Did Paul/Saul actually persecute early Christians?

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Did Paul/Saul actually persecute early Christians?

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

I'm just wondering here. Apart from Acts, and whatever mention Paul makes of it in his own works, what evidence is there that he actually persecuted/arrested early Christians? Any other writings by any other people?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18068
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 430 times
Been thanked: 649 times
Contact:

Post #21

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Talishi wrote:
Yes, did you not pick up Talishi that my question was rhetorical?
I did not....
Fair enough.

You did seem to see the point I was making, ie that having a secretary isn't in itself proof positive that one is illiterate.

Kudos for that at least,

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Kyrani99
Apprentice
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 8:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post #22

Post by Kyrani99 »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Kyrani99 wrote:
Kyrani99 wrote: But as Peter was illiterate he could have had some secretary write for him.
How do we know Peter was illiterate?
So basically you neglected to modify your statement correctly by injecting "I believe" Peter was illiterate, it is presumed by some that Peter was illiterate. The way it read, it sounded as if you were stating a fact, which as you admit is not the case. Fact and presumption are synonyms.
I should have written "if Peter was illiterate in Greek then..................
Kyrani99 wrote: We don't actually know as in having absolute evidence or proof.
Kyrani99 wrote: Peter was a fisherman
Peter was more than just a fisherman, along with his family he owned a fishing business. This would necessitate being numerate and performing various business transactions. This of itself lends to the conclusion Peter could read and write.[/quote]
He could have been literate in Aramaic and not Greek. The letters are in Greek.
However having a business doesn't necessarily make him literate because if it was a family business, which is very possible, then it only takes one member of the family to be able to read and write. I don't know if there were any compulsory schools in those days. From what I have read it was mainly scribes and priests that could read and write.
Kyrani99 wrote: it is reasonable to say that he had little formal education.
Having little "formal" education is does not necessarily mean one is illiterate. Learning to read and write was something that was undertaken by family heads and others in the local community.

Each first century community had a synagogue, which also served as local centers of learning (schools). On the Sabbath any male member of the community could engage in the public reading from the scrolls kept there, indeed the gospels record Jesus (also someone depicted as having no formal education) as doing just that. [/quote]
There would have been some learning children either being taught by the heads of their families or in synagogues but that doesn't mean that every child got an education. And it doesn't mean that Peter had been able to read and write Greek. We can't really know because we don't know even if the letters are originals or not. But even if they are originals they differ markedly in the command of Greek. If the first letter was bad Greek and the second good Greek then we could reasonably say his Greek improved but it is the other way around. If you can write in very good Greek then you are unlikely to then write a second letter in bad Greek.

Jesus was a carpenter possibly and he also had a great interest in scripture so he more likely was literate in Greek and not only Aramaic.
Kyrani99 wrote: Peter's first letter was in exquisite Greek. Peter's second letter was in not very good Greek. So the same author could not have written both letters. Thus we may conclude that Peter used secretaries to write his letters, if he had wanted to write letters. If Peter was able to read and write Greek, even not very good Greek, why not write them himself?
I'm not qualified to comment on the standard of Greek in the letters attributed to Peter but the use of a secretary does not mean necessarily that the author is illiterate. I doubt if President Obama writes his own correspondence. Does his using a secretary mean he can't read or write?

Paul, arguably one of the most highly educated of the bible writers admits to using a secretary to pen some of his letters, does this mean he (Paul was illiterate)? [/quote]
Paul however states in some of his letters that he actually wrote them.
Kyrani99 wrote: So we may conclude that he was illiterate, at least with respect to Greek, IF indeed the letters were Peter's.
CONCLUSION: Making a statement as if it was proven fact is misleading. Your assumption that because Peter was indeed illiterate because we know he was ..

a) a fisherman
b) probably had no formal education
c) may have used a secretary

are not strong arguments that Peter was illiterate.JW[/quote]

I said we may conclude............. I didn't state this as fact.
Peter could have been literate in Aramaic. This would enable him to run his business. And he may have been able to speak Greek. But we can't say with any certainty that he could read and write in Greek. The general opinion of some scholars is that he was illiterate meaning he couldn't read or write at all. I don't agree with them. I am only questioning his ability to read and write in Greek.

Obama is in a high position and most people in senior positions do have secretaries. It doesn't reflect on their education. Maybe my post sounds more definite than I meant it. But you sound a bit angry about the possibility that Peter was illiterate and I don't understand why. I don't think my post makes a clear cut view. I did debate the point.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #23

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Kyrani99 wrote: Jesus was a carpenter possibly and he also had a great interest in scripture so he more likely was literate in Greek and not only Aramaic.
Were Hebrew scriptures likely to have been written in Greek at the time Jesus is said to have lived? Wouldn't it be more likely they were written in Hebrew?

In a culture that was largely illiterate, a common laborer may well have learned what he knew of scripture by hearing what literate people said or read to him.

Is there indication that Jesus had great / in-depth knowledge of Hebrew scriptures -- or is he credited with quoting a few key passages (that could be attributed to repeating what he had heard from others)?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply