Is Paul arrogant?

[outhouse]

Paul's conversion occurred less than 18 months following the crucifixion.

We don't know that with any certainty at all. At this time is credible academia, the time before conversion is unknown with any certainty.

The most common dates given are 31 - 36 on a reference in Galatian's 1:16

Skepticism for its own sake is worthless

Yes but over attributing is much worse then worthless.

 

[outhouse]

Ok. Nothing's 100%. Your point?

12 year difference from average, is sticking ones neck out, is it not?

 

[sojourner]

We don't know that with any certainty at all.

Huh. We don't know anything with any certainty. That's hardly an argument.

The most common dates given are 31 - 36 on a reference in Galatian's 1:16

Ok... That would encompass the 18 month time frame.

12 year difference from average, is sticking ones neck out, is it not?

In the grand scheme? No.

 

[JoStories]

Nor for Jesus. Why are you, therefore, drawing a historical distinction between the two?

Why "other than the bible?" The bible is what it is. The texts were written when they were written. I'm not attempting to "prove" anything. I'm attempting to show that, based on the textual evidence, Paul is older than the gospels. 1 Thess. is the oldest NT text we have. It was written about the year 40 C.E.. Jesus allegedly was crucified circa 33 C.E. By all accounts (which are, after all, all we have), Paul's conversion occurred less than 18 months following the crucifixion. Skepticism for its own sake is worthless.

Well, first of all, the oldest manuscript is dated to about 12 years later than that. Was it written by Paul? No one can truly say for sure, just as no one can say who wrote the other gospels with any degree of certainty. I simply don't believe Paul knew jack about what Christ taught, based on his own (if they were written by him) words.

 

[JoStories]

The most common attributed date is 52 AD not 40 CE

Oops. Should have read ahead Outhouse. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[sojourner]

I simply don't believe Paul knew jack about what Christ taught, based on his own (if they were written by him) words.

What leads you to that conclusion?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are using the Bible, and in particular, the writings that are allegedly from Paul to substantiate Paul. That is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, you are picking out the verses from others that substantiate your argument, which, in this argument, is also unacceptable. To be a good debate, one should use outside sources as well to bolster the debate. In essence, IMO, you are Paulian and not Christian. Which is fine if that is what works for you but it is clearly not what Christ taught.

Acts of the Apostles was Not written by Paul, but was written by gospel writer Luke.
I am merely pointing out what the Bible really teaches about Paul.
Luke wrote Paul was humble in showing honor to the elders by being humble and modest in co-operating with their arrangements.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

-Peter was appointed by God to the gentiles….not Paul.
7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. Acts 15: 7
-You can't convince me that "Paul remained humble" by quoting Paul!! This is bad logic. Just because Paul says he remained humble does not mean he really was. Also, how many truly humble people do you know that talk about their humility?
I don't regard the "acts of the apostles" as from the twelve.

Gospel writer Luke wrote the book of Acts.
Yes, Peter rose up in verse 7 of Acts of the Apostles 15:7
Then, please notice Acts of the Apostles 15:12 because 'ALL ' (that would include Peter ) gave audience to Paul
At Acts of the Apostles 15:22-23 It pleased the apostles (Peter) , elders, the whole congregation to send Paul....
With one accord - Acts of the Apostles 15:25 - they sent their chosen men who included Paul.
So, by Peter's mouth, in harmony with the rest, they chose and sent Paul

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Your wasting your time Jo. These people have yet to find out that most Bible historians now know that all NT books were written by unknown authors. It's called real history, not Catholic Church history.

 

[sojourner]

Your wasting your time Jo. These people have yet to find out that most Bible historians now know that all NT books were written by unknown authors. It's called real history, not Catholic Church history.

Incorrect. Paul is virtually indisputably the author of 7 of the epistles.