Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

[Punchinello]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

[Goat]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

In specific, it was the attitude that the law was a burden, and the law is 'of the flesh' Roman 7:6, Gal 5:1 Gal 3 11-12 and gal 3:23-24 show attitudes that are dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household.

There are plenty of people right here on this site who have "attitudes dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household", yet nonetheless they did exactly that. Paul tells us a number of times that his life and attitudes had changed. He was no longer the traditional Jew. He had found something new that went beyond where he had been before. Sounds believable to me.

Perhaps.. but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time. Another issue to me at least is the story he was going to to persecute Christians, but as far as I can see, Christianity did not exist at that time, and any sect would have been considered Jewish...

It would make much more sense to me that Paul, as a Roman citizen who was hired to control Jews would convert to Judaism, since we have records of Jewish people in that time that one subset of Judism would 'convert' to another subset.

[ThatGirlAgain]

That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

Can you give instances of Paul’s lack of understanding of the Jewish religion? Can you cite passages that support that idea?

Keep in mind that only half of the Pauline Epistles are widely agreed to have been written by Paul. (Ref)

These are:

First Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Galatians
Second Corinthians
Romans

Also Acts, which refers extensively to Paul, nonetheless contradicts the Epistles on many points and cannot be considered a reliable indicator of what Paul thought.


Paul was arguing that the Jesus movement was universal in nature, probably referring to the many “all nations� mentions in the prophecies of Isaiah. He argued that gentiles need not become Jewish to follow Jesus and that the Law did not apply to them. He further argued that possessing the Law did not justify the Jews. In fact, knowledge of the Law led to explicit sin because the rules were made explicit by the Law. Atypical attitude? Sure. But does this sound like a non-Jew talking? More likely it sounds like a Jew who has converted to a new universal religion just as Paul said he has. Paul did not stay a traditional Jew, but that does not mean he never was one.

Here is a good discussion of Paul and the Law.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/Pauline/Law.htm#L322A1


One ‘non-Jewish element’ I presume is the Eucharist Formula.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.� 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.� 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. The bread was matzoh. (The Christian Eucharist is still unleavened bread.) Earlier in Corinthians Paul had said:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

The Passover lamb is eaten in the Seder in remembrance of the deliverance of the Jews. To Paul Jesus is the Passover lamb. But because eating human flesh is forbidden, the matzoh is eaten instead “in remembrance of me�.

The Four Cups of wine are taken at the Passover meal. The one Jesus refers to is presumably the birkat hamazon, the grace after meals, which is also said after eating any kind of bread.

The scriptural source for the requirement to say birkat hamazon is Deuteronomy 8:10 "When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He gave you".
(From above link)

This requirement is given before the Israelites enter the promised land and is part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus associates a new covenant with the drinking of the wine. And that new covenant is to lead into a new promised land, the messianic age that began with the resurrection of Jesus. (As Paul has it anyway. Later writers hedge that bet in various ways.)

Rather than being non-Jewish, the Eucharist Formula is a clever way of building a new religion on a thoroughly Jewish foundation.

In specific, it was the attitude that the law was a burden, and the law is 'of the flesh' Roman 7:6, Gal 5:1 Gal 3 11-12 and gal 3:23-24 show attitudes that are dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household.

There are plenty of people right here on this site who have "attitudes dynamically opposite of someone who grew up in a religious household", yet nonetheless they did exactly that. Paul tells us a number of times that his life and attitudes had changed. He was no longer the traditional Jew. He had found something new that went beyond where he had been before. Sounds believable to me.

Perhaps.. but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time. Another issue to me at least is the story he was going to to persecute Christians, but as far as I can see, Christianity did not exist at that time, and any sect would have been considered Jewish...

It would make much more sense to me that Paul, as a Roman citizen who was hired to control Jews would convert to Judaism, since we have records of Jewish people in that time that one subset of Judaism would 'convert' to another subset.

Again where are the examples of his ignorance of Judaism? I gave a good example of his knowledge of Jewish customs and their meanings.

As far as persecuting 'Christians', Paul uses the phrase “persecuted the church of God� (1 Cor. 15:9). He talks a little more about it in Galatians.

Galatians 1

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
…
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.�

I see no anachronism. And I definitely do not see a Roman “hired to control Jews� being viewed as trying to destroy Judaism.

The persecution would have been about blasphemy. Acts involves Paul (Saul) in the execution of Stephen for blasphemy, specifically for identifying Jesus with the Son of Man. (url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV]Ref[/url]) How reliable that might be is anyone’s guess, being written many years later by Luke the storyteller. But it is line with the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of blasphemy for the same reason recounted in Mark and not unreasonably derived from a known tradition of Jesus followers being considered blasphemers. Mark also talks of those followers being “flogged in the synagogues� and “arrested and brought to trial� (Mark 13) That is given as a ‘prophecy’ by Jesus but presumably Mark’s contemporary audience would know it as history.

[Goat]

The persecution would have been about blasphemy. Acts involves Paul (Saul) in the execution of Stephen for blasphemy, specifically for identifying Jesus with the Son of Man. (url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV]Ref[/url]) How reliable that might be is anyone’s guess, being written many years later by Luke the storyteller. But it is line with the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of blasphemy for the same reason recounted in Mark and not unreasonably derived from a known tradition of Jesus followers being considered blasphemers. Mark also talks of those followers being “flogged in the synagogues� and “arrested and brought to trial� (Mark 13) That is given as a ‘prophecy’ by Jesus but presumably Mark’s contemporary audience would know it as history.

Well, that is the claim. Do you have any non-Christian source for any of this? Do you have any source showing that the Sanhedrin had people going out to 'persecute heretics', other than the claims from Christians?

[catalyst]

The writing of Epiphanius in the 4th century states that early Christians (the Ebonites) state that he wasn't.

Why would writings from the fourth century, at least the very least 200 years after the events in question, be deemed “the best relevant evidence.�? Especially over earlier [claimed] eyewitness testimony that would arguably have had access to reliable first source*?


Thanks
JW

*The Muritorian fragment [170 CE] (as well as Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Origen ....) catalogues the book of Acts and the majority of Paul letters.

Hi JW,

I find your reasoning for not believing a little amusing, considering all you have of ANY biblical writings (in full) date to the 4th century at the earliest! Oh well....


If it helps any, Irenaeus also wrote of the Ebonites take on the thoughts of "Paul".

A quick google of Irenaeus on the Ebonites will pretty much tell you what I have stated above and I would presume you WOULD accept what Irenaeus had to say about it, considering you cited him as a source above).

He refers to them and their thoughts on "Paul"

Adversus Haereses : Book I is a good place to start.

Catalyst.

[Mithrae]

Here is a post from another thread (can't find the original)..

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.
. . . . .

(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul was a Jew from the diaspora, writing in Greek to Greek-speaking audiences. No doubt you're correct that many folk in Judea had little regard for the Septuagint, but Paul very obviously was not a Jewish traditionalist. This argument seems very much akin to arguing that Luther could not have been a Catholic monk because he published a bible which was not in Latin. Almost a perfect analogy in fact, as far as I can tell from a minute's thought.

Do you believe this would be a sound argument that Luther had not been a Catholic monk? Or do you believe the comparison is unfair? Or do you agree that it's likewise a very weak suggestion regarding Paul?

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.
. . . . .

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

As you point out, the comparison with Christian propaganda is worth noting. It's hard to imagine that pious Jews of later centuries would include amongst their sacred Psalms ditties about how handy it might be if they could wear blended cotton/wool clothing or maybe not destroy their favourite clay vessels just because Grandma had a heart attack while using them. No, the Law always was a wonderful, joyous thing! Do you really believe for a second that there wasn't the occasional Jew wandering past Gentile homes who didn't wonder whether pork tasted as delicious as it smells?

Frankly it seems more than a little stereotypical and prejudiced to build an argument on the presumption of such homogeneity in ancient folk of Jewish descent. But on the basis of your presumption that real Jews through the ages would not change in their devotion to Moses' commands, seems we can safely conclude that you are not Jewish.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.
. . . . .

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

As you say, there are surely exceptions - and your analogy is a little lacking unless you suggest that Americans have as much interest in their ancestry as 1st century Jews did. I think JehovahsWitness has covered this point quite well, including referenced information. As far as I can tell, even at its best this isn't even an argument; you're simply impressed that Paul was one of those who did have a shrewd idea which Jewish group he descended from.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

While I understand that this is an old post of yours, it does seem strange that in that past you considered Acts to be a good source of information for an argument against Paul's Jewishness. However, as I've pointed out, the central emphasis which Paul derived from the Law was indeed the same as that which Gamaliel's grandfather Hillel is noted for.

Your comment on the virgin birth I will assume was context-specific, since it has nothing to do with whether or not Paul was a Jew.

On balance, the gist of your arguments here seem to be that it's strange Paul diverted from more mainstream views of the Law and utilised the Septuagint. In essence, you're pointing out that Paul was a diaspora Jew whose views changed into something more in line with the Jesus movement's teachings. Not a very strong argument that he wasn't a Jew, in my opinion.

Boy oh boy, do you distort the argument,I am pointing out that Acts can not be a good source about what Paul said or did or was, since it is likely to have been written in the early second century (saying it was form Josephus' Jewish wars doesn't answer some of the points for Antiquities).

And, no, I am not using that story at all.. putting words in my mouth? Did I MENTION that story?

I've highlighted your comment above, where you used the story from Acts as a basis for your argument regarding Paul. As I said, that was an old post and no harm done - I just found the irony amusing.

Let's look what Paul said about he preached to the Jewish people

9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To me, that is saying he was NOT as a Jew. He would not have to 'become as a Jew' if he already was a Jew. That, coupled with his lack of understanding of the Jewish religion, his atypical attitude towards the law, and the inclusion of many non-Jewish elements into his theology make a very good chance he was not a Jew, and he most definitely was not educated in the Jewish religion.

According to your reasoning and the verse following that (1 Cor. 9:21), Paul also was not a Gentile. He says "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some" (9:22) - so, according to your reasoning, Paul must not have been a Jew, must not have been a Gentile, must not have been weak or strong or, in essence, Paul was not a human being. You don't appear to have read the passage, or attempted to understand it. That does not make for a very good argument.

Like I say, setting aside the invalid elements essentially your arguments seem to be that it's strange Paul diverted from more mainstream views of the Law and utilised the Septuagint. In essence, you're pointing out that Paul was a diaspora Jew whose views changed into something more in line with the Jesus movement's. Not a very persuasive argument that he wasn't a Jew, when all's said and done.

-----

If it helps any, Irenaeus also wrote of the Ebonites take on the thoughts of "Paul".

A quick google of Irenaeus on the Ebonites will pretty much tell you what I have stated above and I would presume you WOULD accept what Irenaeus had to say about it, considering you cited him as a source above).

He refers to them and their thoughts on "Paul"

Adversus Haereses : Book I is a good place to start.

Indeed. Irenaeus says that the 2nd century Ebionites believed Paul to be an apostate Jew:

• 2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
  ~ Irenaeus AH 1.26.2 (link)

Obviously this suggests that, according to the 2nd century Ebionites, Paul had been a Jew.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are some very good reasons to not accept Paul's claim that he was actually Jewish. For one thing, he didn't know or understand a lot of the Jewish traditions.

Paul tells us a number of times that his life and attitudes had changed. He was no longer the traditional Jew. He had found something new that went beyond where he had been before. Sounds believable to me.

Perhaps.. but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. You claimed that we have enough information to conclude that Paul had little knowledge of Judaism, by implication insinuating that he gave inaccurate information about Judadiam. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Not refering to something does not necessarily mean one does not know about the subject. And has been explained, his radically different views (attitude) on Judaism would reflect his conversion to what came to be known as Christianity.

So again where is the evidence for this claim?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why would writings from the fourth century, at least the very least 200 years after the events in question, be deemed “the best relevant evidence.�? Especially over earlier [claimed] eyewitness testimony that would arguably have had access to reliable first source*?

Thanks
JW

*The Muritorian fragment [170 CE] (as well as Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Origen ....) catalogues the book of Acts and the majority of Paul letters.

If it helps any, Irenaeus also wrote of the Ebonites take on the thoughts of "Paul".

Indeed he did write about them - I was not questioning the EXISTENCE of the Gospel of the Ebionite, I was asking why you accept it supposed contents over first source.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God." - Ireneus, Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 26)

Hardly an endorsment; indeed Irenaeus seems to be denouncing this sect as heritical. Much in line with Epiphanius who pointed out ...{quote} "In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly complete, [is]falsified and mutilated..."

Irenaeus on the Ebionites will pretty much tell you what I have stated

You stated that Paul was not a Jew, Irenaeus does nothing of the kind.

Anyhoo.... since the Ebionitian views radically diverged* from reliable first source and were condemned (or at the very least NOT included in the biblical canon) by early "church fathers" and referred to as corrupt by the very source of its content, what solid reason do we have for accepting them as accurate?


** The OP of this thread has stated this debate is not about the canonisity of Pauls/Luke's books - apologies to the OP

[JehovahsWitness]

** darn! another duplicate (sorry)**

[ThatGirlAgain]

The persecution would have been about blasphemy. Acts involves Paul (Saul) in the execution of Stephen for blasphemy, specifically for identifying Jesus with the Son of Man. (url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV]Ref[/url]) How reliable that might be is anyone’s guess, being written many years later by Luke the storyteller. But it is line with the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of blasphemy for the same reason recounted in Mark and not unreasonably derived from a known tradition of Jesus followers being considered blasphemers. Mark also talks of those followers being “flogged in the synagogues� and “arrested and brought to trial� (Mark 13) That is given as a ‘prophecy’ by Jesus but presumably Mark’s contemporary audience would know it as history.

Well, that is the claim. Do you have any non-Christian source for any of this? Do you have any source showing that the Sanhedrin had people going out to 'persecute heretics', other than the claims from Christians?

This is what you said.

but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time. Another issue to me at least is the story he was going to to persecute Christians, but as far as I can see, Christianity did not exist at that time, and any sect would have been considered Jewish...

You said that he was going out to persecute Christians but Christians did not exist at that time. The word ‘Christian’ would have been an anachronism, but there was clearly a Jesus movement and Paul frequently uses the word ‘Christ’. I do not need any non-Christian sources. We are talking about what is in the story, which is clearly that Paul persecuted Jesus followers. You cannot jump in and out of the story at will. As far as any movements being Jewish, that is what Paul is all about – separating the Jesus movement from being exclusively Jewish, for which he gets flak. The fact that Paul uses ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ so much shows that he considers Jesus to be the Messiah. Anyone who claimed that this Aramaic speaking, rabble rousing, iconoclastic, and generally troublesome peasant who got executed by the Romans was the Messiah probably would have been charged with blasphemy. So why is the story as told unreasonable?

And once again where are the examples of his ignorance of Judaism? I gave a good example of his knowledge of Jewish customs and their meanings.

[Goat]

The persecution would have been about blasphemy. Acts involves Paul (Saul) in the execution of Stephen for blasphemy, specifically for identifying Jesus with the Son of Man. (url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV]Ref[/url]) How reliable that might be is anyone’s guess, being written many years later by Luke the storyteller. But it is line with the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of blasphemy for the same reason recounted in Mark and not unreasonably derived from a known tradition of Jesus followers being considered blasphemers. Mark also talks of those followers being “flogged in the synagogues� and “arrested and brought to trial� (Mark 13) That is given as a ‘prophecy’ by Jesus but presumably Mark’s contemporary audience would know it as history.

Well, that is the claim. Do you have any non-Christian source for any of this? Do you have any source showing that the Sanhedrin had people going out to 'persecute heretics', other than the claims from Christians?

This is what you said.

but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time. Another issue to me at least is the story he was going to to persecute Christians, but as far as I can see, Christianity did not exist at that time, and any sect would have been considered Jewish...

You said that he was going out to persecute Christians but Christians did not exist at that time. The word ‘Christian’ would have been an anachronism, but there was clearly a Jesus movement and Paul frequently uses the word ‘Christ’. I do not need any non-Christian sources. We are talking about what is in the story, which is clearly that Paul persecuted Jesus followers. You cannot jump in and out of the story at will. As far as any movements being Jewish, that is what Paul is all about – separating the Jesus movement from being exclusively Jewish, for which he gets flak. The fact that Paul uses ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ so much shows that he considers Jesus to be the Messiah. Anyone who claimed that this Aramaic speaking, rabble rousing, iconoclastic, and generally troublesome peasant who got executed by the Romans was the Messiah probably would have been charged with blasphemy. So why is the story as told unreasonable?

And once again where are the examples of his ignorance of Judaism? I gave a good example of his knowledge of Jewish customs and their meanings.

And I gave you his attitude towards the law, and how it was inaccurate.


An snippet from Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity explains it a bit better.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm