|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Historical Plausibility of Paul's Story | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
If Paul were a secret agent then it's understandable why he would say "be kind to strangers, because you never know who's a secret agent."
I'm saying that Paul's resume' is highly suspiscious. Saul of Tarsus - Temple trained Roman citizen - bounty hunter counting Christian coup, suddenly sees the light and becomes the number one representative of the deity of a sect he is sworn to destroy. If he was a Roman citizen, then his parents must have been Roman citizens which would make the whole family sympathetic to Rome: thus making Saul a questionable candidate for both: Temple training and Most important Apostle. And if he was not a Roman citizen then he was feeding Festus a line of bull. I realise that I am not accounting for his conversion which (if it were not a stroke) was a very convenient cover story to explain why the gospel of Jesus was getting a brand new bag. IMHO Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I'm saying that Paul's resume' is highly suspiscious. Saul of Tarsus - Temple trained Roman citizen - bounty hunter counting Christian coup, suddenly sees the light and becomes the number one representative of the deity of a sect he is sworn to destroy. There have been lots of people who once were the very antithesis to what they currently are. The fact that he is an unlikely hero is part of the allure and the mystique of God. One could also make the argument, why was Paul given a revelation where other people haven't? Why is God showing favor to him and not some other people? Can questions like that really be answered, or do you at some point just have to conclude that God sees the answer from start to finish?
If he was a Roman citizen, then his parents must have been Roman citizens which would make the whole family sympathetic to Rome: thus making Saul a questionable candidate for both: Temple training and Most important Apostle. And if he was not a Roman citizen then he was feeding Festus a line of bull. Alot of citizens of Rome were not Roman by blood, just like a Japanese American may not come from original European-American stock, but they are still every bit citizens. And it is both possible that he was a sympathizer of Rome, or that he was unhappy about his citizenry. We have people in America who are very patriotic, and we have others that are embarrassed at the affiliation. In Paul's case, we have nothing definitive to go by.
I realise that I am not accounting for his conversion which (if it were not a stroke) was a very convenient cover story to explain why the gospel of Jesus was getting a brand new bag. I've really never understood the whole "Pauline" thing. I don't know why some people believe that Paul was actually subverting what Jesus had sown. Maybe you can present something to me that will help me understand that position better, because at present, I just don't see the objection. “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
So, all you have to do to avoid being hideously tortured is to state that you are a Roman citizen, and then everybody bows down and treats you with respect. Yep, his saying so is pretty compelling evidence that Paul was really a Roman citizen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
I have a real hang up on the name change thingy. Saul leaves Jerusalem. Paul shows up in Damascus. My take is that the Christian Paul, knowing what Saul's intentions are, follows him out of Jerusalem, kills him on the road, steals his identity and the various letters of introduction or whatever Saul would have had on him to establish his identity and legitimacy to the authorities in Damascus, and goes on to preach the Christian gospel there. He has trouble keeping his new name straight, but notices that nobody cares what he calls himself, so he just resumes the Paul name (note that even today no-one seems very concerned with the name change). There is no logical way to disprove this scenario, so it must be accurate.
On the other hand, a person of Saul's high station and wealth would not have taken such a long and dangerous journey alone. You don't just pull on your Adidas and jog 500 miles through the desert. He would have had a fairly large entourage with him. Where are the accounts of these additional people who would have witnessed the events of the journey, or at least would have heard Saul's first hand and immediate account of the incidents?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: I've really never understood the whole "Pauline" thing. I don't know why some people believe that Paul was actually subverting what Jesus had sown. Maybe you can present something to me that will help me understand that position better, because at present, I just don't see the objection. I must admit that to date my opinion has been based on a mostly intuitive impression, having been indoctrinated with the teachings of both characters. The only clear "evidence" I have had in mind was the difference in how they discussed "the law." During a recent related research into Paul's writing's on the subject, I observed that my impression of his opinion may have been incorrect. Even so, during this debate, my intuition regarding his subterfuge has been bolstered. In an effort to answer your excellent question I have begun to search for the opinion of others and almost immediately came upon the following: Articles - Essene Church of Christ Whatever else may be revealed here (I have not yet read beyond the first paragraph), the featured quote reveals that other thinking men have arrived at the same opinion as I.
quote: We can pick this question up after a little more digging. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
doctrbill writes: We can pick this question up after a little more digging. Let me save you the trouble. That site I cited (IMO) isn't worth reading. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Here's a useful resource: scripture-packed but with an annoyingly deficient quantity of commentary. opposingdigits -
This Utube video is interesting if somewhat amateurish: http://youtube.com/watch?v=z3szqCAbDz0 That's enough effort on my part for now. I have more tastey fish to fry. Cheers. Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So, all you have to do to avoid being hideously tortured is to state that you are a Roman citizen, and then everybody bows down and treats you with respect. It was Roman custom to preferentially treat Roman citizens. It did not, however, mean that you would not be hideously tortured-- it just ensured that you would be guaranteed a trial. If you were found guilty during that trial, then you still faced their wrath.
Yep, his saying so is pretty compelling evidence that Paul was really a Roman citizen. You certainly aren't obligated to believe that he was. If you "compelling evidence" to the contrary, please don't hold back for our sake. “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Saul leaves Jerusalem. Paul shows up in Damascus. My take is that the Christian Paul, knowing what Saul's intentions are, follows him out of Jerusalem, kills him on the road, steals his identity and the various letters of introduction or whatever Saul would have had on him to establish his identity and legitimacy to the authorities in Damascus, and goes on to preach the Christian gospel there. He has trouble keeping his new name straight, but notices that nobody cares what he calls himself, so he just resumes the Paul name (note that even today no-one seems very concerned with the name change). There is no logical way to disprove this scenario, so it must be accurate. Hold the phone here, guy.... You are certainly welcome to whatever fanciful, private interpretation you want, but pretty please, with sugar on top, do NOT condescend to me about evidence when you made up this story as you went along totally ad hoc.
On the other hand, a person of Saul's high station and wealth would not have taken such a long and dangerous journey alone. You don't just pull on your Adidas and jog 500 miles through the desert. He would have had a fairly large entourage with him. Where are the accounts of these additional people who would have witnessed the events of the journey, or at least would have heard Saul's first hand and immediate account of the incidents? He did have an entourage with him. "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." -Acts 9:7 “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I must admit that to date my opinion has been based on a mostly intuitive impression, having been indoctrinated with the teachings of both characters. The only clear "evidence" I have had in mind was the difference in how they discussed "the law." During a recent related research into Paul's writing's on the subject, I observed that my impression of his opinion may have been incorrect. Even so, during this debate, my intuition regarding his subterfuge has been bolstered. I've gone over the gospels and the epistles more than any other book I've ever read, which have probably been studied at least four times since my conversion in 2003. I still do not understand the objections made by others in regard to Paul's alleged subversion of the teachings of Jesus. I see Paul as a once selfish man, turned selfless by the saving Grace of God. On numerous occasion he deprecates and abases himself before the name of Christ. He could never say two words without mentioning how wonderful Jesus was. I just don't see it.
quote: I could not find a source for this quote. Being that Jefferson was a deist, I have to wonder about the validity of said quote. “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
You have completely misunderstood my point. The point is not what it takes to convince me of Saul's/Paul's Romanhood, but what it takes to convince the Romans. If I understand your bible quotes, S/P was not concerned about being put on trial, convicted of something, and then punished. He was concerned about being tortured as part of the investigative, pretrial procedure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Thank you for the clarification. In light of this new (to me) evidence, my theory is obviously invalid. Can I hang up the phone now? I'm still curious as to the significance of the name change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You have completely misunderstood my point. The point is not what it takes to convince me of Saul's/Paul's Romanhood, but what it takes to convince the Romans. If I understand your bible quotes, S/P was not concerned about being put on trial, convicted of something, and then punished. He was concerned about being tortured as part of the investigative, pretrial procedure. So you are asking me what evidence Paul gave to the Romans to substantiate his citizenship...? Am I locked on now? “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Thank you for the clarification. In light of this new (to me) evidence, my theory is obviously invalid. Can I hang up the phone now? I'm still curious as to the significance of the name change. As far as I know, there is no mention of why he changed his name to be found in the scriptures. What I do know is that Luke continues to refer to him as Saul for a few more chapters after the conversion story on the road to Damascus. Then he segues in to saying something about Saul, but adds in parentheses, (who is called Paul). After that point, he starts to refer to him as Paul for the remainder of the book. I think the assumption is that Paul was ashamed of what his name meant. Becoming Paul, as a sort of pseudonym, was a way for him to become a new man, since he felt that he was a new creature in Christ. But if you are looking for scriptural clarity, I don't know where to find it. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes: I could not find a source for this quote. Being that Jefferson was a deist, I have to wonder about the validity of said quote. Here's a possibility: http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
quote: Here are a few more which you can see here: Just a moment...quote: Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024