of Jesus in Judea and Galilee? Probably not—no one ran to Pilate about great persecution; second, this alleged persecution did not even make it into the Testimonium Flavianum or anywhere else in the works of Josephus. The guy who turned over the tables in the Temple can no longer cause trouble–no need to go after people in the diaspora. Synagogue rabbis can handle their own congregations, no one needs Saul to be a special agent. If a rabbi feels a disrupter needs to be flogged or imprisoned, or what have you, that synagogue leader can handle the matter himself.
The claim in the Pauline letters realistically is either
1) persecution of individuals
2) persecution of the Church (Gentile terminology) of God — which should include some persecution of individuals
Conclusions: persecution is insufficiently explained and Church of God is insufficiently explained
Third, the synoptic gospels neither mention Luke’s Hellenists nor Paul’s Gentile Church of God Saul. Regarding Luke’s Hellenists in Acts, that Hellenists would adopt a Jewish Son of Man at the right hand of God is highly suspect.
Finally, as concluded in the book Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell, Jesus was a composite figure of post-war historical fiction with the war being the First Jewish Roman War with Rome as victors who got to write history and historical fiction.
Paul in making reference to his persecution (and his subsequently being persecuted) is not making an incredible claim to any such occult knowledge or practices. Rather it’s an easily believable claim for behavior that we otherwise know did indeed occur.
As of yet, you’ve declined to address this point.
Steefen
An easily believable claim is like a lie in plain site.
We do not know it did indeed occurred.
I give neither Paul nor Luke the benefit of the doubt.
Robert
Why assume Pilate would be concerned about Paul’s persecution of other Jews for their messianic beliefs? If anything, Pilate would have agreed with Paul’s opposition to messianic believers.
Steefen
Why say Pilate would be concerned about Paul persecuting followers of Jesus?
Pilate implied Jesus was faultless. Pilate would not have agreed with Paul.
Paul was disturbing the peace.
It was likely, if Paul were persecuting in Pilate’s area of authority, victims would have complained.
Robert
Do you really expect Josephus to mention every debate or argument that ever took place in synagogues?
Steefen
Luke used the term great persecution. That would get on a historian’s radar.
Defending embellishments is outside my scope.
You may accept embellishments, but they are not worth my time once there is sufficient reason to see accounts as embellishments.
Robert said
The issue is decidedly not Luke’s embellishments, which I explained to you early on were commonly discounted by critical scholars. The issue under discussion is Paul’s much more modest claim, that you assert was exaggeration on his part. I agree that its possible that Paul was lying in making this claim but have challenged you to develop historical arguments to support your claim. I’ve yet to see any.
I am fine with you not seeing historical arguments to support the antithesis of a flimsy claim.
Form:
Paul claims he robbed a certain bank.
Bank manager: Paul did rob this bank.
Robert: Prove to me Paul did not rob your bank.
Bank manager: I have no need to file a complaint against Paul for a crime I have no evidence he committed. Wasting time is not part of my job description. You’re dismissed.
Robert
You need merely be better informed. We know that Jewish opposition to to the early Christian movement occurred from multiple sources. Paul’s claims are not out of the ordinary and easily believable to anyone who is familiar with the materials.
Steefen
You are in error. The first non-gospel/biblical mention of Jesus does not happen during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.
I’m a critical writer. Even if I proceed from Tiberius to Caligula to Claudius and Agrippa I, there is no Paul and there is no persecution of followers of a Jesus who did not even exist, let alone ceased to exist but was raised back into existence. Catch reality: the post-Jewish Revolt fictional character, Jesus is historical fiction, not history.
Now, if there were followers of the Enoch books and Philo and Paul did not like the idea of a Jesus angel, I will listen to that. If Saul originally did not like those concepts, you have a better case.
You are familiar with materials you cannot even list because there are no multiple materials from the late 20s to the early 30s describing neither Saul nor persecution by Saul, nor Stephen killed because he said the Son of Man sits at the right hand of God.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)