• 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!

The historical Paul

gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
I am familiar with Paul's life, as given in the Acts, and though I have read his epistles, it has been a long since I've read them, so I remember the Acts better than I do his epistles.

I have noticed that there has been few recent threads that are about the "historical Jesus". So I don't want to cover Jesus' historicity in this thread.

From what I understand of Christian history, the churches owe more to Paul's contribution and writings/theology than any of the other apostles. Paul's ministry had lasted decades, longer than Jesus' 3 years, as well as being more widely travelled than Jesus.

Apart from reading the Acts, I have not really research Paul's life.

So other than the Bible and Church traditions, are there any outside sources that prove Paul's historicity?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
gnostic said:
I am familiar with Paul's life, as given in the Acts, and though I have read his epistles, it has been a long since I've read them, so I remember the Acts better than I do his epistles.

I have noticed that there has been few recent threads that are about the "historical Jesus". So I don't want to cover Jesus' historicity in this thread.

From what I understand of Christian history, the churches owe more to Paul's contribution and writings/theology than any of the other apostles. Paul's ministry had lasted decades, longer than Jesus' 3 years, as well as being more widely travelled than Jesus.

Apart from reading the Acts, I have not really research Paul's life.

So other than the Bible and Church traditions, are there any outside sources that prove Paul's historicity?
Click to expand...
Not really. Off the top of my head, I can't really think of any outside sources. At the same time though, I don't think Acts is the greatest source either.

Paul has been one of my main focuses lately simply because I'm fascinated by him. When it comes to his life though, I would say that his epistles (the undisputed ones) are the best way to understand his beliefs, and who he is. They are certainly biased to a point, but they are a first hand account. Acts can be used to supplement this information; however, only when it agrees with the epistles. Otherwise, it just isn't a good source.

So really, the epistles are the best source for Paul (they don't tell us too much about him, but we can gleam some important details, such as him being a Pharisee, basic information about his travels, basic information about how he got started, and various beliefs of his).
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
You don't need outside sources, Paul left correspondence. Correspondence from the subject (Paul) is one of the best sources you can have to confirm historicity.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
but we can gleam some important details, such as him being a Pharisee
Click to expand...

strongly disagree.


A henchman for the Sadducees would not be a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel who preached positively for the apostles.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
So other than the Bible and Church traditions, are there any outside sources that prove Paul's historicity?
Click to expand...

As stated its not much to go on


the fact that people created pauline epistles gives the myther's food to run on and claim if those are fake, the rest could have been invented without a historical Paul as well.




I believe in a Hpaul so dont get me wrong im just filling in both camps.


I wish there was more reliable scholarships done on him and his historicity. Ive been fighting the paul myther's in other forums who pine for a late creation sighting the early church new nothing about him, while ignoring that the early church was not only small but unorganized.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
outhouse said:
strongly disagree.


A henchman for the Sadducees would not be a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel who preached positively for the apostles.
Click to expand...
It's alright if you disagree; however, if you can't cite some evidence for Paul being a henchman for the Sadducees, I see no reason to take you seriously on this (also, Paul never claims to have been trained under Gamaliel).
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
It's alright if you disagree; however, if you can't cite some evidence for Paul being a henchman for the Sadducees, I see no reason to take you seriously on this (also, Paul never claims to have been trained under Gamaliel).
Click to expand...

He got that from Eisenman and his conspiracy theories.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
fallingblood said:
It's alright if you disagree; however, if you can't cite some evidence for Paul being a henchman for the Sadducees, I see no reason to take you seriously on this (also, Paul never claims to have been trained under Gamaliel).
Click to expand...



here we go

Gamaliel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can prove that the Sadducees wanted to go after the apostles, and paul admits he hunted them down.

this isnt a case of connecting dots blindly.

The Acts of the Apostles introduces Gamaliel as a Pharisee and celebrated scholar of the Mosaic Law.[17] In this passage, Saint Peter and the other apostles are described as being prosecuted by the Sanhedrin for continuing to preach the Gospel, despite the Jewish authorities having previously prohibited it. The passage describes Gamaliel as presenting an argument against killing the apostles, reminding the Sanhedrin about previous revolts,


paul may not claim that, but its claimed.

The Book of Acts later goes on to describe Paul of Tarsus recounting that he was "educated at the feet of Gamaliel" about Jewish religious law
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
outhouse said:
here we go

Gamaliel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can prove that the Sadducees wanted to go after the apostles, and paul admits he hunted them down.

this isnt a case of connecting dots blindly.

The Acts of the Apostles introduces Gamaliel as a Pharisee and celebrated scholar of the Mosaic Law.[17] In this passage, Saint Peter and the other apostles are described as being prosecuted by the Sanhedrin for continuing to preach the Gospel, despite the Jewish authorities having previously prohibited it. The passage describes Gamaliel as presenting an argument against killing the apostles, reminding the Sanhedrin about previous revolts,


paul may not claim that, but its claimed.

The Book of Acts later goes on to describe Paul of Tarsus recounting that he was "educated at the feet of Gamaliel" about Jewish religious law
Click to expand...
Actually you are connecting dots blindly. Sanhedrin and Sadducee is not interchangeable. The Sanhedrin also was comprised of Pharisees. This is clearly shown by Gamaliel, who is a Pharisee, being in the Sanhedrin. So your wiki link certainly doesn't support your position. More so, it certainly doesn't suggest Paul wasn't a Pharisee.

And really, I don't care if Acts claims something if Paul doesn't support it. All that it does is make it a possibility (however, if we accept it, then Paul would be a Pharisee, like I said), that can't be substantiated.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
outhouse said:
Not true


Sadducees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Participated in the Sanhedrin, and often encountered the Pharisees there ;)
Click to expand...
Like I said, Sanhedrin and Sadducees are not interchangeable. The reason being that there were also Pharisees in the Sanhedrin (such as Gamaliel).

Sadducees may have participated in the Sanhedrin, but they were not the only ones. Thus, one can not claim that Paul was a henchman for the Sadducees based on anything regarding the Sanhedrin.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
fallingblood said:
Like I said, Sanhedrin and Sadducees are not interchangeable. The reason being that there were also Pharisees in the Sanhedrin (such as Gamaliel).

Sadducees may have participated in the Sanhedrin, but they were not the only ones. Thus, one can not claim that Paul was a henchman for the Sadducees based on anything regarding the Sanhedrin.
Click to expand...

There is nothing clear n this, or who hired paul.

but we do have this

http://www.suscopts.org/pdf/copticchurch/apostolicagepersecution.pdf


The first Jewish group that persecuted our Apostles was the Sadducees (Acts 4:1 and 5:17)
mostly because the Apostles’ preaching about the Lord Jesus Christ Glorious Resurrection from the​
dead as they denied resurrection of dead in general.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
outhouse said:
There is nothing clear n this, or who hired paul.

but we do have this

http://www.suscopts.org/pdf/copticchurch/apostolicagepersecution.pdf


The first Jewish group that persecuted our Apostles was the Sadducees (Acts 4:1 and 5:17)
mostly because the Apostles’ preaching about the Lord Jesus Christ Glorious Resurrection from the​
dead as they denied resurrection of dead in general.
Click to expand...
And neither verse deals with Paul nor do they say it was only Sadducees. The first passage, if you take it in context, refers to the Sanhedrin being in charge of the persecution here.

And again, none of this suggests Paul wasn't a Pharisee. So since you have no real argument against Paul being a Pharisee, why don't we move onto the next point.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
fallingblood said:
And neither verse deals with Paul nor do they say it was only Sadducees. The first passage, if you take it in context, refers to the Sanhedrin being in charge of the persecution here.

And again, none of this suggests Paul wasn't a Pharisee. So since you have no real argument against Paul being a Pharisee, why don't we move onto the next point.
Click to expand...

Pauls jewishness and his claim of a pharisee is in question by many.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
fallingblood said:
Like I said, Sanhedrin and Sadducees are not interchangeable.
Click to expand...
Stop confusing him with facts.

Parenthetically, I do believe that Maccoby makes some reasonably good arguments concerning Paul, but rejecting Paul's historicity would be little more than an act of adolescent obstinacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top