Historical Plausibility of Paul's Story

I swear you must say some of this just for the reaction. Edited by AgamemJon, : No reason given.

Yeah, I'll admit as much! Anyway, lets examine some of Pauls philosophy, shall we? Never mind whether or not he was knocked off his high horse on the road to Damascus. We could disprove the entire Bible as nothing more than a collection of Asaps Fables, and the philosophy behind it all would still be open to interpretation. And thats my basic position: That the motives of the authors were noble and the philosophy itself has stood the test of time. Gutenberg didnt invent the printing press simply to crank out propaganda for the masses....We shall have to discuss the philosophy elsewhere though, as it appears this is a scientific Accuracy/Innerrency thread.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD! You don't even read your own words, do you? Good points for a Biblical Christian forum largely populated by brainwashed 13-year-olds; but not really up to the standards of historical scholarship, nor is this anywhere near relevant to the topic at hand.*sigh*

So you all did take this discussion where it better fits in.Now, if many Pharisees and priests believed the gospel and became Chfristians, according to Luke, then why should it seem unlikely that a Saul of Tarsus should have a similiar experience?The New Testament highlights Paul's persecution and conversion. I don't believe that his experience should have been the one and only such one.In Acts 15 among the apostles and elders in Jerusalem there were former Pharisees who have also converted to the Christian faith. Do the objectors want to suggest that these coversions also were historically unlikely? Here we have "men of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed". That is had believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God of course.My point here is that Saul of Tarsus was just one example out of many, of a career Pharisee who had been persuaded of the gospel of Jesus and converted.Now there seems to be considerable skepticism about Paul's persecution of Christians before he coverted. The objectors suggest that customs and norms should have not permitted such and such to have happened.Out of all the Pharisees who converted to become Christians do you think none of them could have previously had a nasty attitude towards the Christians? Some of these same people were people who participated in the crucifixion of Jesus according to Acts.The imagination can speculate anything. Other than a blanket suspicion that everything the evangelists wrote was fabricated what solid proof is offered that Saul of Tarsus could not have persecuted Christians?I am told that Rome would have never permitted this to happen.Supposing for a moment that one super power have in principle some probition of such persecution, to what degree could it micro manage events from happening somewhere in its realm?There are laws against many thing occuring in the US. Let's take entering the country illegally just as an example. Will historians of some future time look skeptically on a supposed problem of illegal immigration as certainly an unlikely event to have happened in 21rst century America because of certain laws?So we have Luke telling us Saul acted in such a way. And we have Paul recounting that he acted such a way. In addition to this we have Jesus Himself predicting that the disciples should expect such persecution from the Jewish religious establishment.I remember that somewhere Jesus said that the disciples would be cast out of the synogogues. That was a kind of persecution of Jews who decided that Jesus was really the Messiah. Am I to believe that the Roman soldiers were there to micro manage Jewish Christians from being excluded from worshipping any longer in the synogogues?Other than "Well, he probably never said that. We don't trust ANYTHING attributed as a quotation of Jesus. " what proof is there that this never happened? And if they could be dispised enough to merit expulsion why not some fanatical zealots like Saul, going further to not allowing them to worship in their own houses?Doesn't seem terrifically unlikely to me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The term "Christian" was apparently a derogatory slang aimed at a sect of Jews who spoiled for the return of Israeli sovereignty. I think it unlikely that Rome imagined them inoccuous, or a trivial religious internal affair of the Jews. I suspect Rome held the Sanhedrin responsible for policing its own. Rome did, after all, support the local governments: civil and religious. That in itself would lead to the foregone conclusion. That the Jews did police their own with deadly effect is evident in the story of Jesus' arrest, trial and execution (in cooperation with Rome, of course).On the other hand, I have, like Jaywill, believed that the Sanhedrin's activity was a Black Op. I don't know if it is plausible that they could hide that activity from Rome, but let's face it: even today with all our fancy police powers, most missing persons remain missing and most murders remain unsolved. That's a U.S. reality. I don't know if it holds world-wide. What part of the Empire wasn't Rome's province? So far I am working within the myth. I don't know if the man actually existed. Assuming for the moment that he existed and persecuted Christians, and was willing to admit it; I don't see him showing us where the bodies are buried, or turning himself in to the proper authorities. Seems our murderous apostle/friend was always one step ahead of the law. Because, he did not intend to persecute them. He intended to undermine their faith; pretending to be one of them; claiming the title "apostle;" being the first to write about Jesus; casting himself as the great missionary; revising the gospel to make of it a "spiritual" rather than literal truth; putting off the reality of the kingdom to some indefinite time, in an uncertain future, and leaving to the deified Jesus, that dirty work of killing off the infidels. The new and improved Christianity was a kinder, gentler gospel better suited to a peace loving international community of believers.If this little tirade does not satisfy your desire for "evidence" then please think of it rather as a thought experiment.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Proof for this? Of course, this doesn't fit with what even the Biblical account has to say about the issue. Jesus was crucified - which was the punishment that the Romans dealt for political criminals of Rome (i.e., rebels). Well, considering that, even according to the story, it was the Romans who carried it out, I'd find it highly implausible.Jon

Yes, I think it was sanctioned by the Romans because much of Judea and its Roman occupiers had a reciprocal relationship. Early Christendom was a problem not only for the Chief Priests, but also for Rome, as evidenced by certain historians of that time.The Romans were pretty good at allowing those living under occupation to still live with their religion of choice. So the Romans didn't bother the Jews so much. However, Christianity was viewed menacingly, like a cult that eventually sought to undermine the efforts. It wasn't a matter of authority. Jews were allowed to enact laws and enforce laws so long as they didn't impinge on Roman ones. Though the Pharisees and Herodians differed considerably about where to stand when it came to allegiance to Rome, they were united in their disdain for Christendom. What evidence exists that any Christians were persecuted? The same with anything else. It is testified by the writings of antiquity. They didn't let him exactly. Paul had a lot of clout studying under Gamaliel. Eventually he began to ostracize himself by professing a belief in Jesus' messiahship. Emboldened, he would preach, much like Stephen did. They listened for awhile and then became indignant after hearing something that offended them. It wasn't long before Paul's head was was asked to be on a platter and he was on the run for the rest of his life. What evidence is their of any conversation? It doesn't leave any physical evidence behind, right?, so you have to give the writings the benefit of the doubt unless there is some reason to assume that it is not true or not entirely true.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I cannot tell whether you are asking for "proof" of everything, or just the two points which you cite. Aside from that, I should remind you that we are not discussing something in the realm of that which may be proven. If one needs proofs then he should stick to geometry, mathematics, or photography. On this subject we can only talk about evidences, and as a lifelong student of the holy scriptures I have observed what I believe to be evidences pointing to the idea that Saul of Tarsus was able to accomplish through subterfuge, that which he could not accomplish by violence. An indirect evidence of this might be found in the fact that Christianity (rather Paul-ianity) became the official religion of the Roman empire and as such was, and is, considerably different from what Jesus appears to have intended.That said, I have prepared a tidbit of material which I believe to be evidence of Saul's misleading. Please keep in mind that he was a smooth operator; very subtle. Do not expect his attacks to be full frontal. A fine example of this would be how Paul draws attention away from Jesus and onto himself.Whereas Saint Peter seems to teach that God is responsible for the rebirth experienced by Christians ...

quote:

---

“Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” 1Pe 1:3 KJV

---

... and that Christ is the example which Christians should emulate;

quote:

---

“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:” 1Pe 2:21 KJV

---

Saul appears to have a different message:

quote:

---

“ . I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.” 1Cr 4:15,16 KJV

---

So much for holding Christ up as the example. Huh? Rome did not arrest Jesus. The temple police arrested Jesus. He ended up in Roman court because the Jews were pushing for capital punishment. I was talking about the Sanhedrin's suspected Black Ops (the killing of Stephan, et al). My statement was clearly imbedded in a separate paragraph on the subject. I realize that these things are difficult for a Pauline Christian to hear but please read my arguments more carefully.Is your knee still jerking?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

What Hebrew word do you suspect was used derogatively to mean "Christian?"As far as I can tell, we aren't entirely sure what word was used to define Christians during the earliest period of Christianity (circa AD 30-65). We know from Paul himself in the Book of Acts, that he personally referred to it as "The Way."We also know that clandestine communication between Christians entailed etching the "Jesus fish" on pliable surfaces like sand or dirt. But that is a visual symbol, not a spoken word.Nonetheless, I'd be curious to know what word was used, even if it is idiomatic. If anyone knows, I'd like to know it. Based on both biblical and extra-biblical sources, I think you are right. The Romans, I believe, were initially indifferent to early Christendom and deferred power to the Sanhedrin. But according to Roman historian, Tacitus, when Christianity had made its way to Rome itself, it was met with virulent opposition. They martyred mercilously and in excruciating ways. According to the gospels the Chief Priests were reticent to say the least, and sought to trap or trick Jesus in to committing abominable sins so they could execute him with impunity.

quote:

---

2. What authority did the sanhedrin have in Damascus, when the whole of Syria was a Roman province?

---

Right, which is why he is asking by what authority did the Sanhedrin have in Assyria. But I think you already touched on that, which I am in agreement with you about. The Jews were allowed to have its own policing authority, especially when it came to matters involving Judaism. Its not like Jews were completely disarmed and helpless. The battle of Masada and the Maccabean Revolt illustrates that point.Even Peter, lobbing off the right ear of Malchus, illustrates that they were not completely disarmed.

quote:

---

3. What evidence is there that Paul did indeed persecute Christians?

---

You don't think Saul/Paul of Tarsus existed? You think he was a complete fabrication? I think its worthwhile to know that much of the supporting cast in the life of Paul are corroborated via archaeology with hard evidence. That includes the names of infamous Procurators, such as Felix, Erastus, and Gallio.If these names correspond to places like Corinth, especially during the year that Paul details in his epistles, doesn't that, at least in part, corroborate Paul's existence? Because even supposing that Paul was an invented character, somebody actually was chronicling these happenings since we know they've happened in actuality. If it wasn't Paul, then who was it really? Know what I mean?According to the epistles, Paul claims to have been trained in Judaic jurisprudence under the tutelage of Gamaliel-- a figure well attested for in Judaism. If that is the case, then, again, it further helps to support the historicity of Paul.Aside from the supporting details of others, there is also a lot of supporting details concerning the protagonist himself. According to the Bible, Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, which is in modern-day Turkey, but later moved to Jerusalem to study Judaism. This placed Paul in a very unique situation.He was Jew by virtue of bloodline, but was a full-fledged Roman citizen by virtue of birthplace (because Asia Minor was ruled by Rome). He used this to his advantage on a few occasions, because in order to avoid immediate execution, he could appeal to the courts on account that he was a Roman citizen. Under their own edicts, they had to honor this system of giving Romans a fair trial. On a couple of occasions he was by the skin of his teeth. There was at least one time where he escaped by being lowered in a basket. But he was also captured on at least three occasions too, which accounts for why he stood trial so many times in Acts. He even was sent to Rome to stand in front of the Caesar. If you recall the story, the Procurators were gleeful that he actually had the audacity to appeal to stand trial in Rome, because they knew how harshly he dealt with people. On the way, there was a violent storm off the coast of Malta where he barely escaped with his life.In any case, he made it clear in his letters that he was a hunted man, always on the run. How could it have been less kind than what Jesus advocated? In fact, most critics of Christianity claim that Paul is the reason why the (quote, unquote} "real" Christianity has been muddled. They charge Paul with desecrating the original intent Jesus labored for.Haven't you ever heard the term "Pauline Christian?"In any case, I think there is enough reason to assume the historicity of Paul of Tarsus. Historically, he has more circumstantial and hard evidence pointing to him than most figures in modern history. Yet, for some odd reason, (yes, I'm being facetious) we don't see those figures challenged nearly as much as biblical figures are. Gee, I wonder why that is?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Thank you for your response. The word is Greek {christianos}, a derivative of chrisos. The etymology is complex and I am not yet ready to interpret its meaning in an authoritative fashion. That it was derogatory is suggested by Thayer, who comments: "The name was first given to the worshippers of Jesus by the Gentiles, but from the second century . onward accepted by them as a title of honor." which see. I was speaking of the execution of Stephan and other murders attributed to the Sanhedrin via Saul. As I said, "I don't know." Others have raised the possibility that the character is an historical fiction. That may or may not be a fact. I don't know. One did not become a Roman citizen by virtue of being born in a subject nation. That would be like a U.S. citizenship acquired by virtue of being born in occupied Iraq. One might become a Roman citizen for a fee (and pledge of allegiance) or, by being born to a Roman citizen. One of my proffesors asserted that Paul's mother was Hebrew and his father Roman. I do not find evidence for that in the New Testament, so I assume it was deduced from a knowledge of Roman customs. Seems reasonable to me. And Paul did say that he was "[free] born." It would appear that you actually agree with what I wrote. I have. And that is why I wrote to AgamemJon (post #23):

quote:

---

"I realize that these things are difficult for a Pauline Christian to hear but please read my arguments more carefully."

---

As I said before. I don't know.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

No, thank you. I've always liked your posts. I kinda wish you were around more often to be quite honest. I have quite a few quotes from historians speaking about Christians in a negative way. Of course, they were already translated in to English, so I wasn't clear on what word they used. Though I have heard it said that the derogatory word "cretin," is a Greek perjorative for Christian. In that case, I'm not aware of any extant evidence that would corroborate it. I suppose the best way would be to find a sepulchre. Then again, that isn't exactly a simple task. I am aware that foreigners could purchase their citizenship, however, I was referencing a Bible verse. I felt a little lazy last night and didn;t feel like looking for it. But I'll post it now.Anyhow, the is purportedly coming from Paul himself. He alleges, "As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"

​

When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen."

​

The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"

​

"Yes, I am," he answered.

​

Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."

​

"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied.

​

Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. -Acts 22:23-29 Yeah, I've never heard of that either. I suppose its possible, but I wonder what your professor was sourcing. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand what you mean by it.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

More than possible, I think. More like highly probable.Thing about it. Thousands of horny young soldier in a country full of nubile girls whose male counterparts have been killed or driven underground. You know. The sort of thing which always happens in war. People may not want to think about it. It may not appear on the evening news. But you can bet that it's going on today in good ol' Iraq. Maybe he was simply employing his power of reason and stating his conclusion as a matter of fact.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I'm sorry but you lost me...? What does this mean in lieu of of our previous conversation?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

'I'm saying it's a no-brainer that an army of occupation is going to generate a multitude of little bastards. King Herod was one of them. The thought was that Paul may have been the son of a legionairre but now I learn that it is an unlikely or impossible way to become a Roman citizen.I have been doing a bit of research into Roman law and it appears, at this point in my study, that Paul could probably not have been a freeborn Roman citizen unless both his parents were Roman citizens. The bit about citizenship by virtue of being born in the empire, was apparently not happening until much later (212 AD). There were other ways to become a citizen, but to be "born" a citizen, your parents had to be citizens. If there were exceptions to that rule I have not yet learned of them.In fact, in his letter to "the Romans," Paul asks them to say hello to his mother.

quote:

---

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Rom 16:13

---

A couple of modern versions paraphrase the last bit and make it sound like Paul is saying that the mother of Rufus is like a mother to him. I don't know whether this is appropriate. I do know that it seems strange that in all his writings I have found no mention of his parents. He claims to be a Jew, trained in Jerusalem, but that would be a good thing to have one's agent do. And wasn't it Paul who cautioned people saying that "many have entertained angels (agents) unawares." ? {Hbr 13:2}Still open to new info.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

quote:

---

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Rom 16:13

---

NIV: Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. NKJV: Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. NLT: Greet Rufus, whom the Lord picked out to be his very own; and also his dear mother, who has been a mother to me.Kind of ambiguous. The verbiage leaves it open. It is conceivable that while he studied abroad in Jerusalem that his parents, if still living during that time, could have stayed in Tarsus.It doesn't really matter in any case whether his father was a Roman or a Jew to me. Yes, that was Paul, but I'm not understanding the significance.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake