• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Jayhawker Soule said:
angellous_evangellous, fallingblood,
Just a side point. I came into this thread without a strong position. At this point I favor the proposition that Paul did in fact hold some form of Roman citizenship or, at the very least, that Luke was writing with such a tradition in mind. But this is a very provisional stand on my part.

What I wanted you guys to know - and the reason for this post - is that I've very much appreciated the thoughtful interchange. I think I have a slightly better sense of Paul, Luke, and the (differing) Sitz im Leben reflected in the writings of each thanks in large part to the two of you.

Thanks again for the informative discussion.​
- JS
Click to expand...

I have appreciated and enjoyed the conversation as well.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
It would be evidence if any of that was actually true. But it isn't.
Click to expand...

And the evidence for the existence of Jesus is what? Purely circumstantial...all we have for Jesus' existence is "most likely", you have said so yourself in plenty of thread. We simply do not have the smoking gun.

In other words none can produce the long form birth certificate for neither Jesus nor Paul. But yet according to you applying the same criterion to Paul as we do for presenting evidence for Jesus existence is playing dirty pool.

You poisoned the well.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
CynthiaCypher said:
And the evidence for the existence of Jesus is what? Purely circumstantial...all we have for Jesus' existence is "most likely", you have said so yourself in plenty of thread. We simply do not have the smoking gun.

In other words none can produce the long form birth certificate for neither Jesus nor Paul. But yet according to you applying the same criterion to Paul as we do for presenting evidence for Jesus existence is playing dirty pool.

You poisoned the well.
Click to expand...

It seems quite clear you haven't understood my arguments at all and are simply making things up.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
It seems quite clear you haven't understood my arguments at all and are simply making things up.
Click to expand...

Your arguments are simply the same as those of a Birther or Myther. In fact I find it very hypocritical for you to cite scholars who in previous thread you have dismissed as sensationalist, especially Crossan.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
CynthiaCypher said:
Your arguments are simply the same as those of a Birther or Myther. In fact I find it very hypocritical for you to cite scholars who in previous thread you have dismissed as sensationalist, especially Crossan.
Click to expand...

You're making things up or simply taking me out of context. I have over and over again stated that I like Crossan. Yes, some of his work is sensational. But I hardly suggested it all was. Instead, I have repeatedly said I liked him.

Also, I backed up my OP with a variety of scholars. I supported my arguments. You haven't even dealt with the OP in the first place. Really, just making things up will not help your case.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
You're making things up or simply taking me out of context. I have over and over again stated that I like Crossan. Yes, some of his work is sensational. But I hardly suggested it all was. Instead, I have repeatedly said I liked him.

Also, I backed up my OP with a variety of scholars. I supported my arguments. You haven't even dealt with the OP in the first place. Really, just making things up will not help your case.
Click to expand...

Your basic argument is that Paul is possibly not a Roman citizen because he makes no mention of it in his epistles, that's an argument from silence and is as weak as those who say Jesus doesn't exist because Paul doesn't give firsthand information about Jesus.

And that we can't use Acts as a source because Acts isn't as reliable as Paul when it comes to biography, that is poisoning the well against Luke as a reliable source. I say Luke maybe reliable because in his book he is not just using Paul as his source material but using other sources as well as he did when the he wrote the Gospel. Of course his version will be different from Paul's because he is using other sources, some who saw things from a different perspective than Paul. What's wrong with that?
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
CynthiaCypher said:
Your basic argument is that Paul is possibly not a Roman citizen because he makes no mention of it in his epistles, that's an argument from silence and is as weak as those who say Jesus doesn't exist because Paul doesn't give firsthand information about Jesus.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about....? You know Yeshua didn't exist because he never wrote anything..!....:p

I kid. I've heard that line before and this kind of made me think of that.

The question is..Do we know for a fact that Luke was being untruthful and do we know for a fact Paul was not a Roman? No....Seems all we have are speculations at this point.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
What are you going on about....? You know Yeshua didn't exist because he never wrote anything..!....:p

I kid. I've heard that line before and this kind of made me think of that.

The question is..Do we know for a fact that Luke was being untruthful and do we know for a fact Paul was not a Roman? No....Seems all we have are speculations at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree. Neither side has anything that resemble a smoking gun yet the OP arrogantly states that he is finally going to put the issue to rest.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
CynthiaCypher said:
Your basic argument is that Paul is possibly not a Roman citizen because he makes no mention of it in his epistles, that's an argument from silence and is as weak as those who say Jesus doesn't exist because Paul doesn't give firsthand information about Jesus.
Click to expand...
Actually, I said that it is most probable that Paul wasn't a Roman citizen as he doesn't mention it, is not treated as one, and that there is no real evidence for him being a Roman citizen. Again, a large portion of my argument has been that Paul is not treated as a Roman citizen.

This is exactly why I don't think you actually read the OP.
And that we can't use Acts as a source because Acts isn't as reliable as Paul when it comes to biography, that is poisoning the well against Luke as a reliable source. I say Luke maybe reliable because in his book he is not just using Paul as his source material but using other sources as well as he did when the he wrote the Gospel. Of course his version will be different from Paul's because he is using other sources, some who saw things from a different perspective than Paul. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
It's not just me who thinks that Acts is not always reliable when it comes to Paul. And I backed that up with logical arguments (one being that Paul and Acts contradict each other, and that Acts has a history of making things up or exaggerating points), as well as with a variety of scholarly opinions.

I'm not poisoning the well. I'm simply stating what scholars agree upon when looking at Acts. That is why I gave citations of the works that I was using, including page numbers so others can actually check them out (and if one doesn't own those books, one could probably find them in a local library).

So without additional support for Acts, we can't take it to be historical fact. It is speculation. That really is how we judge other sources as well. We don't take one blindly.

It really does appear you don't understand my arguments at all.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Dirty Penguin said:
What are you going on about....? You know Yeshua didn't exist because he never wrote anything..!....:p

I kid. I've heard that line before and this kind of made me think of that.

The question is..Do we know for a fact that Luke was being untruthful and do we know for a fact Paul was not a Roman? No....Seems all we have are speculations at this point.
Click to expand...


its not really speculation that paul was a hellenized jew from Tarsus.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
CynthiaCypher said:
I agree. Neither side has anything that resemble a smoking gun yet the OP arrogantly states that he is finally going to put the issue to rest.
Click to expand...

So a cheap shot? That's fine. I don't expect much more from you. However, why do we need a smoking gun? This is history, not a court of law. This isn't science. We don't need a smoking gun. As with history, we are simply looking for probability. You don't need a smoking gun for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top