Paul's Conversion

[RDKirk]

I haven't presumed either of these things.

Your first theory definitely presumes it, your second theory arguably does.

In ether of those theories, if there was no resurrection, there is no basis for the theory.

Is the question of Christ's resurrection the point you intended to have debated? Or is it whether Paul actually saw anything the point you wanted to have debated?

A point you seem to have missed, though, is that it was not a necessity for Paul to have seen Christ at all to be recognized as an apostle. Apollos, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas and a few others never saw the risen Christ (Apollos for sure) but were recognized as apostles.

The "saw the risen Christ" criterion was developed by theologians after the first century in order to cut off the apostolic succession--not by the apostles themelves.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your first theory definitely presumes it, your second theory arguably does.

In ether of those theories, if there was no resurrection, there is no basis for the theory.

Is the question of Christ's resurrection the point you intended to have debated? Or is it whether Paul actually saw anything the point you wanted to have debated?

A point you seem to have missed, though, is that it was not a necessity for Paul to have seen Christ at all to be recognized as an apostle. Apollos, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas and a few others never saw the risen Christ (Apollos for sure) but were recognized as apostles.

The "saw the risen Christ" criterion was developed by theologians after the first century in order to cut off the apostolic succession--not by the apostles themelves.

You charge the man with posting in the wrong area, and then you write this? This is clearly a discussion that is out of place.

Why not just drop the issue?

 

[brightlights]

A point you seem to have missed, though, is that it was not a necessity for Paul to have seen Christ at all to be recognized as an apostle. Apollos, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas and a few others never saw the risen Christ (Apollos for sure) but were recognized as apostles.

The "saw the risen Christ" criterion was developed by theologians after the first century in order to cut off the apostolic succession--not by the apostles themelves.

None of the mentioned were ever recognized as apostles.

 

[Forest Wolf]

Possibilities come cheap.

We have no good reason to think that the events recorded regarding the Apostle Paul are anything but the truth.

That's an interesting turn of phrase when one first considers three scriptural conflicting accounts of Saul's alleged meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus. And all in the same book. (Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11, Acts 26:13-19. )

The earliest letters attributed to Paul are dated 3rd century A.D.

Re: The letters of Paul:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]– G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 22-23.[/FONT]

In fact there is more evidence for the possibility that Paul did not even exist. When there is no independent, i.e. non-Biblical evidence for what is contained in the Bible the possibility of any of it being true comes into question. That's not a matter of being cheap. That's a matter of reason applied to unsubstantiated dictatorial proclamation.

 

[Johnnz]

That's an interesting turn of phrase when one first considers three scriptural conflicting accounts of Saul's alleged meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus. And all in the same book. (Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11, Acts 26:13-19. )

Please itemise, taking into account we are dealing with three different occasions, different audiences and that we can adapt a story to meet a specific circumstance without that detracting from what actually happened.

The earliest letters attributed to Paul are dated 3rd century A.D.

Seems your NT research is rather limited.

In fact there is more evidence for the possibility that Paul did not even exist. When there is no independent, i.e. non-Biblical evidence for what is contained in the Bible the possibility of any of it being true comes into question. That's not a matter of being cheap. That's a matter of reason applied to unsubstantiated dictatorial proclamation.

What historical criteria are you using to assess an historical account?

John
NZ

 

[ebia]

That's an interesting turn of phrase when one first considers three scriptural conflicting accounts of Saul's alleged meeting with Christ on the road to Damascus. And all in the same book. (Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11, Acts 26:13-19. )

The earliest letters attributed to Paul are dated 3rd century A.D.

In fact there is more evidence for the possibility that Paul did not even exist. When there is no independent, i.e. non-Biblical evidence for what is contained in the Bible the possibility of any of it being true comes into question. That's not a matter of being cheap. That's a matter of reason applied to unsubstantiated dictatorial proclamation.

The letters of Paul are dated 1st century. You are, perhaps, confusing oldest surviving manuscript with the letter itself.

You might also try quoting (and reading) historians, not professors of German (language)

 

[Forest Wolf]

What historical criteria are you using to assess an historical account?

John
NZ

The autographs, or original letters used for the Pauline epistles are no longer available. What Bible scholars have to review are dated to 3rd century. Certainly you are aware that the gospels themselves are not dated to have been written when Christ walked the earth?

As for the three different accounts of Saul's encounter on the Damascus road, those are, as noted, taken from the scriptures themselves. So it is there that one must take issue. Especially if one is inclined to argue that the Bible itself proves the truth of the Bible.

 

[Johnnz]

The autographs, or original letters used for the Pauline epistles are no longer available. What Bible scholars have to review are dated to 3rd century. Certainly you are aware that the gospels themselves are not dated to have been written when Christ walked the earth?

That's not news - hasn't been for millennia. We don't have originals for many ancient documents either, but what we do have is well accepted and sufficiently accurate. Early church fathers referred to or quoted the texts from quite early too.

As for the three different accounts of Saul's encounter on the Damascus road, those are, as noted, taken from the scriptures themselves. So it is there that one must take issue. Especially if one is inclined to argue that the Bible itself proves the truth of the Bible.

Why? I have already commented on this. Authorial choice does not equate with inaccuracy. Note that I am not assuming some 'divine dictation' notion for the Scriptures.

John
NZ

 

[HitchSlap]

Why? I have already commented on this. Authorial choice does not equate with inaccuracy. Note that I am not assuming some 'divine dictation' notion for the Scriptures.

John
NZ

Paul did, however, and often. He regularly made distinctions from his personal opinions and spiritual revelations from the Christ.

 

[Forest Wolf]

Why? I have already commented on this. Authorial choice does not equate with inaccuracy. Note that I am not assuming some 'divine dictation' notion for the Scriptures.

John
NZ

Sufficiently accurate by what definition? And in comparison to what? Author's choice does not equate with inaccuracy? An author can elect to write what they wish to and yet that does nothing to the faultlessness of the textual account?

And how then, when making a proclamation about sufficient accuracy, that is refuted in the same instance by the written evidence of inaccuracy. (See the prior three different accounts of Saul's encounter on the road to Damascus.) As well as Peter's statement regarding the ministry to the gentiles. (Acts 15:7Authorized (King James) Version -AKJV0
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. )

And one that refutes Paul's and his declaration of appointment to bring the word of Christ to the gentiles.(2 Timothy 1:11(AKJV)
11 whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.)

As well as Jesus warning regarding events that would transpire after he went away. (Matthew 24:23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.)

All of this to be considered after one reads of Jesus ritual wherein he anointed those he chose to be his Apostles. *particularly verse 7

(John 13:1-17
17. Before the Passover celebration, Jesus knew that his hour had come to leave this world and return to his Father. He had loved his disciples during his ministry on earth, and now he loved them to the very end. It was time for supper, and the devil had already prompted Judas,son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would return to God. So he got up from the table, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin. Then he began to wash the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel he had around him. When Jesus came to Simon Peter, Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”
7.Jesus replied, “You don’t understand now what I am doing, but someday you will.”
“No,” Peter protested, “you will never ever wash my feet!”Jesus replied, “Unless I wash you, you won’t belong to me.” Simon Peter exclaimed, “Then wash my hands and head as well, Lord, not just my feet!” Jesus replied, “A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not all of you.” For Jesus knew who would betray him. That is what he meant when he said, “Not all of you are clean.” After washing their feet, he put on his robe again and sat down and asked, “Do you understand what I was doing? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, because that’s what I am. And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each others feet. I have given you an example to follow. Do as I have done to you. I tell you the truth, slaves are not greater than their master. Nor is the messenger more important than the one who sends the message. Now that you know these things, God will bless you for doing them.)

 

[RDKirk]

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe

Peter was certainly chosen to be the one to first break the wall--possibly because he would have been the strongest naysayer otherwise. Getting Peter on board with the basic concept that a gentile could be saved was essential.

But if Petery was intended to the the one at the forefront of spreading the gospel to the gentiles, he was pretty slack on that job, from the record in Acts. Others--specifically Hellenists--always seemed to be out in front of him.

 

[Johnnz]

Peter focused on Jews. Paul was specifically called to communicate the Gospel to the Gentiles, a task that required one of the greatest minds on ancient times.

John
NZ

 

[willlowbee]

Peter focused on Jews. Paul was specifically called to communicate the Gospel to the Gentiles, a task that required one of the greatest minds on ancient times.

JohnNZ

That would be contrary to scripture though wouldn't it? As has been mentioned already.

Acts 15:7
(AKJV)
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Jesus himself sent out the 72.
Luke 10:1


Whereas Paul, contrary to Christ and his teachings, seemed to think it was through him that the gift of God traveled with a laying on of his hands. And imagined it was loyalty to him that was required of those he touched.

2 Timothy 1:6-13
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. 8 So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God. 9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day. 13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

Why? I have already commented on this. Authorial choice does not equate with inaccuracy. Note that I am not assuming some 'divine dictation' notion for the Scriptures.

John
NZ

Well then you must be going on heresay. Because there are no autographs, as has been noted but apparently ignored, available so as to know who actually wrote what.
And as a point of note, Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired. So the remark about divine dictation as a notion, is inappropriate.

 

[Johnnz]

That would be contrary to scripture though wouldn't it? As has been mentioned already.
Gal 2:7-8 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. NIV

Peter was a leading figure in the early church. But he never was the one who most significantly 'translated' the Gospel for a non Jewish audience. There was occasion for Paul to confront Peter over his failure to see the limitation of his Jewish background recorded in Galatians 2:11
Whereas Paul, contrary to Christ and his teachings, seemed to think it was through him that the gift of God traveled with a laying on of his hands. And imagined it was loyalty to him that was required of those he touched.

That is not very good exegesis of that passage. Or Paul's special calling

And as a point of note, Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired. So the remark about divine dictation as a notion, is inappropriate.

It how it was inspired that was behind my comment. Some views imply a dictation kind of method rather than a divinely infused cooperation with the authors.

John
NZ

 

[RDKirk]

That would be contrary to scripture though wouldn't it? As has been mentioned already.

From what we see in Acts, the Hebraic believers were mostly useless in carrying the Gospel beyond Judea. It was the Hellenist believers (which includes Paul) who carried that ball.

Well then you must be going on heresay. Because there are no autographs, as has been noted but apparently ignored, available so as to know who actually wrote what.
And as a point of note, Christians believe the Bible was divinely inspired. So the remark about divine dictation as a notion, is inappropriate.

If we believe the Holy Spirit's inspiration extended only to the original autographs and did not extend to those who cherished and copied them, then we have no scripture at all.

As you say, we have no way to know who wrote what, we have no evidence of any divine inspiration. The only logical conclusion to your line of reason is that we have nothing.

 

[RDKirk]

It how it was inspired that was behind my comment. Some views imply a dictation kind of method rather than a divinely infused cooperation with the authors.

John
NZ

You are correct that many views imply that God "channeled" through the writers like an occultist medium. I agree with a divinely infused cooperation with the authors.

 

[jcdiva88]

Simpy this...Jesus happened.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Did Pauls horse see Him too?

 

[Ripheus27]

At the risk of involving myself with this thread too late, Paul's conversion doesn't prove or provide evidence for Christianity anymore than the Indian emperor Asoka's conversion to Buddhism (also fairly "miraculous" in origins and effects--think, a man who actually despised his own atrocities!) confirms Buddhism at all, or any more than John Nash's brilliance justified his eventual psychotic beliefs.