I think I have said before that the only eye witnesses that would be more convincing are those NON biblical ones. The bone of contention seems to be the date when the Gospels were actually written but I would say that for me that doesn’t matter if Peter himself could write almost contemporaneously about the things that he say happened. You still have to be convinced that he didn’t make things up to suit his audience. Bart always says that the closer you can get to the source, the better and more reliable the historical ‘evidence’. That is probably true about ‘when’ it was written but not whether it was all still the truth or not?
The resurrection is a great example of this.
MikeyS said
I think I have said before that the only eye witnesses that would be more convincing are those NON biblical ones. The bone of contention seems to be the date when the Gospels were actually written but I would say that for me that doesn’t matter if Peter himself could write almost contemporaneously about the things that he say happened. You still have to be convinced that he didn’t make things up to suit his audience. Bart always says that the closer you can get to the source, the better and more reliable the historical ‘evidence’. That is probably true about ‘when’ it was written but not whether it was all still the truth or not?The resurrection is a great example of this.
The topic of this discussion is not the reliability of the eyewitnesses (as reported through a long oral tradition, including unavoidable legendary growth) , but whether there existed eyewitnesses of some permanency, like a group of followers, joining him “long” before he died.
Unless Paul lies, or was fooled (not likely in the light of Galatians 2), Paul confirms the existence of an organized group, who individually and collectively had “visions” of him. This means that they recognized him from the time he was alive, and that they had a previously close relationship with him. Paul does not say for how long they had been followers. Theoretically, they may have met him some few weeks before the execution, if Paul was our only witness. But how likely is that?
Paul is explicit on three decisive points: Peter recognized Jesus from the time he was alive, Peter was commissioned by Jesus at some point in time , and Paul spent some time with Peter after Paul’s conversion, only a few years after the crucifixion. This is enough to conclude that there was an organized group of followers while Jesus was alive.
gavriel said
MikeyS said
I think I have said before that the only eye witnesses that would be more convincing are those NON biblical ones. The bone of contention seems to be the date when the Gospels were actually written but I would say that for me that doesn’t matter if Peter himself could write almost contemporaneously about the things that he say happened. You still have to be convinced that he didn’t make things up to suit his audience. Bart always says that the closer you can get to the source, the better and more reliable the historical ‘evidence’. That is probably true about ‘when’ it was written but not whether it was all still the truth or not?The resurrection is a great example of this.
The topic of this discussion is not the reliability of the eyewitnesses (as reported through a long oral tradition, including unavoidable legendary growth) , but whether there existed eyewitnesses of some permanency, like a group of followers, joining him “long” before he died.
Unless Paul lies, or was fooled (not likely in the light of Galatians 2), Paul confirms the existence of an organized group, who individually and collectively had “visions” of him. This means that they recognized him from the time he was alive, and that they had a previously close relationship with him. Paul does not say for how long they had been followers. Theoretically, they may have met him some few weeks before the execution, if Paul was our only witness. But how likely is that?
Paul is explicit on three decisive points: Peter recognized Jesus from the time he was alive, Peter was commissioned by Jesus at some point in time , and Paul spent some time with Peter after Paul’s conversion, only a few years after the crucifixion. This is enough to conclude that there was an organized group of followers while Jesus was alive.
Of course Paul was always lying. That’s why he kept protesting that he wasn’t lying:
(1)”I speak the truth in Christ–I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit– (Romans 9:1)”
(2)”I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie (Galatians 1:20).”
(3)”I call God as my witness–and I stake my life on it–that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:23).”
(4)”The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying (2 Cor. 11:31).”
The apostle Paul, similar to what the Queen says in Hamlet, “doth protest too much, methinks (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222-230).”
john76 said
Of course Paul was always lying. That’s why he kept protesting that he wasn’t lying:
(1)”I speak the truth in Christ–I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit– (Romans 9:1)”
(2)”I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie (Galatians 1:20).”
(3)”I call God as my witness–and I stake my life on it–that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:23).”
(4)”The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying (2 Cor. 11:31).”
The apostle Paul, similar to what the Queen says in Hamlet, “doth protest too much, methinks (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222-230).”
One usually expects serial liars to vehemently deny that they are lying. That’s part of their psychological makeup. Also, one will expect honest people engaged in frequent controversies to do the same, when their statements are doubted.
Your method is, in other words, completely without merit or value.
gavriel said
john76 said
Of course Paul was always lying. That’s why he kept protesting that he wasn’t lying:
(1)”I speak the truth in Christ–I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit– (Romans 9:1)”
(2)”I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie (Galatians 1:20).”
(3)”I call God as my witness–and I stake my life on it–that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:23).”
(4)”The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying (2 Cor. 11:31).”
The apostle Paul, similar to what the Queen says in Hamlet, “doth protest too much, methinks (Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222-230).”
One usually expects serial liars to vehemently deny that they are lying. That’s part of their psychological makeup. Also, one will expect honest people engaged in frequent controversies to do the same, when their statements are doubted.
Your method is, in other words, completely without merit or value.
lol
There are still some people around who think Jesus may have been made up to suit an agenda and as Bart often says the historical evidence can never be 100% as we weren’t there to confirm it. He then suggests we can only look at what evidence that was and then arrive at a conclusion based on the best probability of the best evidence we have. Subject to any new evidence coming along. Bart I think also used Paul’s meeting with Peter and James as a good probability that Jesus existed as they were ‘eye’ witnesses. Sorry for using your name Bart but it is your forum and you are the best scholar we know.
I’m more skeptical as I tend not to believe anything unless I have seen it with my own eyes and because the NON biblical evidence is almost non existent or dubious for such a person that was doing such fantastic deeds that not one non biblical writer who lived at the same time, had cause to mention Yeshua by name, then I would have to say I don’t know whether there were eye witnesses or not? Christus is not Yeshua!
I’ve said before. I don’t have much time for Paul as he virtually destroyed our potential relationship with God with his ridiculous atonement by blood doctrine and Adam’s original sin. We do know that women have cause to do much the same with needing to obey their husbands and not to speak in Church etc. Some say he never said that.It was added by someone else. It matters not as that was preached up to recent history that made women second class Christians for 1900 years. Whether Paul lied or not, do we have any non biblical evidence of his claims to have persecuted Christians or that any other disciple met Paul? ie The whole original Christian movement could have been just a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up. Fancilful? Maybe, but that is exactly what the Mormons did and now they have ten million followers world wide. And what’s more, lots of them no longer believe in Joseph Smith’s claims of gold plates and Egyptian writings. But has that diminished their faith and using the mormon bible? Not a bit of it!
So is there a parallel with the Jesus movement 2000 years ago? OK. I know this is not on the OP topic but worth a mention imo.
MikeyS said
There are still some people around who think Jesus may have been made up to suit an agenda and as Bart often says the historical evidence can never be 100% as we weren’t there to confirm it. He then suggests we can only look at what evidence that was and then arrive at a conclusion based on the best probability of the best evidence we have. Subject to any new evidence coming along. Bart I think also used Paul’s meeting with Peter and James as a good probability that Jesus existed as they were ‘eye’ witnesses. Sorry for using your name Bart but it is your forum and you are the best scholar we know.I’m more skeptical as I tend not to believe anything unless I have seen it with my own eyes and because the NON biblical evidence is almost non existent or dubious for such a person that was doing such fantastic deeds that not one non biblical writer who lived at the same time, had cause to mention Yeshua by name, then I would have to say I don’t know whether there were eye witnesses or not? Christus is not Yeshua!
I’ve said before. I don’t have much time for Paul as he virtually destroyed our potential relationship with God with his ridiculous atonement by blood doctrine and Adam’s original sin. We do know that women have cause to do much the same with needing to obey their husbands and not to speak in Church etc. Some say he never said that.It was added by someone else. It matters not as that was preached up to recent history that made women second class Christians for 1900 years. Whether Paul lied or not, do we have any non biblical evidence of his claims to have persecuted Christians or that any other disciple met Paul? ie The whole original Christian movement could have been just a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up. Fancilful? Maybe, but that is exactly what the Mormons did and now they have ten million followers world wide. And what’s more, lots of them no longer believe in Joseph Smith’s claims of gold plates and Egyptian writings. But has that diminished their faith and using the mormon bible? Not a bit of it!
So is there a parallel with the Jesus movement 2000 years ago? OK. I know this is not on the OP topic but worth a mention imo.
I agree completely with you say in your first paragraph.
On the second paragraph: The New Testament writings are witnesses and they are to a certain extent independent of each other. They are just more biased than you would expect of let’s say Josephus or Cassius who have other types of biases. That the writings are heavily biased does not mean that they are useless, just that one has to apply more and different types of critical methods.
The parallel to the Mormons fails, because critical scholarship, essentially applying standard historical research methods can dismiss its historicity quite effortlessly. The effort to prove that Paul lies has not made its conclusions into serious scholarship. He may be perhaps be accused of self-aggrandizement , and perhaps making compromises to keep factions together. You may try to make a case for interpolations, which if proved, would diminish Paul’s testimonies. I’m all ears. The problem here is that there are few textual variants that could prove it, and when he says something interesting to us, it is often disinterested, en-passant and off-topic.
Equally it is hard to believe that Paul was fooled by the fore-going community leadership. From his writings one quickly learns that he did not have much admiration for the intellectual capacities of the members – read Galatians 2. Paul, a learned, self-conscious and in some senses a highly critical person was fooled by “a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up”? Hah. I think we should maintain certain standards. Paul knew the movement well before he joined it, he even had relatives who joined it before him. This latter “fact” is by the way one of those little off-topic comments of his.
The bottom line, to stick strictly to the topic, is that Paul’s writings is a fairly reliable witness to the existence of an organized group of followers, before and after crucifixion, with a considerable continuity. It is more likely than not.
Gavriel, you are in good company for articulating that Paul’s accounts lead most people to believe Peter and James to be eye witnesses to Jesus life and removes any doubt they may have had.
The problem I have and it strays off topic but goes to the heart of Paul’s credibilty. And apologies for repeating it. He has a road to Damascus experience and a life changing event where he believes that Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Now I can’t think of any situation where anyone who had that experience would not want to go as a matter of urgency to go and seek those disciples that actually heard Jesus’s preaching if only to know exactly what he had to prepare for. He would certainly want confirmation from them about what the miracles he did IF they were common knowledge at the time and also as important what happened post resurrection. So does he do that and go and seek them out asap? No, for some reason he goes to Arabia for three years to do what? Preach? Preach what? OK, he says that Jesus himself taught him all he needed to know etc?
All I will say is this seems like a person of unsound judgement and possibly deluded to a point of insanity. Some may disagree but his whole philosophy and doctrine of salvation by atonement via the blood of Jesus was completely opposite to that which Jesus himself taught and so that visitation by Jesus could never have happened. A person who makes up stuff as he goes along could quite easily have made up the story about going to see Peter and James. It all fits a person of unsound mind that really should not be trusted as witness to ANYTHING! Just because he had some education and fairly literate does not mean he knew what was truth and what was fiction. As I also asked? IF he was a persecutor of the Christian movement as he claims he was, then why not go to the heart and soul of that very movement. ie the Disciples like Peter, especially. None of that makes sense!
If he was persecuting Christians BEFORE the crucifixion? Was he? I don’t know but surely he would have gone to seek HIM out?
Thinking further on this…
I have had what I would call amost but not quite a supernatural experience that I believed anyway was a ‘divine’ intervention. I can accept that people say that things like that don’t happen and there was and is another more natural explanation. Indeed, I’m an Engineer by training and try and think rationally about the world around us. When I had that experience, I can’t really explain it fully but was so hyped up, it was unbelievable. I wanted to share it with everyone I met, even to atheists at my Golf Club and indeed went along to a local church two days later, which I hadn’t been for a long time to tell people about it. I did it again the folowing week at a different church. Now, this is the point about why I am suspicious about Paul. He said he that experience with Jesus on the Damascus road and had that been true, then he too would have been all hyped up, I would have thought? But does he go right away to tell all the other believers and even none believers what he had experienced? To shout that from the roof tops so to speak? Go tell his old bosses at the Sanhedrin that they had Jesus all wrong and he truly is the Son of God?
No, he doesn’t even seek out Peter or any other disciple and wanders off somewhere for three years?
My conclusion could be wrong. But my guess is that he didn’t have that experience at all. He made it up and so he was an unreliable witness where in a court of law, ALL his evidence can be discarded.
MikeyS said
Thinking further on this…I have had what I would call amost but not quite a supernatural experience that I believed anyway was a ‘divine’ intervention. I can accept that people say that things like that don’t happen and there was and is another more natural explanation. Indeed, I’m an Engineer by training and try and think rationally about the world around us. When I had that experience, I can’t really explain it fully but was so hyped up, it was unbelievable. I wanted to share it with everyone I met, even to atheists at my Golf Club and indeed went along to a local church two days later, which I hadn’t been for a long time to tell people about it. I did it again the folowing week at a different church. Now, this is the point about why I am suspicious about Paul. He said he that experience with Jesus on the Damascus road and had that been true, then he too would have been all hyped up, I would have thought? But does he go right away to tell all the other believers and even none believers what he had experienced? To shout that from the roof tops so to speak? Go tell his old bosses at the Sanhedrin that they had Jesus all wrong and he truly is the Son of God?
No, he doesn’t even seek out Peter or any other disciple and wanders off somewhere for three years?
My conclusion could be wrong. But my guess is that he didn’t have that experience at all. He made it up and so he was an unreliable witness where in a court of law, ALL his evidence can be discarded.
Paul’s account of his conversion experience on the road to Damascus was a lie. If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.
MikeyS said
There are still some people around who think Jesus may have been made up to suit an agenda and as Bart often says the historical evidence can never be 100% as we weren’t there to confirm it. He then suggests we can only look at what evidence that was and then arrive at a conclusion based on the best probability of the best evidence we have. Subject to any new evidence coming along. Bart I think also used Paul’s meeting with Peter and James as a good probability that Jesus existed as they were ‘eye’ witnesses. Sorry for using your name Bart but it is your forum and you are the best scholar we know.I’m more skeptical as I tend not to believe anything unless I have seen it with my own eyes and because the NON biblical evidence is almost non existent or dubious for such a person that was doing such fantastic deeds that not one non biblical writer who lived at the same time, had cause to mention Yeshua by name, then I would have to say I don’t know whether there were eye witnesses or not? Christus is not Yeshua!
I’ve said before. I don’t have much time for Paul as he virtually destroyed our potential relationship with God with his ridiculous atonement by blood doctrine and Adam’s original sin. We do know that women have cause to do much the same with needing to obey their husbands and not to speak in Church etc. Some say he never said that.It was added by someone else. It matters not as that was preached up to recent history that made women second class Christians for 1900 years. Whether Paul lied or not, do we have any non biblical evidence of his claims to have persecuted Christians or that any other disciple met Paul? ie The whole original Christian movement could have been just a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up. Fancilful? Maybe, but that is exactly what the Mormons did and now they have ten million followers world wide. And what’s more, lots of them no longer believe in Joseph Smith’s claims of gold plates and Egyptian writings. But has that diminished their faith and using the mormon bible? Not a bit of it!
So is there a parallel with the Jesus movement 2000 years ago? OK. I know this is not on the OP topic but worth a mention imo.
Ehrman is an average scholar. He is a former fundamentalist who still maintains certain conservative views, like there being a myriad of independent sources behind the gospels. Ehrman is popular and prolific, not profound. His opinions are mildly entertaining but are best taken with a grain of salt.
gavriel said
MikeyS said
There are still some people around who think Jesus may have been made up to suit an agenda and as Bart often says the historical evidence can never be 100% as we weren’t there to confirm it. He then suggests we can only look at what evidence that was and then arrive at a conclusion based on the best probability of the best evidence we have. Subject to any new evidence coming along. Bart I think also used Paul’s meeting with Peter and James as a good probability that Jesus existed as they were ‘eye’ witnesses. Sorry for using your name Bart but it is your forum and you are the best scholar we know.I’m more skeptical as I tend not to believe anything unless I have seen it with my own eyes and because the NON biblical evidence is almost non existent or dubious for such a person that was doing such fantastic deeds that not one non biblical writer who lived at the same time, had cause to mention Yeshua by name, then I would have to say I don’t know whether there were eye witnesses or not? Christus is not Yeshua!
I’ve said before. I don’t have much time for Paul as he virtually destroyed our potential relationship with God with his ridiculous atonement by blood doctrine and Adam’s original sin. We do know that women have cause to do much the same with needing to obey their husbands and not to speak in Church etc. Some say he never said that.It was added by someone else. It matters not as that was preached up to recent history that made women second class Christians for 1900 years. Whether Paul lied or not, do we have any non biblical evidence of his claims to have persecuted Christians or that any other disciple met Paul? ie The whole original Christian movement could have been just a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up. Fancilful? Maybe, but that is exactly what the Mormons did and now they have ten million followers world wide. And what’s more, lots of them no longer believe in Joseph Smith’s claims of gold plates and Egyptian writings. But has that diminished their faith and using the mormon bible? Not a bit of it!
So is there a parallel with the Jesus movement 2000 years ago? OK. I know this is not on the OP topic but worth a mention imo.
I agree completely with you say in your first paragraph.
On the second paragraph: The New Testament writings are witnesses and they are to a certain extent independent of each other. They are just more biased than you would expect of let’s say Josephus or Cassius who have other types of biases. That the writings are heavily biased does not mean that they are useless, just that one has to apply more and different types of critical methods.
The parallel to the Mormons fails, because critical scholarship, essentially applying standard historical research methods can dismiss its historicity quite effortlessly. The effort to prove that Paul lies has not made its conclusions into serious scholarship. He may be perhaps be accused of self-aggrandizement , and perhaps making compromises to keep factions together. You may try to make a case for interpolations, which if proved, would diminish Paul’s testimonies. I’m all ears. The problem here is that there are few textual variants that could prove it, and when he says something interesting to us, it is often disinterested, en-passant and off-topic.
Equally it is hard to believe that Paul was fooled by the fore-going community leadership. From his writings one quickly learns that he did not have much admiration for the intellectual capacities of the members – read Galatians 2. Paul, a learned, self-conscious and in some senses a highly critical person was fooled by “a deluded group of men with mental psychosis problems, who made the whole thing up”? Hah. I think we should maintain certain standards. Paul knew the movement well before he joined it, he even had relatives who joined it before him. This latter “fact” is by the way one of those little off-topic comments of his.
The bottom line, to stick strictly to the topic, is that Paul’s writings is a fairly reliable witness to the existence of an organized group of followers, before and after crucifixion, with a considerable continuity. It is more likely than not.
Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”
” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
MikeyS said
Gavriel, you are in good company for articulating that Paul’s accounts lead most people to believe Peter and James to be eye witnesses to Jesus life and removes any doubt they may have had.The problem I have and it strays off topic but goes to the heart of Paul’s credibilty. And apologies for repeating it. He has a road to Damascus experience and a life changing event where he believes that Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Now I can’t think of any situation where anyone who had that experience would not want to go as a matter of urgency to go and seek those disciples that actually heard Jesus’s preaching if only to know exactly what he had to prepare for. He would certainly want confirmation from them about what the miracles he did IF they were common knowledge at the time and also as important what happened post resurrection. So does he do that and go and seek them out asap? No, for some reason he goes to Arabia for three years to do what? Preach? Preach what? OK, he says that Jesus himself taught him all he needed to know etc?
All I will say is this seems like a person of unsound judgement and possibly deluded to a point of insanity. Some may disagree but his whole philosophy and doctrine of salvation by atonement via the blood of Jesus was completely opposite to that which Jesus himself taught and so that visitation by Jesus could never have happened. A person who makes up stuff as he goes along could quite easily have made up the story about going to see Peter and James. It all fits a person of unsound mind that really should not be trusted as witness to ANYTHING! Just because he had some education and fairly literate does not mean he knew what was truth and what was fiction. As I also asked? IF he was a persecutor of the Christian movement as he claims he was, then why not go to the heart and soul of that very movement. ie the Disciples like Peter, especially. None of that makes sense!
If he was persecuting Christians BEFORE the crucifixion? Was he? I don’t know but surely he would have gone to seek HIM out?
I don’t think Paul entered on a role as a persecutor while Jesus was alive. From the writings of Paul it is implied that what many traditional Jews reacted against was the theological revision of very early post-crucifixion Christianity, which to Jews implied that a cursed, crucified person had been elevated to the right hand of G.d. Many Jews would feel that this literally was to drag filth into the holiest of the Holy. That was the “stumbling stone” to the Jews, or part of it.
Your main point suffers from an uncritical reliance on Luke. Acts may have been written as late as in the 90’ties, with still further revisions in the early decades of the second century. The relationship between Acts and Paul’s authentic letters may be like the relationship between the Synoptics and the true teaching of Jesus. Paul himself report something that is quite compatible with a “slow” conversion, may be a shock of sorts, and then a period of digestion and religious re-orientation. This is not unique. Reading Galatians 1, make one feel that he was resident of Damascus of sorts, and that there was no “road to Damascus” from Jerusalem.
Also, one should accept that Paul is relatively clear on what he thinks he has received from above, and what he has learned in the most natural way for humans. His elaborate theology, beyond the intellectual capacity of the Galilean fishermen, as well as his commission to the gentiles, is what he feels is “his” work, and this puts him in the position of an equally-valid apostle, on a par with Peter. His ego could not stand the role of a second rate apostle or being just an ambassador commissioned by Peter. On the other he hand he is equally clear that he has learned things the ordinary way (1 Cor. 15.11, among other passages)
Paul may have held delusional viewpoints. This is not an uncommon property among learned people, especially when mixed with religion or political sectarianism. But that is different from lying. Further I think that Paul must be judged against his cultural background, and not according to modern intellectual standards. That matters a lot when putting insanity labels on people.
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
A guy comes back and finds 12 new messages in an OLD thread. Wow! Anyway, butting in, and asking for it, when i may just duck and cover anyway, i can think of one reason that’s often come up in other threads. And is included in a few of Bart’s books. Because the persecution of Christians, taught in Sunday School to wear as a badge of honor, was not so systemmatic or severe for almost 300 years as youngsters are led to believe. It came and went according to the EMPEROR’s preference (not a low level guy like Paul). Maybe when Paul was the persecutor, it was a personal mission. He disliked these Jewish heretics for obvious personal reasons stemming out of his orthodox Jewish faith. So it was not a Roman mandate at all that early, just a sectarian kerfluffle that he used his position to exploit.
SWerdal said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
A guy comes back and finds 12 new messages in an OLD thread. Wow! Anyway, butting in, and asking for it, when i may just duck and cover anyway, i can think of one reason that’s often come up in other threads. And is included in a few of Bart’s books. Because the persecution of Christians, taught in Sunday School to wear as a badge of honor, was not so systemmatic or severe for almost 300 years as youngsters are led to believe. It came and went according to the EMPEROR’s preference (not a low level guy like Paul). Maybe when Paul was the persecutor, it was a personal mission. He disliked these Jewish heretics for obvious personal reasons stemming out of his orthodox Jewish faith. So it was not a Roman mandate at all that early, just a sectarian kerfluffle that he used his position to exploit.
Saul did everything he could to try and stop the growth of Christianity. In fact, when Stephen (the first recorded Christian martyr in the New Testament) was killed, Saul was there (watching the cloaks of those who were stoning Stephen.)
On the day Stephen was martyred, a great persecution broke out against the Christian Church in Jerusalem and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. At that time, Saul began to destroy the Church. Going from house to house , he dragged off Christian men and women and put them in prison. Eventually he obtained letters from the Jewish religious leaders to Jews in Damascus and he went there to bring the Christians (known as followers of the Way at that time) back to Jerusalem to be punished.
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
gavriel said
john76 said
Aleph82 said
“Paul was not duped by the original lying Christians. Paul came to be a co-conspirator.”” If Paul had actually abandoned the persecuting group and become a Christian, he would have been hunted down by his former employer for being a Christian and for desertion.”
How could you possibly know either of these things? Revelation?
Then why didn’t Paul’s former employers go after him for being a Christian and deserting?
Didn’t they? Disregarding the unreliable Acts, see 2 Corinth 11.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Paul’s former employers. Nice try though. lol
John 76 said
Paul did everything he could to try and stop the growth of Christianity. In fact, when Stephen (the first recorded Christian martyr in the New Testament) was killed, Saul was there (watching the cloaks of those who were stoning Stephen.)
On the day Stephen was martyred, a great persecution broke out against the Christian Church in Jerusalem and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. At that time, Saul began to destroy the Church. Going from house to house , he dragged off Christian men and women and put them in prison. Eventually he obtained letters from the Jewish religious leaders to Jews in Damascus and he went there to bring the Christians (known as followers of the Way at that time) back to Jerusalem to be punished.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
I still cannot understand why Paul didn’t go after the leaders/apostles? In fact how come James and Peter were able to build their church IN Jersusalem during that period considering the opposition? Including the Sanhedrin itself? That was still there some years later when Paul supposedly visited them. You say he went from house to house etc. How on earth did he know who were Christians and who wasn’t and what happened to them afterwards? Were they ALL stoned to death?
He would have needed an army to do all that.
I wonder some of them changed names? Saul became Paul. Simon became Peter etc.?
Not having surnames and just eg Jesus, son of Joseph must have been a real pain. It really was a time of ignorance in that area.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)