Did St Paul exist?

[Radagast]

What you're doing is called special pleading.

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

 

[J_B_]

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

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.

 

[Radagast]

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

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).

 

[J_B_]

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).

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.

 

[Radagast]

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

Temple of Athena Nike - Wikipedia

It proves that Greeks in 420 BC worshipped Athena.

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

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.

 

[J_B_]

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.

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.

 

[Radagast]

Eeesh. More circularity.

 

[Vanellus]

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.

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.

 

[Radagast]

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.

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.

 

[J_B_]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.