thechort

Do the following two points provide a sound argument for the existence of Saul of Tarsus, the apostle Paul of the New Testament, and the events recorded therein? If so, what catalyst sparked the radical change in the course of his life? What drove him from killing Christians to ultimately dying as one of them?

1. The coherence of the book of Acts with the Epistles of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus)

2. The lack of first and second century secular criticism concerning the truth value of these first century letters in relation to the events of his life: missionary journeys, persecution, imprisonment, etc. (excluding, for the sake of this thread, Christ’s appearance to Paul)

My belief is that the harmony of the account found in the book of Acts with the accounts found throughout Paul’s various letters to early churches argues successfully that he did in fact exist, that he did travel as supposed, that he was persecuted and often imprisoned as early church history claims. The coherence of the story as told from Paul’s perspective in his letters with the story as told by Luke in Acts, coupled with the silence from the secular community concerning these accounts, makes a strong claim that Paul did actually “walk these roads.” If he had not in fact done so, if this person (whether in name or simply in biography) sprang only from the minds of the early church fathers, then a simple document from those who wished to end Christianity in its infancy, a document testifying to the falsity of these Christian claims, would have brought the whole “charade” to a much deserved abrupt halt. The fact is, no such document exists, and the harmony of these books of the New Testament remains; I wonder then, what happened to Paul… What caused this man to abandon the faith he so dearly cherished for the “cult” he so vehemently despised?

Thanks for listening; looking forward to hearing responses,

Mike

xeren

Hey everyone, thechort is my roommate, and i would like to vouch for him that this is not a troll, and that he is looking for real replies. This post sprang from a discussion we were having about the bible.

Toto

I have not heard of anyone disputing the existence of Paul, but I don't think your reasons work.

Somebody wrote Paul's letters, or he was prominent enough so that someone wrote letters in his name. Furthermore, the character that comes through the letters is not a particulary legendary or heroic type - he sounds human.

But there are many discrepancies between the letters and Acts (there have been several recent threads on that). In what way do you think that there is "coherence?" It is the discrepancies between Paul's letters and the character of Paul in Acts that leads many scholars to assume that Acts is not recording history.

And when you talk about "the lack of first and second century secular criticism concerning the truth value of these first century letters" - the letters were presumably written by Paul, and only collected and published after his death, when the ability of anyone to test the truth of the letters would be difficult - if anyone in fact cared. Acts was probably not written until later, somewhere between 90 AD and 150 AD. These were documents for an obscure religious sect that did not excite much interest among secular writers.

People in those days did not go around trying to disprove religious myths in any case, so you cannot conclude from the lack of a disproof that anyone who wanted to could not have disproved the events.

RED DAVE

Is there any real evidence concerning Saul's acts of persecution prior to becoming Paul.

I've always puzzled about that. Not that the priesthood, Pharicees and Saducees alike weren't heresy hunters, but there's no records, as far as I know.

Was Paul boasting?

RED DAVE

Grad Student Humanist

Oh I'm sure Paul existed, I only wish he had never been born. He is the great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus. Of course I'm an atheist and don't believe in Jesus' divinity, but I do like a lot of the message. Until Paul got his twisted little hands on it.

Paul's work was used for milennia to justify both slavery and misogyny. Thanks to Paul's wisdom women were oppressed until well into the modern era; it was a struggle just to get an education if you were a woman courtesy of Paul's "teachings."

And of course Paul is the only self-righteous ass in the New Testament who finds it necessary to condemn homosexuals. Any time a fundie pulls a quote from the New Testament to condemn gays he pulls it right out of Paul.

My favorite reference to Paul comes from the great S.T. Coleridge who refused to believe that Paul was an inspired author. Why? Because his Greek was so bad.

CX

I wonder if you could start a new thread describing what of value you find in Jesus' teaching, how you feather out Jesus' teaching from the legendary and theological accretion in the NT and how you think Jesus' teaching differs considerably from Paul's. I also recommend that you read, "St. Peter vs. St. Paul: A Tale of Two Missions." by Michael Goulder for an excellent discussion of the triumph of Paul's program over that of Jesus' original followers in the Jerusalem congregation.

xeren

Toto (or anyone who sees this and happens to know the answer),

I'm just curious, you say somebody wrote Paul's letters. Does that mean that the Saul/Paul person described in Acts was not necessarily the same person that wrote the letters? And if so, how do we know this?

Thanks

-xeren

Toto

How can we know anything about history? We can't. People just make up various hypotheses, and see how they fit the few facts that we have. The hypotheses that work the best are "history." The Saul/Paul person described in Acts may or may not have existed. The miracles that he did *probably* did not happen, and certainly undermine the credibility of the rest of the stories about him. His letters are the best evidence that he existed, but not 100% convincing.

There is a school of thought known as the Dutch Radicals, who are described here and here. At least some of them believed that Paul's letters were written by various people in the 2nd century.

If you propose that the letters ascribed to Paul were written later, then your only evidence for Paul's existence is the book of Acts, which is not exactly reliable history, but you might conclude from that that there must have been a Paul involved in the early Christian church, even if we can't reliably know anything about him.

But really, nobody debates if Paul existed. And nobody can be really sure about any of the facts of his life. There isn't even a clear Christian tradition of how or when he died.

Why this concern about Paul and not Jesus?

xeren

Well, thechort has told me in the past that the harmony between Acts and the Pauline Epistles is one of the bigger reasons he believes that what Paul wrote is true.

If the person in Acts and the person who wrote the Pauline Epistles can't be shown to be the same person, then that is a rather larger chink in the armor of faith.

Toto

Check out this thread:

How are Paul's writings reconciled with Acts?

and

Historical accuracy of Acts (if you can get through the sniping)

Unfortunately, these are threads that started on the old board, so the formatting isn't always very readable.

This is a list of the inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's letters
The Paul Paradox

Most apologists have to spend a lot of time reconciling Paul's letters and Acts, and critical scholars take the discrepancies as evidence that Acts was not written by a companion of Paul. I am surprized that thechort would hang his belief system on such a disputed point.