The historical Paul

[fallingblood]

so the roman authors writing peter were talking good things about their roman brother paul??


amazing lol


how many apostles did pauil kill in 3 years when it was a very small movement??

None, and by suggesting he killed any, you are greatly moving away from the mainstream, or the middle of the road.

And you have never, ever, shown that these authors are Romans. Unless you are speaking in very general terms, and then all the authors of the NT are Romans, and Jesus is a Roman, as they all lived in the Roman empire.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

general terms, and then all the authors of the NT are Romans, and Jesus is a Roman, as they all lived in the Roman empire.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the follow up.

 

[outhouse]

Apostles? Paul didn't kill anyone directly that I know of, but was consenting to certain deaths. Mostly of the followers. Though there was one account of Stephen, and Paul most likely sanctioned that.

but if paul is our earliest source, and he wants to be a real apostle really really bad.

He would never state or go into details about killing a single one if he had done so.

 

[outhouse]

None, and by suggesting he killed any, you are greatly moving away from the mainstream, or the middle of the road.

And you have never, ever, shown that these authors are Romans. Unless you are speaking in very general terms, and then all the authors of the NT are Romans, and Jesus is a Roman, as they all lived in the Roman empire.

No but im using the word romans loosely

paul was a roman citizen

the authors of the gospels were all writing to a roman audience with a roman foundation, less Matthew who still used the roman foundation Gmark created as his foundation.


Jesus and all of his real apostles were strickly jewish

 

[Hawkeye112200]

but if paul is our earliest source, and he wants to be a real apostle really really bad.

He would never state or go into details about killing a single one if he had done so.

That's a rather silly statement given what we know. Paul spends a good 25% of his writings talking about what a low life he is, and only does what he does, because Jesus interjected in his life. He in fact, talks about the thorn in his own life, that Satan uses to buffet him. Regardless of how you interpret what that means, there can be no denying that he felt the lowest of the lows, and sought very little glory or attention to be directed at his person.

Are you being obnoxious here, or are you being serious?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Jesus and all of his real apostles were strickly jewish

Really now?

 

[outhouse]

Really now?

you do know paul was a self proclaimed apostle by himself alone. Which if you read the definition, means he was never a apostle.

paul was never "sent forth" thus never a apostle


because he was percieved at a much later date to be a apostle means little for his historicity as one while alive.

 

[outhouse]

That's a rather silly statement given what we know. Paul spends a good 25% of his writings talking about what a low life he is, and only does what he does, because Jesus interjected in his life. He in fact, talks about the thorn in his own life, that Satan uses to buffet him. Regardless of how you interpret what that means, there can be no denying that he felt the lowest of the lows, and sought very little glory or attention to be directed at his person.

Are you being obnoxious here, or are you being serious?

jesus never interjected in his life.

and depite what you state which I dont have a arguement for, paul was full of himself.

 

[outhouse]

can we all agree paul head hunted this small sect of jews???

you dont hunt jews and not kill any if you want to keep your job as a headhunter.

do you think he hunted jews and only killed Stephan?


So we know paul hunted and got jews, more then one. the movement was small. which leaders at that time did he get???

 

[fallingblood]

can we all agree paul head hunted this small sect of jews???

you dont hunt jews and not kill any if you want to keep your job as a headhunter.

do you think he hunted jews and only killed Stephan?


So we know paul hunted and got jews, more then one. the movement was small. which leaders at that time did he get???

He wasn't a headhunter. So rest of your argument falls with that. He persecuted the early church. He didn't headhunt them.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

He wasn't a headhunter. So rest of your argument falls with that. He persecuted the early church. He didn't headhunt them.

Based on Paul's writing, we find a man that was more intellectual than anything.
I am sure before his conversion, he was simply passionate about his beliefs, and role of being Jewish.

I agree with what you say here. I am a bit baffled at why Outhouse is dialoging in such a manner.

 

[outhouse]

Based on Paul's writing, we find a man that was more intellectual than anything.
I am sure before his conversion, he was simply passionate about his beliefs, and role of being Jewish.

I agree with what you say here. I am a bit baffled at why Outhouse is dialoging in such a manner.

You say persecuting, I say headhunting.

end result is paul hunted jews, and not just any jews. The leaders. and after pauls hunts these leaders/apostles we have no cherished writing at all from the real apostles, nothing nada zip. why?

and what we are left with is romans naming the gospels after these long dead real apostles



but more then anything else im exploring here.

and so far there are no decent rebuttles

 

[fallingblood]

You say persecuting, I say headhunting.

end result is paul hunted jews, and not just any jews. The leaders. and after pauls hunts these leaders/apostles we have no cherished writing at all from the real apostles, nothing nada zip. why?

and what we are left with is romans naming the gospels after these long dead real apostles



but more then anything else im exploring here.

and so far there are no decent rebuttles

Persecuting and hunting are two very different ideas. Persecuting does not mean one kills others. So your argument falls.

Second, your argument appears to be based on the silence of illiterate Jews. So it seems a little ridiculous.

 

[outhouse]

Persecuting and hunting are two very different ideas. Persecuting does not mean one kills others. So your argument falls.

Second, your argument appears to be based on the silence of illiterate Jews. So it seems a little ridiculous.

false hunting doesnt state he killed either, so your arguement fails.

silence of illiterate jews??

You dont have a decent shred of evidence the gospels were writen by illiterate romans who hired scribes

 

[fallingblood]

false hunting doesnt state he killed either, so your arguement fails.

So he didn't kill anyone? That is what I was arguing.

silence of illiterate jews??

Were the apostles not illiterate Jews? Yes they were. That is why we have nothing from them. Not because they were dead, but because they couldn't write.

You dont have a decent shred of evidence the gospels were writen by illiterate romans who hired scribes

When did I even state something like that? I don't know why I would.

 

[outhouse]

Were the apostles not illiterate Jews?

Not all. Matthew probably could write. so you fail there.

So he didn't kill anyone?

the proper answer is, we dont know.



you would not stay employed for 3 years hunting jews unless you had results.

What were these unknown results, how many of the real apostles did paul murder??

 

[outhouse]

Rebuttals to your conspiracy theories that hardly make sense?

What exactly are we supposed to disprove about your allegations, you've already discounted basically the entire Bible as fiction, the real question is why you are even discussing this in the religion section.

learn the difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

learn the difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus.

That's the problem ,this discussion is in the Biblical debates area.

 

[outhouse]

That's the problem ,this discussion is in the Biblical debates area.

the bible doesnt contain history???

 

[Desert Snake]

the bible doesnt contain history???

Is it your position that the Bible is not accurate in its portrayal of Paul?

You're the one who is constantly criticizing the Bible for its supposed lack of "historicity" concerning Paul... you're question seems a bit disingenuous...