The two verses 1:13 and 1:14 taken together are suggestive of Paul’s “advancement in Judaism” being political advancement rather than spiritual.
The persecution was for Paul part of his former life in Judaism. He was more zealous for the traditions of his fathers than others which was the cause of his advancement.
I don’t think acts is historically reliable in its entirety but there’s no reason to doubt the general impression given of christians being threatened with imprisonment and death.
The persecution was for Paul part of his former life in Judaism. He was more zealous for the traditions of his fathers than others which was the cause of his advancement.
So by the other jewish standards of the time paul was an extremist ? had paul followed the other jewish standard, paul would not have been zealous for the tranditions?
so what was the reason why the others weren’t an extremist/more zealous like paul? was it their judaism?
his zealousness came from misunderstanding judaism ?
why should we accept paul that his judaism caused him to be more zealous? or it wasnt judaism, it was pauls extreme interpretation of judaism?
was paul like jesus in zealousness ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
i need to know what one means by “zealousness” and what is the source of this zealousness?
is it:
1. judaism
2. misunderstanding judaism
?
would other jews back then have used judaism to show that paul was an extremist ?
jakejones said
“He says he was more zealous than the others.”so what was the reason why the others weren’t an extremist/more zealous like paul? was it their judaism?
We don’t know if others weren’t as extreme as Paul – that’s just his claim.
his zealousness came from misunderstanding judaism ?why should we accept paul that his judaism caused him to be more zealous? or it wasnt judaism, it was pauls extreme interpretation of judaism?
Paul doesn’t claim Judaism caused him to be more zealous. He claims to have been more zealous in his Judaism that others.
was paul like jesus in zealousness ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
No I think that was a different to Paul’s actions.
i need to know what one means by “zealousness” and what is the source of this zealousness?
is it:
1. judaism
2. misunderstanding judaism
?
would other jews back then have used judaism to show that paul was an extremist ?
I would guess there were lots of jews back then who would have used judaism to show that Paul was an extremist.
Robert said
Jake, I love your ability to subvert a question.Bren, you’re once again assuming that your assumptions are necessarily the only possible interpretation of a text. Where does this dogmatism come from?
Of course there’s a million possible interpretations of any statement, but its a question of what’s a reasonable one here given all the evidence.
I’m claiming only one interpretation is reasonable – that Paul’s excessive persecution involved some level of violence. I don’t think the alternative explanations you have offered are reasonable given all the evidence. Paul following christians around synagogue to synagogue offering a critique of their theology etc isn’t a reasonable interpretation of his statements.
As usual, the answer probably has to be that we don’t know and we cannot know. The more one thinks about these matters, if one does so honestly, the less certain one should become. If you suddenly find yourself feeling certain about something, you probably have missed something.
And Paul was Jewish and Roman. I am not saying necessarily that Paul actively participated in torture or death of Christians, if that is what violent persecution means. But it is at least theoretically possible. What are the implications for either option? Material differences in the implications would be the only reason to pursue the question further since the question itself cannot really be settled conclusively.
Robert said
Revise my question to: Do you think Luke probably gave an accurate portrayal of Paul breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord and going to the high priest to ask him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus so that if he found any believers he might bring them bound to Jerusalem where they would be executed?Personally, I have my doubts.
One question I have is whether such a commission would have been remotely viable.
The high priest had political power in Jerusalem, but Damascus is a long way from Jerusalem.
The local Jewish community in Damascus might have respected the high priest, but would the local political authorities in Damascus have respected an extradition request from the Jewish high priest, particularly for purely religious crimes? That seems unlikely prima facie–do we know of something like this happening in other cases?
But even if the secular powers in Damascus would have responded favorably to such an extradition request, one would have expected the relevant letter to be addressed to them not to the synagogues. A ruler in one place can’t usually just deputize someone to go into someone else’s territory and start dragging people away in chains.
Maybe there was some extraordinary legal arrangement–where the high priest could, for example, legally arrest a jew anywhere in the empire, or where Jewish synagogues were regarded as extraterritorial possessions, sort of like embassies, so the high priest could have people arrested in synogogues throughout the empire. Or perhaps the synogogues themselves had some limited coercive power that would have entitled them to conduct arrests. Is there any evidence of such an arrangement?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)