Did St Paul exist?

J_B_ said:

What you're doing is called special pleading.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. @Vanellus is absolutely right.

Radagast said:

No, it isn't. @Vanellus is absolutely right.

Click to expand...

A column dedicated to Trajan couldn't possibly mean people believed Trajan existed, rather than mean they knew he existed? Please explain.

If raising columns means people know someone exists, I'm going out in my yard right now and raise a column to Jesus and we can settle all these silly "Did Jesus exist?" arguments right now.

J_B_ said:

A column dedicated to Trajan couldn't possibly mean people believed Trajan existed, rather than mean they knew he existed?

Click to expand...

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Trajan's column was erected because they believed that Trajan was the current Emperor (which he was) and that his troops were victorious over the Dacians (which they were).

Radagast said:

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Trajan's column was erected because they believed that Trajan was the current Emperor (which he was) and that his troops were victorious over the Dacians (which they were).

Click to expand...

The picture doesn't do anything for your case. I can post pictures as well.

Temple of Athena Nike - Wikipedia

All you really said was that their belief justified their belief. A wee bit circular. But I get it You've dug in. God bless.

J_B_ said:

The picture doesn't do anything for your case. I can post pictures as well.

Temple of Athena Nike - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

It proves that Greeks in 420 BC worshipped Athena.

J_B_ said:

All you really said was that their belief justified their belief.

Click to expand...

You misread my sentence.

I said that the beliefs about Trajan were true. They were also justified, because they were about contemporary events. Therefore they were knowledge, because knowledge is justified true belief.

Radagast said:

I said that the beliefs about Trajan were true. They were also justified, because they were about contemporary events. Therefore they were knowledge, because knowledge is justified true belief.

Click to expand...

Eeesh. More circularity. You're not going to get anywhere with this.

My original point was that unbelievers play an indefensible game with types of evidence, where this type of evidence counts, but that type doesn't. So, stone isn't going to convince them Paul existed anymore than paper will. Rock, paper, scissors. It's a stupid game that professional historians don't play.

But now you're playing that game as well. I'm disappointed.

Regardless, I just reached the "Ace" level on Spider Solitaire tonight, so that's the game I'm excited about at the moment. A good way to end the evening. Good night.

J_B_ said:

Eeesh. More circularity.

Click to expand...

Vanellus said:

I'm surprised this thread has been so polemical. I was only seeking information. I wasn't arguing that textual evidence is inferior to artifacts or anything like that.

Click to expand...

It's because there is such a large anti-Paul brigade.

Evidences for Paul include:

• the Acts of the Apostles (so that archaeological evidence demonstrating the general accuracy of that work provides indirect support for Paul)
• the Pauline Epistles (somebody wrote them)
• 2 Peter 3:15
• early Christian tradition (e.g. stories of Paul's death and burial). Clement (1st Century) is one of the earliest mentions of Paul outside the New Testament. According to tradition, Paul was beheaded along the Ostian Way, at the spot where the Church of the Three Fountains now stands
• churches dedicated to Paul (like the one which holds his bones)
• the bones themselves

Now some of the early stories about Paul (like the "three fountains legend") are likely to be fictional (just like some of the St Francis stories), but it would be ludicrous to think that there wasn't a real Paul (or Francis) behind them.

Vanellus said:

J_B_ seems to be refusing to believe that there is a difference between a supposed immortal god in the classical period and an actual Roman emperor.

Click to expand...

Nothing of the kind. It's the way you attempt to support those positions that I object to. That you take such differences for granted doesn't mean you can interpret all evidence as supporting your position, because it doesn't. Nor will it convince the unbelievers here at CF who want to pretend Christianity never happened.

Vanellus said:

I'm surprised this thread has been so polemical. I was only seeking information.

Click to expand...

Likewise. I was only making a comment that I thought rather obvious. I expected you would agree, but you didn't ... and here we are.

Radagast said:

It's because there is such a large anti-Paul brigade.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this is intended for me, but to be crystal clear, the evidence for Paul is strong and I've never doubted his existence.

It's not a terribly good standard to begin with. We don't judge the existence of individuals solely on attribution by other sources. Paul's existence is quite firm from his Epistles, which early on in the Church had great authority and bare witness to an Early Church gathered around this person called Jesus.

If Paul didn't exist then who wrote the Epistles to the Churches in the name of Paul? What did they hope to accomplish? Even if we were to take the argument seriously that the Epistles themselves were not written my Paul they point to evidence of Paul existing and having great authority in the Church. If Paul didn't exist and these were forgeries then why write in the name of someone who had never actually been to and established these Churches? Would the letters of Paul have convinced anyone if that were the case?

The best evidence for Paul's existence is his own Epistles. We need not a third party to collaborate his existence, though the second century Church Fathers clearly do.