John A. Broussard

Right you are, but Paul was not associating with the likes of Philo or Josephus, was not preaching at the Academy, was not writing to or for the intellectuals of his day.

The pagan philosphers of Paul's day were just as ready to throw his tall tales into the same wastebasket with Zeus et al. But, what we are talking about are the vast numbers of the population, the illiterate uneducated slaves, soldiers and commoners. Those were the ones listening to Paul and, unless we are willing to assume that he was a complete hypocrite, he truly believed what he was preaching.

Zeichman

Paul, being fairly Hellenized, though, may have just left out the things he did not interpret literally for the sake of those who weren't as intellegent as he. For example, at my college, no professor theology professor is going to tell his or her class that the physical ressurection is a myth, for the sake of those whose faith is based on a much more literal reading. Of course, having talked with many of them, I don't know of any that believe it.

I think something like this may have been possible with Paul, despite the fact that, by definition, there cannot be evidence of it.

CJD

He most assuredly believed in a historical first pair that disobeyed the command of God. The trees, the snake, the fruit, etc., he also assuredly understood to be mythical elements therein.

He believed the story for the same reason most of us believe anything at all — reality is socially constructed.

CJD

Toto

Thereby perpetuating Biblical ignorance and slovenly thinking among Christians. :banghead:

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding the Resurrection, in Lee Strobel's 'The Case For Christ,' William Lane Craig puts great emphasis upon "multiple, independent attestations," but what about the Old Testament, where sometimes only a single attestation is all that we have, i.e. the global flood, the plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea? How do Biblical inerrantists deal with the Old Testament? What are the differences between how the Old and New Testaments were put together? In both cases, what were the criteria for determining what was Scripture?

In say the 1st century B.C., what might a non-Jew have found to be appealing about Judaism?

Zeichman

One could appeal to the Documentary Hypothesis. There are, after all, two attestations to the flood, giving of the law to Moses, etc.

Not that it seems that anyone who accepts the Documentary Hypothesis would be able to interpret the Torah literally.

Chris Weimer

I disagree, as I cannot fathom a class in which it is pertinent...?

Johnny Skeptic

Which two attestations are those? Are two enough? Do you believe the stories of Adam and Eve, the global flood, the plagues in Egypt, and the parting of the Red Sea, and why do fundamentalist Christians believe the stories? As I asked in a previous post, how does the Biblical inerrantist deal with the Old Testament?

Toto

I think that you are imposing modern ways of thinking on the 1st century.

The idea that the reliability of the NT is confirmed by "multiple attestations" is a little game that apologists play to try to bolster the Bible by modern journalistic standards. No one in the first century thought that way.

Non-Jews did find something appealing about Judaism, but I doubt that it was the historical accuracy of their scriptures.

Javaman

I thought you were going for something akin to:

- Modern Christians owe most of thier theology to Paul's interaction with the spriritual/dead Jesus

- Many (most?) modern Christians do not believe in the existance of an actual Adam and Eve

- How does one reconcile the two? Surely, if Paul is privy to such almighty knowledge that drives the belief systems of today, he would have known the truth or myth of such a central tenent.