Duvduv

Have any mainstream Christian or secular scholars ever confronted the who idea of Paul the Persecutor given the fact of only poor Stephen, who was not directly persecuted by Saul/Paul anyway?

It kind of reminds of the stories such as Star Trek or Wagon Train etc where the commanders always talk about "300 people aboard this ship/on this train" but where one never sees more than 10 out of 300 and you are always left wondering what happens in the lives and to the other 97%??

Toto

I expect Robert Price will have something to say in his upcoming book on The Colossal Apostle. He has opined that the stories of Paul the persecutor are not for real.

Duvduv

Yes, that's fine. All I was pointing out is the fact that the very assertion of persecution and Paul's one-man freelancing either as persecutor or as preacher makes no logical sense and sounds no different than a movie script as I mentioned half humorously. A guy operates his own freelance bounty hunter activity without the slightest suggestion not only of where it actually happened, but of any cases. Stephen wasn't even persecuted by Paul/Saul himself. So who was? By whom? Where? And then lo and behold we find out that the whole gentile world is going to get converted by Paul's one-man operation of a few letters and visits, which also makes no sense whatsoever. So I wonder why the author of the epistles themselves would even think up such an idea that is impractical and ridiculous on its face. Especially once other believers have equal potential abilities to lead the charge even according to the same author(s).

Toto

Damascus? Which wasn't even under the jurisdiction of the Temple

Christians were evidently persecuted by Roman authorities a century or so later. This was written for them.

It's only impractical and ridiculous if you try to read it literally.

Duvduv

The location of the persecutions that the Jerusalem folks were concerned about was unknown in the epistles.
Yes, I assume that the storyline was indeed intended to be taken literally for the time period that is the backdrop for the story.

Duvduv

Toto, why would it be a matter of assuming that the reader of the epistles or Acts didn't take it literally? I have no reason to think that, at least about historical information.

It remains illogical in its own context. In fact I just looked again at these verses from GJohn which are also illogical. How could an author not realize that his Jesus is expecting his listeners to "take his word for it" when on the face of it, it is obvious that it is a matter of "opinion" as to who Jesus is or is not?
The Greeks and Romans were known for logical deduction and reasoning. How could the author simply let the logical fallacy of verse 46 get through? Perhaps I am missing something.

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Duvduv

Saul as a one-man freelancing bounty hunter sounds even more comical than in the epistles. A power all to his own, which appears to be taken quite literally.

Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church (In Jerusalem), entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Acts 26:10 Which thing I (Saul) also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.11: And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Then he became converted and in Acts was taken by his sponsor Barnabas to the apostles, unmentioned in Galatians when he saw only James the Brother.

Some translations of Acts refer to his companions hearing a sound, meaning they couldn't make out a voice, whereas others refer to the voice in both cases. (Acts 22:5 versus 9:7), which removes one internal contradiction, i.e. that they are a sound but couldn't make out the voice.

aa5874

The Pauline writer is even more comical because he claimed he did NOT consult any human beings when he was called to preach the Jesus story.

At least in Acts, SAUL met or consulted with Ananias and the Damascus disciples BEFORE he preached Jesus was the Son of God. See Acts 9.9-19

It is just NOT plausible that Paul as a new convert would NOT consult with the disciples before him.

The Pauline writer is a comedian. His story is a big Joke.

Galatians 1 Who did Paul consult to preach the Jesus story???

Duvduv

Surely there were people in those ancient times who also saw the contrasts between the two stories as we do, and yet no one bothered to make any corrections.

Now go figure how in either Galatians or in Acts 9 Paul is assigned to proclaim Jesus' name to the gentiles (and their kings asnd the Jews), whatever that is supposed to mean. Does proclaiming the name mean the same thing as preaching the gospel?

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Yet as I have pointed out before, even in Galatians 1 there is a contradiction whether the revelation came from God or from Jesus. Compare verses 12 and 16. Yet no internal correction, as you would call it, of the inconsistency. A sign of multiple hands involved in these as composites.The same kind of inconsistence in Acts where despite the statement in Acts 9 that he is supposed to proclaim to Jews and gentiles, unlike Galatians, yet when he is rejected by the Jews, the inconsistent answer is as if he is going to do something he did not originally plan to do, i.e. to go to the gentiles in Acts 18:6. Thus, contradictions all over the place with no "corrections,"

aa5874

You very well know that a person can make contradictory statements so it is NOT at all logical that contradictions in the Pauline writings are likely from more than one author.

Have you ever been to a court trial??? Every day people make contradictory statements.