"Paul"

[Sevivon1913]

Hi,

Could someone please tell me why Christians believe in the Apostle Paul? He doesn't appear to have given any proof of his credentials and his only knowledge of 'Jesus Christ' came from visions. I'm also aware that the original disciples of Christ were opposed to Paul and rejected ideas of the divinity of Christ and they accepted Torah (so presumably there must be a reason you reject the testimony of the disciples and instead follow the teachings of a man who never met Christ).

Yours Sincerely,

Sevivon1913

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Hi,

Could someone please tell me why Christians believe in the Apostle Paul? He doesn't appear to have given any proof of his credentials and his only knowledge of 'Jesus Christ' came from visions. I'm also aware that the original disciples of Christ were opposed to Paul and rejected ideas of the divinity of Christ and they accepted Torah (so presumably there must be a reason you reject the testimony of the disciples and instead follow the teachings of a man who never met Christ).

Yours Sincerely,

Sevivon1913

Hiya Sev. Let's get to your question!

I would think this would start out largely with the historicity of the book of Acts. Acts has been shown to be accurate in the most minute details. Luke is a first-rate historian and a case can be made that the book was finished as early as 62 A.D. (Which would also place the gospel of Luke even earlier since Acts is its "sequel.")

In this, we are told that Paul did in fact meet the risen Christ. (Acts 9) As for his credentials, Paul tells us them later on in the book of Philippians in the third chapter. His writings and his sermons in Acts show him to be a man of education. (And even if he didn't have credentials, what would matter is the truth of his arguments.)

Now if you're going to claim that the earliest disciples did not believe in the deity of Christ and that Paul did not believe in the Torah, I'd need to see some actual evidence of that.

Hope this helps!

[Sevivon1913]

Hello, Nick, thanks for your reply. My apologies if this sounds like mere criticism, but the evidence of Paul being sent by Jesus Christ still eludes me…

I think you might be slightly exaggerating the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles:

The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the Bible for Learners (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design." – John Remsberg, The Christ

From what I can tell, all the gospels were written after Paul’s letters and were authored by followers of Paul. Surely we don’t have any manuscript dating to 62 A.D.? I was under the impression that the manuscripts we do have are essentially –alleged - copies of earlier manuscripts and then the older ones get destroyed, particularly by Herr Eusebius (260-340 AD). Thus, we have only much later, probably post-320 AD, manuscript copies as the basis for assumptions about the dating of the original? And the dating is based on the content of the writing and also references to the writing from other contemporary manuscripts?

As for Acts 9 ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PY3.HTM ), I don’t believe a word of this account. Why would Paul – a Pharisee - go to the High Priest – a Sadducee - for permission to arrest Jews outside of Judaea (and his jurisdiction)? (I know Damascus isn’t In Syria). According to the footnote on the Vatican site, it says:

“Paul's experience was not visionary but was precipitated by the appearance of Jesus, as he insists in 1 Cor 15:8.”, which, when checked, says, “Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.”

This misses the point – what was his proof that Paul wasn’t a fruitcake? These are merely Paul’s own testimony. I will not take his word for it. Surely the early church didn’t accept this man based on this man’s own account of “visions”? And as for this claim that Jesus appeared to him, where is the corroboration of this in the gospels? And why did Jesus bother to bestow church authority on Peter, the first Pope, only for Peter’s teachings to be rejected by Jesus’ “newer” successor?

As for Paul’s credentials, I was only referring to his credentials as not being a liar. I know he claimed to be a Pharisee and student of Rabbi Gamaliel – but I won’t take his word for it. He shows himself to be a man who knew absolutely nothing about his own alleged religion. He rejected observance of the law, of circumcision and refraining from eating unlawful foods (enough on their own to make him a Hebrew apostate) and taught new beliefs that the people of Israel had never heard from Moses, such as the trinity. Clearly, a man who preaches people to reject observance of the law, is most definitely and unequivocally a disbeliever in the Torah.

However, everything I just typed is irrelevant, because I’m not even aware of any proof that this man existed, except for his own claim that he existed. But since his claim to have existed, didn’t exist until the 4th century AD, we may assume that he didn’t exist. After all, most people who exist claim to have existed do so whilst they exist.

Yours Sincerely,

Sevivon

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Hello, Nick, thanks for your reply. My apologies if this sounds like mere criticism, but the evidence of Paul being sent by Jesus Christ still eludes me…

Then let us examine your claims...

I think you might be slightly exaggerating the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles:

The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the Bible for Learners (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design." – John Remsberg, The Christ

Remsberg was a 19th century source, so this is a bit outdated. We've made many discoveries since then. First off, many of these historical accuracies have been dealt with. (Check works like that of Colin Hemer's) I also believe it is Robert Stein who has dealt with the issue of the Galatian visits and Paul's account. You need some more up-to-date info on Acts. Also, writings of the time could often be anonymous. Our names for them come from the ANF.

From what I can tell, all the gospels were written after Paul’s letters and were authored by followers of Paul. Surely we don’t have any manuscript dating to 62 A.D.? I was under the impression that the manuscripts we do have are essentially –alleged - copies of earlier manuscripts and then the older ones get destroyed, particularly by Herr Eusebius (260-340 AD). Thus, we have only much later, probably post-320 AD, manuscript copies as the basis for assumptions about the dating of the original? And the dating is based on the content of the writing and also references to the writing from other contemporary manuscripts?

And it's based on what is going on historically at the time. The Book of Acts never mentions the execution of Paul or the destruction of Jerusalem for instance. As for textual criticism, you need to look at that a bit also. We have more than 25,000 documents we can use and even without those, we can find nearly the entirety of the NT in the ANF alone. Most documents don't even come close to that, and yet their basic authenticity is never called into question.

As for Acts 9 ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PY3.HTM ), I don’t believe a word of this account. Why would Paul – a Pharisee - go to the High Priest – a Sadducee - for permission to arrest Jews outside of Judaea (and his jurisdiction)? (I know Damascus isn’t In Syria). According to the footnote on the Vatican site, it says:

“Paul's experience was not visionary but was precipitated by the appearance of Jesus, as he insists in 1 Cor 15:8.”, which, when checked, says, “Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.”

This misses the point – what was his proof that Paul wasn’t a fruitcake? These are merely Paul’s own testimony. I will not take his word for it. Surely the early church didn’t accept this man based on this man’s own account of “visions”? And as for this claim that Jesus appeared to him, where is the corroboration of this in the gospels? And why did Jesus bother to bestow church authority on Peter, the first Pope, only for Peter’s teachings to be rejected by Jesus’ “newer” successor?

Bzzz. Sorry, but the basic historicity of Acts is why we believe the conversion of Paul as well as his testimony and that of the ANF under him. What's the proof Paul wasn't crazy? Read his letters. He is one of the most sound and logical thinkers of all time. Also, why should this appear in the gospels. The gospels are to tell us about the life of Christ and not what happened after Christ.

As for Paul’s credentials, I was only referring to his credentials as not being a liar. I know he claimed to be a Pharisee and student of Rabbi Gamaliel – but I won’t take his word for it. He shows himself to be a man who knew absolutely nothing about his own alleged religion. He rejected observance of the law, of circumcision and refraining from eating unlawful foods (enough on their own to make him a Hebrew apostate) and taught new beliefs that the people of Israel had never heard from Moses, such as the trinity. Clearly, a man who preaches people to reject observance of the law, is most definitely and unequivocally a disbeliever in the Torah.

Nope. Paul held a great esteem for it. Tell me, what was the purpose of the epistles? Was it not to show the proper interpretation of the OT in light of the work of Christ? When the Messiah came, could we not expect a change? All you've shown is that Paul changed after his conversion. You have not shown any lack of a love for the Law. Paul is immersed in it in the epistles.

By the way, since you have a problem with the Trinity, why did the Jews later form a teaching about Metatron?

However, everything I just typed is irrelevant, because I’m not even aware of any proof that this man existed, except for his own claim that he existed. But since his claim to have existed, didn’t exist until the 4th century AD, we may assume that he didn’t exist. After all, most people who exist claim to have existed do so whilst they exist.

Yours Sincerely,

Sevivon

Where are you getting this fourth century thing? Check the ANF sometime.

[Sevivon1913]

Then let us examine your claims...



Remsberg was a 19th century source, so this is a bit outdated. We've made many discoveries since then. First off, many of these historical accuracies have been dealt with. (Check works like that of Colin Hemer's) I also believe it is Robert Stein who has dealt with the issue of the Galatian visits and Paul's account. You need some more up-to-date info on Acts. Also, writings of the time could often be anonymous. Our names for them come from the ANF.



And it's based on what is going on historically at the time. The Book of Acts never mentions the execution of Paul or the destruction of Jerusalem for instance. As for textual criticism, you need to look at that a bit also. We have more than 25,000 documents we can use and even without those, we can find nearly the entirety of the NT in the ANF alone. Most documents don't even come close to that, and yet their basic authenticity is never called into question.



Bzzz. Sorry, but the basic historicity of Acts is why we believe the conversion of Paul as well as his testimony and that of the ANF under him. What's the proof Paul wasn't crazy? Read his letters. He is one of the most sound and logical thinkers of all time. Also, why should this appear in the gospels. The gospels are to tell us about the life of Christ and not what happened after Christ.



Nope. Paul held a great esteem for it. Tell me, what was the purpose of the epistles? Was it not to show the proper interpretation of the OT in light of the work of Christ? When the Messiah came, could we not expect a change? All you've shown is that Paul changed after his conversion. You have not shown any lack of a love for the Law. Paul is immersed in it in the epistles.

By the way, since you have a problem with the Trinity, why did the Jews later form a teaching about Metatron?



Where are you getting this fourth century thing? Check the ANF sometime.

- I seriously doubt anything NEW has been FOUND during the 20th century that would make the Acts of the Apostles and Galatians somehow agree with each other. Did they find a new manuscript that somehow shows BOTH were right? Or do you mean someone has come up with a new theory (i.e. excuse), because that is useless.

- Do we even know when the Ante-Nicene Fathers were written? Probably in the 4th Century, like everything else. NO PHYSICALLY EXISTING TEXT of Christianity dates to before the 4th Century CE. Any claims of a text being a "COPY" of an original from the 1st or 2nd century CE is based on conjecture. Unless of course you have a manuscript that dates to the 1st century - and has been carbon-dated by independent tests - in which case I'll accept such things existed. From what I see, nobody can date the Ante-Nicene Fathers in any specific way, without building guesses based on guesses which were based on other guesses.

- Saying the author of the Acts of the Apostles is some sort of genius historian is madness. It contains all sorts of silly "miracles"...by that argument, you could rationalise that Zeus and the olympian Gods are the true faith because Homer was a brilliant historian. Infact, Homer WAS a brilliant historian compared to the Acts of the Apostles author. He gave so many historically accurate details about Greek culture. Ignoring all the "miracles", the book is hardly an accurate depiction of 1st Century Hebrew culture. Calling a man who had a "vision" from God "sound and logical" is not what a psychiatrist would say.

- Paul taught people that they didn't need to follow the law. They didn't need to be circumcised. They didn't need to follow the Rabbinical authorities that were given authority by God. They now had to worship a man. They now had a whole collection of NEW beliefs that didn't agree with Torah, such as the trinity and the divinity of a man (or the manhood of a god).

- The Messiah will not bring any new teaching. It's a crime - punishable by DEATH - to deceive God's children. One of the messiah's roles is to bring the whole world to worship the God of Israel and to obey the Torah. Paul taught we had to go through a mediary to speak to God, that God was some sort of 3 in 1 freakshow, and he definately taught against following the law (as pointless, even, despite the fact that GOD wrote it).

- Jews never believed in a second God or a mediary.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

- I seriously doubt anything NEW has been FOUND during the 20th century that would make the Acts of the Apostles and Galatians somehow agree with each other. Did they find a new manuscript that somehow shows BOTH were right? Or do you mean someone has come up with a new theory (i.e. excuse), because that is useless.

I'm sorry Sev, but you have to be completely ignorant of biblical archaeology to make a statement like this. There have been several new findings in archaeology that confirm the book of Acts. Go to the archaeology forum and ask about them.

As for the new theory, I gave you a name. It's Robert Stein. Go check it out. Of course, if you're really not interested in truth, you won't. Ignorance is bliss.

- Do we even know when the Ante-Nicene Fathers were written? Probably in the 4th Century, like everything else. NO PHYSICALLY EXISTING TEXT of Christianity dates to before the 4th Century CE. Any claims of a text being a "COPY" of an original from the 1st or 2nd century CE is based on conjecture. Unless of course you have a manuscript that dates to the 1st century - and has been carbon-dated by independent tests - in which case I'll accept such things existed. From what I see, nobody can date the Ante-Nicene Fathers in any specific way, without building guesses based on guesses which were based on other guesses.

Just a couple of days ago, you didn't even know who the ANF were. Now you're claiming to be an authority on when we date their writings? What nonsense. These statements show no understanding of textual criticism or biblical archaeology. We do have manuscripts dating from far earlier. Again, I recommend checking our archaeology forum. Oh yes. The thing is that when people tell you truth there, you need to accept it instead of pretending to be an authority on what you know nothing about again.

- Saying the author of the Acts of the Apostles is some sort of genius historian is madness. It contains all sorts of silly "miracles"...by that argument, you could rationalise that Zeus and the olympian Gods are the true faith because Homer was a brilliant historian. Infact, Homer WAS a brilliant historian compared to the Acts of the Apostles author. He gave so many historically accurate details about Greek culture. Ignoring all the "miracles", the book is hardly an accurate depiction of 1st Century Hebrew culture. Calling a man who had a "vision" from God "sound and logical" is not what a psychiatrist would say.

The following is said in jest for all concerned as I know Sevivon claims to be of the Jewish persuasion.

The writing of the Torah is obviously false. It could contain some historically accurate data, but it is loaded with silly miracles all throughout. If we accept the Torah as valid, we might as well accept the stories of the gods in Homer as valid? Calling a man who claims God spoke to him in a burning bush "sound and logical" is not what a psychiatrist would say.

Paul taught people that they didn't need to follow the law. They didn't need to be circumcised. They didn't need to follow the Rabbinical authorities that were given authority by God. They now had to worship a man. They now had a whole collection of NEW beliefs that didn't agree with Torah, such as the trinity and the divinity of a man (or the manhood of a god).

Sev. You're too clueless on the Trinity for us to go there at this point, though you could try your luck in unorthodox theology. Furthermore, there would be naturally some changes in belief when Messiah came. Might I point out to you that Abraham who did not have the law was declared righteous? Examine Paul's arguments in Galatians and other epistles. They're just as valid today as they were then.

The Messiah will not bring any new teaching. It's a crime - punishable by DEATH - to deceive God's children. One of the messiah's roles is to bring the whole world to worship the God of Israel and to obey the Torah. Paul taught we had to go through a mediary to speak to God, that God was some sort of 3 in 1 freakshow, and he definately taught against following the law (as pointless, even, despite the fact that GOD wrote it).

- Jews never believed in a second God or a mediary.

Alright Sev. I'm going to go throw you for a loop here.

Go see what Philo said about the logos and go see who Metatron was.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

I just wanted to post a reference link for Sevivon to the earliest fragment of a copy of the gospel of John. It is dated to the first half of the second century (perhaps AD 125) - Also note it was found in Egypt showing that Christianity had spread that far by the early second century.

Since the Gospel of John is thought to be the LAST Gospel to be written, that means that all of the Gospels were written first century.

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

[themuzicman]

Hi,

Could someone please tell me why Christians believe in the Apostle Paul? He doesn't appear to have given any proof of his credentials and his only knowledge of 'Jesus Christ' came from visions. I'm also aware that the original disciples of Christ were opposed to Paul and rejected ideas of the divinity of Christ and they accepted Torah (so presumably there must be a reason you reject the testimony of the disciples and instead follow the teachings of a man who never met Christ).

Yours Sincerely,

Sevivon1913
Clearly Peter was convinced:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul's writings are equated with the rest of the Scriptures.... QED


Michael

[Sevivon1913]

I just wanted to post a reference link for Sevivon to the earliest fragment of a copy of the gospel of John. It is dated to the first half of the second century (perhaps AD 125) - Also note it was found in Egypt showing that Christianity had spread that far by the early second century.

Since the Gospel of John is thought to be the LAST Gospel to be written, that means that all of the Gospels were written first century.

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

Nick, I knew the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I didn't know your abbreviation "ANF". There is no scriptural proof that the coming of the Messiah will lead to new teachings and a break-away from the law. What IS known, is that the Messiah will have such an effect that the law will be innate within people's hearts (but they won't stop obeying the law).

Thanks for that Sparko. You don't happen to know "which" parts of the verses it contains, do you? I mean, does it contain the name "Jesus" or "Pilate" ? If so, I'll accept that there IS historic proof that Jesus existed. Thanks.

"it may with some confidence be dated" doesn't sound too confident to me. I wonder if they used scientific method to date it, or they "deduced" it based on the content and in comparison to other manuscripts (which doesn't convince me one bit).

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Sev, I won't get into any debate here since it is Intro to Christianity (Q&A). I will just give some more information for you here to do with as you wish.

quick answer. maybe.

It is a fragment of the verses in John that contain both names. John 18:31-33 on one side and John 18:37-38 on the other. it is the part where Pilate interviews Jesus.

John 18:31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." 32This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"

37Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world--to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." 38Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"


But it is a fragment and I don't know if the exact names are part of the fragment or not (missing holes). But what is there lines up exactly with other manuscripts we do have (thats how they know what part it is of the gospel of John). So the evidence is that even if the actual names is not on the fragment that the piece is identical to other manuscripts (many dating to the second century also) that do have the names on them.


Also if you want some more NT manuscript evidence from very early on, please read this page and explore the fragments:

http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html

(one of the fragments of Matthew date to between AD 30 and AD 70 and does mention Jesus as an abbreviation it says.)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You people are being too generous to even answer the OP. This is supposed to be a Q and A section, but the OP is visibly loaded with anti-Christian assumptions.

[A Cup of No]

Nick, I knew the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I didn't know your abbreviation "ANF". There is no scriptural proof that the coming of the Messiah will lead to new teachings and a break-away from the law. What IS known, is that the Messiah will have such an effect that the law will be innate within people's hearts (but they won't stop obeying the law).



Sev, I think you are correct that the Messiah will have such an effect that the law will be innate within people's hearts. Anyhow, I hope you would agree that the two greatest commandments are "Love God with all your heart", and "Love your neighbor as yourself." In these two commandments, the whole law hangs and is summed up. In the coming of the Messiah Jesus, through his death and resurrection, the Spirit has been poured out and now allows people to obey the law written within their hearts, the law of love. The Torah could not curb men's sinfulness and evil, only point it out. But now that Messiah has come, man has the law written on his heart through the Spirit of God, and they obey it now through the Spirit's power. In fact, the Messiah said himself that his disciples should be known for their love for one another, the fulfillment of the law (John 14).

Now, you say the law will be written, but they won't stop obeying the law. By this I am sure you mean the things you mentioned in a post above, mainly circumcision and unlawful food. Unfortunately, you fail to read Torah with its intended purpose in mind, which is the ultimate and climactic fulfillment of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Messiah came to restore Israel, and thereby fulfill God's promise to Abraham, the blessing of all nations (these are Gentile nations). With the joining of all people under the Messiah and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, cultural markers like circumcision and food laws are unnecessary and now unpleasing to God. Israel no longer needs to be kept from pagan nations who would corrupt her, because God has brought the Messiah from Israel. All foods are acceptable, just as all people are now acceptable to God.

Circumcision is no longer necessary, and it could never do more than condemn people. By signing up to obey the law in the area of circumcision, you have signed up to obey the whole law, something you cannot do. Those who obey the law naturally without circumcision are better off than those who are circumcised but cannot keep the law! What is necessary now is circumcion of the heart by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

So yes, the coming of the Messiah has allowed people to obey the law how God now intends because his purposes have been and are being accomplished through the work of his Messiah, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of God and Christ.