So Paul claims to have persecuted followers of Jesus before entered the movement. Whether we consider his claims true or false,
1) What kind of persecution(either that he had a hand in or claimed to have a hand in) are we looking at here?
Like chucking eggs at peoples houses or throwing rocks at peoples faces and animals or going full throttle and torturing and murdering early Christians?
2) How would Roman authorities deal with it? Like “eh, don’t stress, just Jew vs. Christian, sit back an chill” or “oh snap, this is serious we need to step in”
I’m not sure we can have any answers to these questions but I think the level of persecution(assuming his story is true) would affect how he is received by the early community.
Hope those two questions made sense.
MMahmud said
So Paul claims to have persecuted followers of Jesus before entered the movement. Whether we consider his claims true or false,2) How would Roman authorities deal with it? Like “eh, don’t stress, just Jew vs. Christian, sit back an chill” or “oh snap, this is serious we need to step in”
The Romans let the locals run things. I’m guessing so long as they kept order there wasn’t a problem.
What kind of persecution(either that he had a hand in or claimed to have a hand in) are we looking at here?
I find it highly unlikely that Paul would join the movement and make up a reason for his new family to fear him. It’s generally believed that he went out arresting people and jailing them, but Paul also used the word “violent to describe his behaviour”
spiker said
MMahmud said
So Paul claims to have persecuted followers of Jesus before entered the movement. Whether we consider his claims true or false,2) How would Roman authorities deal with it? Like “eh, don’t stress, just Jew vs. Christian, sit back an chill” or “oh snap, this is serious we need to step in”
The Romans let the locals run things. I’m guessing so long as they kept order there wasn’t a problem.
What kind of persecution(either that he had a hand in or claimed to have a hand in) are we looking at here?
I find it highly unlikely that Paul would join the movement and make up a reason for his new family to fear him. It’s generally believed that he went out arresting people and jailing them, but Paul also used the word “violent to describe his behaviour”
Some argue he did make it up and was going for the ” I was lost but then I found Jesus!!!” tactic which may have been effective then as it is now.
MMahmud said
Some argue he did make it up and was going for the ” I was lost but then I found Jesus!!!” tactic which may have been effective then as it is now.
Sure, but the problem is, Paul, according to this argument is making up a conversion, but all the while giving people reason to think he is untrustworthy. I was lost but then found Jesus would not require claiming you had violently persecuted Christians. Claiming you violently persecuted a group you are now claiming to belong to would suggest you were now doing it on the sly. Further the I was lost argument doesn’t work with a new Christianity. People were claiming to have seen a risen Messiah not claiming some moral failing.
It isn’t enough just to go I bet he is making it up followed by speculation or insinuation, as a means of settling the question. Skepticism that operates by characterizing things in a negative light in order to see them as negative, is not skepticism at all. Skepticism is doubting things that are doubtful.
First “may have” is not evidence.” Second, trying to get people to trust you and take your word doesn’t go very well when you claim to have violently attacked the group. On the other hand, if he had violently persecuted Christians(That is, if he was known for it), his admission and confession of guilt would be the only way to manage that.
I still find it doubtful that Paul would give up his position and standing to work for this new cause unless he really converted. This isn’t just a man who goes hey I converted, every should like me. He dedicated the rest of his life to spreading the word throughout the region. It seems intellectually dishonest to argue that he was just making it up. People like to see themselves as skeptics because they think it makes them (appear) smarter.
spiker said
MMahmud said
Some argue he did make it up and was going for the ” I was lost but then I found Jesus!!!” tactic which may have been effective then as it is now.
Sure, but the problem is, Paul, according to this argument is making up a conversion, but all the while giving people reason to think he is untrustworthy. I was lost but then found Jesus would not require claiming you had violently persecuted Christians. Claiming you violently persecuted a group you are now claiming to belong to would suggest you were now doing it on the sly. Further the I was lost argument doesn’t work with a new Christianity. People were claiming to have seen a risen Messiah not claiming some moral failing.
It isn’t enough just to go I bet he is making it up followed by speculation or insinuation, as a means of settling the question. Skepticism that operates by characterizing things in a negative light in order to see them as negative, is not skepticism at all. Skepticism is doubting things that are doubtful.
First “may have” is not evidence.” Second, trying to get people to trust you and take your word doesn’t go very well when you claim to have violently attacked the group. On the other hand, if he had violently persecuted Christians(That is, if he was known for it), his admission and confession of guilt would be the only way to manage that.
I still find it doubtful that Paul would give up his position and standing to work for this new cause unless he really converted. This isn’t just a man who goes hey I converted, every should like me. He dedicated the rest of his life to spreading the word throughout the region. It seems intellectually dishonest to argue that he was just making it up. People like to see themselves as skeptics because they think it makes them (appear) smarter.
I think I said it before recently, he was a sincere Jewish worshiper of Jesus. For us to discover that he was insincere would require finding a long lost letter of his where he admits lying or somehow being able to peer into his brain.
We can’t do that of course so speculation abounds.
MMahmud said
I think I said it before recently, he was a sincere Jewish worshiper of Jesus. For us to discover that he was insincere would require finding a long lost letter of his where he admits lying or somehow being able to peer into his brain.
We can’t do that of course so speculation abounds.
Sure but even speculation has to make sense, has to adhere to certain rules.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)