Toto

Some Jews accepted Hellenization, some resisted. But I see no reason why the mere idea would drive them into a raving murderous fit.

Jane H

I absolutely disagree that mainstream scholarship is retreating from historical knowledge about Paul. Have a look at E.P.Sanders article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. As to his suffering for his faith, I find it only too credible that a Jew running around saying that God wasn’t bothered about observing the ritual Torah would get trouble from Jews, and someone running around taking away business from the local idol trade would get in trouble with the pagans. Much in the same way that today in certain countries, those who preach either a liberal theology or against the faith get hurt.

You can ignore the Acts and 2 Corinthians evidence, but that’s just ignoring evidence for the sake of it. Is it good methodology to ignore evidence purely on the grounds it’s Christian?

http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9108605

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=5876

Falling over arguments? As the Revd who ran my beginners group said, the Christian is the one who gets up once more than he falls over. The terrorists were dying for the truth as they saw it. Dying for something you believe to be a lie is a whole lot rarer. Paul suffered for something that may ultimately turn out not to be the truth, but he didn’t suffer for something he believed to be a lie. Paul really believed the stuff he was saying. The Christians refused to worship the emperor did so because their belief in a risen Christ made them believe emperor worship was wrong.

There’s a lot we do know about the early church. Again, I choose to make my arguments within mainstream scholarship, including all the non-Christian folk. The interactions written about by Paul between him and the rest of the church weren’t put down for the benefit of history. They reflect fellowship, furious arguments and mutual support between real historical people and organisations. Within well charted methodologies, we can do serious history with them.

The disciples could have stopped Paul in his tracks by declaring him persona non grata. They could have destroyed his ministry, instead of letting it become the mainstream. After his death, his ’heresy’ would have died with him.

Amaleq13

Paul was first according to Paul.

storytime

Paul also stated he was "as one born out of due season". Whatever that might mean. Maybe he was referring to being "born-again".

Amaleq13

Regardless of what he meant about the appearance of Christ to him, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that Paul claims to have been the one to go to the gentiles while Peter went to the circumcised.

Toto

Paul was not referring to being born again. Paul said that he was an ektrwma - an abortion (what we now call a miscarriage), born dead. The translators of the Bible were a bit squeamish and used the milder sounding "untimely born," leading to lots of confusion.

Paul (or whoever added this passage to 1 Corinthians) was using a term familiar to the gnostics.

Toto

Usually historians look for some reason to accept texts as evidence. Acts and Paul's letters fail most of those tests.

Not available to non-subscribers.

What's this supposed to prove? A priest spend a few days in fail and he thinks he has shared in the pain of someone he believes was scourged and nailed to a cross? Please do not insult us.

How do you know what those early Christians believed or why they refused to sacrifice? Did they refuse to worhship the emperor because they were strict monotheists, rather than because of some belief in a risen Christ - who later was reported to have told his followers to render unto Ceasar?

And your well charted methodologies have crumbled when examined. Saunders thinks he has a methodology.

This just makes no sense. Did the disciples have their own police force? How would they have stopped Paul?