(February 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm)Drich Wrote: Paul was apart of the official roman effort to stop the spread of this rebellious faction tht had the jews all up in a tizzy.

Ah, the difference the humble space key can make.

(February 8, 2018 at 5:41 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(February 8, 2018 at 2:00 pm)Drich Wrote: Paul was apart of the official roman effort to stop the spread of this rebellious faction tht had the jews all up in a tizzy.

Ah, the difference the humble space key can make.

Just ask an early Christian copyist:

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...n-mark-141

(February 8, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(February 8, 2018 at 1:39 am)Godscreated Wrote: 1) Really and where did you get that bit of info from.  2)The Temple guards arrested Jesus in the garden and the priest took Jesus to Pilate to be tried and found guilty, yet Pilate found no wrong in Him. Jesus actually allowed himself to be arrested and the guards knew this because the first time He told them He was Jesus they fell to the ground because of the power of His word. They also witnessed Jesus heal the ear of the servant of the priest, this servant had his ear sliced off by Peter, this puts to rest that God never cured an amputee.
Get things straight before you try to argue a point.

GC

It's just story telling.  If Jesus truly had healed someone's severed ear, people would have fled from him in terror.  They would NOT have arrested him!

 And you would know this how? I also noticed you did not address the gross mistakes you made, how come? They would have arrested Him because it was always part of God's unchanging plan for redemption. 

GC

(February 9, 2018 at 3:00 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(February 8, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It's just story telling.  If Jesus truly had healed someone's severed ear, people would have fled from him in terror.  They would NOT have arrested him!

 And you would know this how? I also noticed you did not address the gross mistakes you made, how come? They would have arrested Him because it was always part of God's unchanging plan for redemption. 

GC

What mistake did I make, and please be specific.

(February 8, 2018 at 3:10 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No evidence outside of "Paul" (or, "Pauls") exists to support the earliest one's claim that he persecuted anyone, along with his claim that he was publicly flogged (twice) by "the Jews".  You can't have it both ways -- if Paul was doing official work by and for Rome, he could not have been punished by the local rulers, but if he was acting on his own, then the Romans would have punished him.

It just doesn't add up, but if you see him as a delusional epileptic with a personality disorder who was given to flights of fancy and religious extremes, then, yes, things begin to make sense.  He could lie all he wanted, and no one would give a damn until those lies spread to the point where they were starting to cause the official rulers problems, and that's what probably got the (early) Paul arrested and then executed.

That is the dumbest argument one can make. You have 'proof' in Paul's texts as well as the texts of luke with no objection from Peter about who Paul was when confronted, and yet you cite the lack of roman documentation? Do you even know how the roman documentation structure worked? meaning would there even be any kind of paper work outside the local office/temple? Two and this is the biggest fail in your logic.. you do not have a complete roman record to research and definitively say Paul was not XYZ. we think we may have something like 15% of what was kept in one scriptoreum/libary (that deals with anything before the burning of Rome.) With all of those roman record lost is it your contention to maintain that if we do not currently have record of it from rome itself it did not happen?

Everywhere else i the real world Historeans take even religious text to help fill in the blanks we have about great empires or dynasties as it was common practice for the incommng tyrannts to burn everything old kinda like what ISIS tried to do recently. You take away a people's history they then become whatever you want them to be.

Everything above you wrote indicates you are one of these lemmings who is willing to give their mind's title thought and deed over to the incomming tyrants because your 'history' is gone.

Outside of fundamentalist "scholars", no one believes that the author of Acts was an eyewitness to the early Paul, and so, all we have are that person's claims about himself, which, I maintain, are contradictory and implausible.

https://vridar.org/2014/12/15/paul-the-persecutor/

Quote:Paul the persecutor?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:The notion that Paul did beat and kill Christians before his conversion is derived from Acts. I argue elsewhere (following several scholars) that this is theologically motivated fabrication. I am arguing from the evidence of Paul’s letters alone.

Those "letters" need to be put in context, too.  But for now let's take them as the early redactions of 2d century jesus freaks who decided to rehabilitate "paul" after Marcion.

(February 9, 2018 at 9:55 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 3:00 am)Godscreated Wrote:  And you would know this how? I also noticed you did not address the gross mistakes you made, how come? They would have arrested Him because it was always part of God's unchanging plan for redemption. 

GC

What mistake did I make, and please be specific.

That Jesus was arrested by Roman guards and that He was arrested in the Temple.

GC

Meh, who cares. God is not real, whether or not Paul did this or that doesn't really matter to me.

(February 10, 2018 at 2:58 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 9:55 am)Jehanne Wrote: What mistake did I make, and please be specific.

That Jesus was arrested by Roman guards and that He was arrested in the Temple.

GC

It's a logical inference.  Do you honestly think that Jesus could have gone to the Temp and "cleansed" it with no reaction from the Romans??  By the way, how many times do you believe that Jesus "cleansed" the Temple?  Once or twice?

---

(February 10, 2018 at 3:22 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Meh, who cares. God is not real, whether or not Paul did this or that doesn't really matter to me.

It does matter to others, which is why I am bringing it up.  Paul (the early one), should not, as an ancient witness, be trusted.

I remember in my US History to 1877 class (also took the second one, US History from 1877 until the present) that my Professor, during one lecture, told the class that historians regard diaries (especially, those from the Civil War) as "being worthless".  I remember sitting in the giant lecture hall with 400 or so other students and being really shocked by his statement.  But, he went to give the reasons for that, and then it began to make sense to me.

When someone writes a diary, that person writes their diary with the intent and expectation that someone, someday, will read what they had written!  Seems so obvious, but the connotations are equally clear when you think about it.  People who write diaries are typically not dispassionate observers to history; in other words, they can and often do have a "ax to grind", and so, their perspective is often tainted to begin with, and so, historians rightly and simply discard much of what such persons say in their writings.  Instead, historians like dispassionate observers, people who are just there who simply witness what was going on and write about it.

Paul was not such an individual.  He was a religious zealot who suffered from some form of temporal lobe epilepsy who asserted unlikely claims (see my OP), and as such, little of what he claims has any historical credibility, hence, his list of witnesses in 1st Corinthians 13 is not to be trusted, especially, "the 500" who Paul likely either made-up or took from an embellished source.