Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 06:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 05:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Perhaps, but we don't really know. What we do know is that he knew of Jesus before he was converted, because he was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem before any other sect were ever known as Christians.

People don't seem to realize that Paul never persecuted the Christian church, because it didn't exist at that time. He was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem.


It's virtually universal that Paul wrote his letters before Luke-Acts was penned. That means Paul would be absolutely unfamiliar with Luke-Acts.

That does not say much. They were in the same milieu with the same stories and preaching. That the written tales have some agreement is therefore not surprising and is not strong or definitive evidence of anything else.

True, the oral tradition does need to be considered as a possibility, despite the fact that we can only make educated guesses as to what it would be. Nonetheless, it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable the influence of oral tradition.

With that said, though, Paul's letters don't seem to employ much that would come from oral tradition, aside from Jesus being crucified, his resurrection, and a couple quotes (Last Supper and mention of Pilate) possibly from the oral tradition or the Q source, which was likely an oral source also.

For example, only Acts and Peter ever mention the word "Christian." Paul never mentions it. Nor does Paul's letters ever mention any conversion on the road to Damascus such as Acts describes.

Therefore, Paul's letters alone must be considered the only reliable source for information regarding Paul.

Acts might help, but not much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 06:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 06:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 05:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Perhaps, but we don't really know. What we do know is that he knew of Jesus before he was converted, because he was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem before any other sect were ever known as Christians.

People don't seem to realize that Paul never persecuted the Christian church, because it didn't exist at that time. He was persecuting the Nazarenes in Jerusalem.


It's virtually universal that Paul wrote his letters before Luke-Acts was penned. That means Paul would be absolutely unfamiliar with Luke-Acts.

That makes no sense. Paul said he was persecuting members of the new sub-sect (who came to be called Christians). They were called "The Way" subsect of Judaism. They and the Nazarenes were not the same.

If you are following Acts, you will see that Paul was persecuting in Jerusalem almost immediately after the crucifixion. "The Way" had not even made it out of Jerusalem yet.

Have a look:

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And in that day there was a great persecution on the Church at Jerusalem.

Act 8:3 But Saul ravaged the church, entering into every house. And dragging men and women, he delivered them up to prison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 06:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 06:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That makes no sense. Paul said he was persecuting members of the new sub-sect (who came to be called Christians). They were called "The Way" subsect of Judaism. They and the Nazarenes were not the same.

If you are following Acts, you will see that Paul was persecuting in Jerusalem almost immediately after the crucifixion. "The Way" had not even made it out of Jerusalem yet.

Have a look:

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And in that day there was a great persecution on the Church at Jerusalem.

Act 8:3 But Saul ravaged the church, entering into every house. And dragging men and women, he delivered them up to prison.

"The church" was the Way. I don't buy Acts. At all. There was no "church" immediately after the crucifixion. Cults don't develop that fast. They were and remained Jews for decades. At the end of the 1st Century, the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read in the synagogues.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 06:38 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 06:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  That does not say much. They were in the same milieu with the same stories and preaching. That the written tales have some agreement is therefore not surprising and is not strong or definitive evidence of anything else.

True, the oral tradition does need to be considered as a possibility, despite the fact that we can only make educated guesses as to what it would be. Nonetheless, it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable the influence of oral tradition.

With that said, though, Paul's letters don't seem to employ much that would come from oral tradition, aside from Jesus being crucified, his resurrection, and a couple quotes (Last Supper and mention of Pilate) possibly from the oral tradition or the Q source, which was likely an oral source also.

For example, only Acts and Peter ever mention the word "Christian." Paul never mentions it. Nor does Paul's letters ever mention any conversion on the road to Damascus such as Acts describes.

Therefore, Paul's letters alone must be considered the only reliable source for information regarding Paul.

Acts might help, but not much.

You and I appear to have a different definition of 'reliable'. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2016, 08:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(07-08-2016 07:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-08-2016 06:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If you are following Acts, you will see that Paul was persecuting in Jerusalem almost immediately after the crucifixion. "The Way" had not even made it out of Jerusalem yet.

Have a look:

Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And in that day there was a great persecution on the Church at Jerusalem.

Act 8:3 But Saul ravaged the church, entering into every house. And dragging men and women, he delivered them up to prison.

"The church" was the Way. I don't buy Acts. At all. There was no "church" immediately after the crucifixion. Cults don't develop that fast. They were and remained Jews for decades. At the end of the 1st Century, the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read in the synagogues.

Have you considered that both the Way and the Nazarenes referred to the same sect?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 05:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Galatians (which you said was more reliable as you agreed it was written earlier) says that Paul was nowhere near Jerusalem for about 14 years during the formation of the early Church. Therefore he could not have been persecuting the Way sect in Jerusalem (as Acts claims) during that time. Acts also says he was well known to the Church in Jerusalem, (which totally contradicts what he says in Galatians). At least one of them is not telling the truth. By what authority was Saul dragging anyone anywhere, in Jerusalem ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2016 09:56 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 05:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Galatians (which you said was more reliable as you agreed it was written earlier) says that Paul was nowhere near Jerusalem for about 14 years during the formation of the early Church. Therefore he could not have been persecuting the Way sect in Jerusalem (as Acts claims) during that time.

One of the biggest problems with understanding many of these ancient texts is the inclusion of chapter and verse into the text. It is actually a bane to understanding it.

Now regarding Galatians, what you see in Chapter 2:1 is not the beginning, for the beginning starts in:

Gal 1:13 - 1:18  

For you heard my manner of life when I was in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with surpassing zeal, and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace,  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood;

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.


Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

Paul had already been converted for about 17 years in relation to his statements in Gal 2:1. The year at the time he went back to Jerusalem after 14 years would have been about CE 50-51.

Quote: Acts also says he was well known to the Church in Jerusalem, (which totally contradicts what he says in Galatians). At least one of them is not telling the truth.

I think this is answered by my previous statement in this post.

Quote: By what authority was Saul dragging anyone anywhere, in Jerusalem?

By the authority of the high priests; the Sanhedrin.

The origin of Christianity obviously begins before the sect of Christians actually came into existence.

1. It began in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. These were all Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus.

2. After the crucifixion, a rumor was spread that Jesus had risen from the dead, and his followers in Jerusalem- lead by Peter- propagated this rumor, which increased the number of Jews exponentially to the Church of Jerusalem.

3. Paul entered into the equation, and begins persecuting Jews from the Church of Jerusalem. He raided households and threw Jews in prison for blasphemy. This caused many of these Nazarene Jews to flee Jerusalem to regions of Judea and Samaria, as indicated in Acts 8:1. Only the apostles remain in Jerusalem, obviously holed up in some secret place.

4. Paul, for some reason, becomes converted and heads off to Arabia and Damascus for 3 years.

5 Meanwhile, those who had become scattered from Jerusalem due to the stoning of Stephen "traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the Word to no one except the Jews." (Acts 11:19)

6. But then Barnabas finds Paul in Tarsus and takes him down to Antioch, where they preached for a whole year. This is where Paul's influence begins, and where the church begins to splinter. This is exactly when the term "Christian" was coined.

7. Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to fetch somebody to minister to those in Antioch (Acts 11:30). They returned from Jerusalem with John Mark in Acts 12:25.

8. The very next chapter is where you actually begin to see Paul splinter away from the Church of Jerusalem. It begins in Acts 13:13, with Paul in Antioch in Pisidia, he begins to preach his version of the Gospel. His version is not well received by many of the Jews there who subscribed to the Church of Jerusalem, and the following is exactly where we see the splinter between the Church of Jerusalem (The Nazarenes) and this new "Christian" sect:

Act 13:46  But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken to you first. But since indeed you put it far from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

And right there is the origin of the new splinter that became known as the Christian church. Next we see that the Gentiles rejoiced, but the Jews did not. Instead ...

Act 13:48 - 50 And hearing, the Gentiles rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the Word of the Lord was carried throughout all the country.

But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief ones of the city, and raised a persecution against Paul and Barnabas. And they threw them out of their borders.


And now we see Paul preaching to the Gentiles, and the rest is ... history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 08:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 05:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Galatians (which you said was more reliable as you agreed it was written earlier) says that Paul was nowhere near Jerusalem for about 14 years during the formation of the early Church. Therefore he could not have been persecuting the Way sect in Jerusalem (as Acts claims) during that time.

One of the biggest problems with understanding many of these ancient texts is the inclusion of chapter and verse into the text. It is actually a bane to understanding it.

Now regarding Galatians, what you see in Chapter 2:1 is not the beginning, for the beginning starts in:

Gal 1:13 - 1:18  

For you heard my manner of life when I was in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with surpassing zeal, and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace,  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood;

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.


Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

Paul had already been converted for about 17 years in relation to his statements in Gal 2:1. The year at the time he went back to Jerusalem after 14 years would have been about CE 50-51.

Quote: Acts also says he was well known to the Church in Jerusalem, (which totally contradicts what he says in Galatians). At least one of them is not telling the truth.

I think this is answered by my previous statement in this post.

Quote: By what authority was Saul dragging anyone anywhere, in Jerusalem?

By the authority of the high priests; the Sanhedrin.

They had no such authority. It was a Roman occupied city, and Paul had no such authority.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 08:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

But if you read Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, he says he FIRST went to Jerusalem and met with only a few, after 17 years. That totally contradicts what it says in Acts about his activities.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2016, 09:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-08-2016 09:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2016 08:07 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  One of the biggest problems with understanding many of these ancient texts is the inclusion of chapter and verse into the text. It is actually a bane to understanding it.

Now regarding Galatians, what you see in Chapter 2:1 is not the beginning, for the beginning starts in:

Gal 1:13 - 1:18  

For you heard my manner of life when I was in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God with surpassing zeal, and ravaged it. And I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my race, being much more a zealot of the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace,  to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood;

Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.


Before you get to 2:1, we see Paul giving a little history beginning with his persecution of the church before his conversion. After his conversion, he did not immediately return to Jerusalem, but instead went to Arabia and then to Damascus. 3 years later, he went back to Jerusalem where he met up with Peter and James and stayed there for a couple of weeks. Then he left Jerusalem again and went to Syria and Cilicia.

Paul had already been converted for about 17 years in relation to his statements in Gal 2:1. The year at the time he went back to Jerusalem after 14 years would have been about CE 50-51.


I think this is answered by my previous statement in this post.


By the authority of the high priests; the Sanhedrin.

They had no such authority. It was a Roman occupied city, and Paul had no such authority.

The Jews had their own laws. The Roman's didn't care if a Jew killed another Jew. You can see that this is true by reading Josephus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: