Historical Plausibility of Paul's Story

Yes, I think it was sanctioned by the Romans because much of Judea and its Roman occupiers had a reciprocal relationship. Early Christendom was a problem not only for the Chief Priests, but also for Rome, as evidenced by certain historians of that time.The Romans were pretty good at allowing those living under occupation to still live with their religion of choice. So the Romans didn't bother the Jews so much. However, Christianity was viewed menacingly, like a cult that eventually sought to undermine the efforts. It wasn't a matter of authority. Jews were allowed to enact laws and enforce laws so long as they didn't impinge on Roman ones. Though the Pharisees and Herodians differed considerably about where to stand when it came to allegiance to Rome, they were united in their disdain for Christendom. What evidence exists that any Christians were persecuted? The same with anything else. It is testified by the writings of antiquity. They didn't let him exactly. Paul had a lot of clout studying under Gamaliel. Eventually he began to ostracize himself by professing a belief in Jesus' messiahship. Emboldened, he would preach, much like Stephen did. They listened for awhile and then became indignant after hearing something that offended them. It wasn't long before Paul's head was was asked to be on a platter and he was on the run for the rest of his life. What evidence is their of any conversation? It doesn't leave any physical evidence behind, right?, so you have to give the writings the benefit of the doubt unless there is some reason to assume that it is not true or not entirely true.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

What Hebrew word do you suspect was used derogatively to mean "Christian?"As far as I can tell, we aren't entirely sure what word was used to define Christians during the earliest period of Christianity (circa AD 30-65). We know from Paul himself in the Book of Acts, that he personally referred to it as "The Way."We also know that clandestine communication between Christians entailed etching the "Jesus fish" on pliable surfaces like sand or dirt. But that is a visual symbol, not a spoken word.Nonetheless, I'd be curious to know what word was used, even if it is idiomatic. If anyone knows, I'd like to know it. Based on both biblical and extra-biblical sources, I think you are right. The Romans, I believe, were initially indifferent to early Christendom and deferred power to the Sanhedrin. But according to Roman historian, Tacitus, when Christianity had made its way to Rome itself, it was met with virulent opposition. They martyred mercilously and in excruciating ways. According to the gospels the Chief Priests were reticent to say the least, and sought to trap or trick Jesus in to committing abominable sins so they could execute him with impunity.

quote:

---

2. What authority did the sanhedrin have in Damascus, when the whole of Syria was a Roman province?

---

Right, which is why he is asking by what authority did the Sanhedrin have in Assyria. But I think you already touched on that, which I am in agreement with you about. The Jews were allowed to have its own policing authority, especially when it came to matters involving Judaism. Its not like Jews were completely disarmed and helpless. The battle of Masada and the Maccabean Revolt illustrates that point.Even Peter, lobbing off the right ear of Malchus, illustrates that they were not completely disarmed.

quote:

---

3. What evidence is there that Paul did indeed persecute Christians?

---

You don't think Saul/Paul of Tarsus existed? You think he was a complete fabrication? I think its worthwhile to know that much of the supporting cast in the life of Paul are corroborated via archaeology with hard evidence. That includes the names of infamous Procurators, such as Felix, Erastus, and Gallio.If these names correspond to places like Corinth, especially during the year that Paul details in his epistles, doesn't that, at least in part, corroborate Paul's existence? Because even supposing that Paul was an invented character, somebody actually was chronicling these happenings since we know they've happened in actuality. If it wasn't Paul, then who was it really? Know what I mean?According to the epistles, Paul claims to have been trained in Judaic jurisprudence under the tutelage of Gamaliel-- a figure well attested for in Judaism. If that is the case, then, again, it further helps to support the historicity of Paul.Aside from the supporting details of others, there is also a lot of supporting details concerning the protagonist himself. According to the Bible, Paul was born and raised in Tarsus, which is in modern-day Turkey, but later moved to Jerusalem to study Judaism. This placed Paul in a very unique situation.He was Jew by virtue of bloodline, but was a full-fledged Roman citizen by virtue of birthplace (because Asia Minor was ruled by Rome). He used this to his advantage on a few occasions, because in order to avoid immediate execution, he could appeal to the courts on account that he was a Roman citizen. Under their own edicts, they had to honor this system of giving Romans a fair trial. On a couple of occasions he was by the skin of his teeth. There was at least one time where he escaped by being lowered in a basket. But he was also captured on at least three occasions too, which accounts for why he stood trial so many times in Acts. He even was sent to Rome to stand in front of the Caesar. If you recall the story, the Procurators were gleeful that he actually had the audacity to appeal to stand trial in Rome, because they knew how harshly he dealt with people. On the way, there was a violent storm off the coast of Malta where he barely escaped with his life.In any case, he made it clear in his letters that he was a hunted man, always on the run. How could it have been less kind than what Jesus advocated? In fact, most critics of Christianity claim that Paul is the reason why the (quote, unquote} "real" Christianity has been muddled. They charge Paul with desecrating the original intent Jesus labored for.Haven't you ever heard the term "Pauline Christian?"In any case, I think there is enough reason to assume the historicity of Paul of Tarsus. Historically, he has more circumstantial and hard evidence pointing to him than most figures in modern history. Yet, for some odd reason, (yes, I'm being facetious) we don't see those figures challenged nearly as much as biblical figures are. Gee, I wonder why that is?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

No, thank you. I've always liked your posts. I kinda wish you were around more often to be quite honest. I have quite a few quotes from historians speaking about Christians in a negative way. Of course, they were already translated in to English, so I wasn't clear on what word they used. Though I have heard it said that the derogatory word "cretin," is a Greek perjorative for Christian. In that case, I'm not aware of any extant evidence that would corroborate it. I suppose the best way would be to find a sepulchre. Then again, that isn't exactly a simple task. I am aware that foreigners could purchase their citizenship, however, I was referencing a Bible verse. I felt a little lazy last night and didn;t feel like looking for it. But I'll post it now.Anyhow, the is purportedly coming from Paul himself. He alleges, "As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"

​

When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen."

​

The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"

​

"Yes, I am," he answered.

​

Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."

​

"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied.

​

Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. -Acts 22:23-29 Yeah, I've never heard of that either. I suppose its possible, but I wonder what your professor was sourcing. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand what you mean by it.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I'm sorry but you lost me...? What does this mean in lieu of of our previous conversation?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

"Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Rom 16:13

---

NIV: Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. NKJV: Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. NLT: Greet Rufus, whom the Lord picked out to be his very own; and also his dear mother, who has been a mother to me.Kind of ambiguous. The verbiage leaves it open. It is conceivable that while he studied abroad in Jerusalem that his parents, if still living during that time, could have stayed in Tarsus.It doesn't really matter in any case whether his father was a Roman or a Jew to me. Yes, that was Paul, but I'm not understanding the significance.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

There have been lots of people who once were the very antithesis to what they currently are. The fact that he is an unlikely hero is part of the allure and the mystique of God.One could also make the argument, why was Paul given a revelation where other people haven't? Why is God showing favor to him and not some other people?Can questions like that really be answered, or do you at some point just have to conclude that God sees the answer from start to finish? Alot of citizens of Rome were not Roman by blood, just like a Japanese American may not come from original European-American stock, but they are still every bit citizens.And it is both possible that he was a sympathizer of Rome, or that he was unhappy about his citizenry. We have people in America who are very patriotic, and we have others that are embarrassed at the affiliation.In Paul's case, we have nothing definitive to go by. I've really never understood the whole "Pauline" thing. I don't know why some people believe that Paul was actually subverting what Jesus had sown. Maybe you can present something to me that will help me understand that position better, because at present, I just don't see the objection.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

It was Roman custom to preferentially treat Roman citizens. It did not, however, mean that you would not be hideously tortured-- it just ensured that you would be guaranteed a trial. If you were found guilty during that trial, then you still faced their wrath. You certainly aren't obligated to believe that he was. If you "compelling evidence" to the contrary, please don't hold back for our sake.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Hold the phone here, guy.... You are certainly welcome to whatever fanciful, private interpretation you want, but pretty please, with sugar on top, do NOT condescend to me about evidence when you made up this story as you went along totally ad hoc. He did have an entourage with him."The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." -Acts 9:7

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I've gone over the gospels and the epistles more than any other book I've ever read, which have probably been studied at least four times since my conversion in 2003. I still do not understand the objections made by others in regard to Paul's alleged subversion of the teachings of Jesus.I see Paul as a once selfish man, turned selfless by the saving Grace of God. On numerous occasion he deprecates and abases himself before the name of Christ. He could never say two words without mentioning how wonderful Jesus was. I just don't see it.

quote:

---

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" -- Thomas Jefferson

---

I could not find a source for this quote. Being that Jefferson was a deist, I have to wonder about the validity of said quote.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

So you are asking me what evidence Paul gave to the Romans to substantiate his citizenship...? Am I locked on now?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

As far as I know, there is no mention of why he changed his name to be found in the scriptures. What I do know is that Luke continues to refer to him as Saul for a few more chapters after the conversion story on the road to Damascus.Then he segues in to saying something about Saul, but adds in parentheses, (who is called Paul). After that point, he starts to refer to him as Paul for the remainder of the book.I think the assumption is that Paul was ashamed of what his name meant. Becoming Paul, as a sort of pseudonym, was a way for him to become a new man, since he felt that he was a new creature in Christ.But if you are looking for scriptural clarity, I don't know where to find it. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake