Problems with the Apostle Paul

[Geezer]

We have noted in other posts and topics that Jesus is alleged to have said the law would last forever, but Paul proclaimed the law had been nailed to the cross. I've listed a number of problems with Act's account of how Paul came to know Christ and supposedly obtained the authority to contradict Jesus and created a new religion

Jesus was a Jew. That is not in dispute. As a Jew, and presumably the Son of God, Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 5: 17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

Paul is quoted as saying in Colossians 2: 13 When you were dead in your trespasses and in the un-circumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross! 15 And having disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.…

Paul is clearly contradicting Jesus. It seems Christians are willing to assume Jesus personally gave Paul the authority to create a new religion and a new teaching, but did he?

A close examination of the facts will question this assumption. Paul’s authority to speak for God/Jesus seems to be based primarily on his alleged Damascus road epiphany where the story says he met the risen Christ face to face. It’s an amazing story and clearly the cornerstone of the Book of Acts and it is the primary reason people are willing to believe Paul was given his authority directly from Christ, but did he really, and more importantly did this event even occur?

Here are some reasons why that is a relevant question. When historians analyze this story there are a lot of problems with it. 1. The Romans executed Jesus because the Jews did not have the authority to arrest, imprison, or execute anyone. Therefore, they had to convince the Romans to do it for them. This is common historical knowledge. 2. The Sanhedrin simply did not have the authority to grant Paul warrants arresting anyone, let alone imprisoning them. 3. Damascus was not even a Roman providence at that time, so any warrants issued by the Romans in Judea wouldn’t be valid in Damascus, let alone an illegal warrant issued by the Sanhedrin. That would be like the FBI arresting a fugitive in Canada for crimes committed in the U.S. The FBI has no authority to arrest anyone in Canada. Likewise, the Romans had no authority to arrest anyone in Damascus.

If this event actually happened how could it possibly have not been the centre piece of Paul’s teaching and authority? If Paul actually experienced such an event that would have to be included in every letter he wrote, why would it not? Better yet, how could it not? I met Jesus face to face would certainly had to have been Paul’s opening line or initial words, how could they not be? 4. Here’s the problem, outside the book of Acts that story doesn’t appear to exist anywhere else in history. Even more perplexing, Paul NEVER mentions this event in any of the writings attributed to him. How would such a thing even be possible, if it really happened?

5. Paul’s version of how he got his authority is very different. Paul says he obtained his authority through the study of scripture (Hebrew Bible) and though dreams and visions. Paul says nothing about a personal face to face encounter with the risen Jesus.

Religious Historians, not apologist, unambiguously believe, for all the reasons cited, that the book of Acts is a purely fictional account of the early history of the emerging Christian faith. It is probably second century writing. As I’ve noted in other posts many historians are convinced that Paul was either a fictional character or his writings were edited or completely rewritten by Marcion & Simon and their followers in the second century. If historians are correct then Marcion, a Gnostic, created Christianity not Paul. And Christianity is clearly a Gnostic religion. History exhibits clearly that the Gnostics and the Orthodox (Later to become the Catholic Church) were bitter enemies and were fighting for dominance at this time in history. Even today Paul is a minor figure in the Catholic Church, their main guy is Peter.

6. Now, not to lose the point. After a closer inspection of Paul’s shaky credentials an honest person would have to say Paul’s authority to contradict Jesus is on very shaky ground at best. Jesus said the law is forever. Paul said it was nailed to the cross, so who’s right? It seems clear that Christianity had human origins not a Devine one.

[Geezer]

A Jewish lady I know also offered this information.

Certain red flags on Paul's information - or Act's information really - do show up.

Paul is depicted as being sent by the Sanhedrin to arrest sectarians - but he claims in his letters to be a Pharisee.

The Sanhedrin (besides not having actual authority to arrest anybody) was Sadduceean. It is unlikely - HIGHLY unlikely - that they would have hired or employed a Pharisee in a position of responsibility.

Paul is also depicted as claiming Roman citizenship - which in those days was a huge deal and not easy to get. Another red flag - a Pharisee was unlikely to do that.

He is said to have been a student of Gamaliel - a Pharisee - yet he does not seem to know (or at least, consider) some of Gamaliel's teachings.

He is released by the Roman-appointed governor - again, this says 'Sadducee', not 'Pharisee'.

Many things like that, in Acts, says 'Paul is a Roman sympathizing, Sadducean client' yet Paul in his letters says he is a Pharisee of Pharisees. * (he also says he will lie to serve his purposes of course).

It is as if whoever wrote Acts (generally accepted to be the same guy who wrote Luke) doesn't really know the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees.

It seems clear whoever wrote Acts knew little or nothing about the Jewish religion. This is why historians classify the Book of Acts as a fictional account of the early church history.

 

* This statement was incorrectly attributed to Paul. Eusebius, an early church father, wrote this not Paul.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Thanks for posting these things, Geezer.

 

My only contention is with this:

 

On 7/31/2017 at 3:23 PM, Geezer said:

(he also says he will lie to serve his purposes of course)

 

I suspect that this is alluding to Romans 3:7, which is often quoted by skeptics to claim that Paul condoned lying. However, that is not at all what the verse is saying. The author was quoting another's argument and then in the very next verse he condemned those who would argue such. Thus, the author was not condoning lying.

 

Other than that, good points.

 

[Geezer]

1 hour ago, Citsonga said:

 

Thanks for posting these things, Geezer.

 

My only contention is with this:

 

 

I suspect that this is alluding to Romans 3:7, which is often quoted by skeptics to claim that Paul condoned lying. However, that is not at all what the verse is saying. The author was quoting another's argument and then in the very next verse he condemned those who would argue such. Thus, the author was not condoning lying.

 

Other than that, good points.

 

 

Thank you. I am uncertain about your reference to lying. The only person I remember historians referenced saying lying was acceptable as long as it was for the better good was Eusebius not Paul. Can you be more specific about that reference? 

 

Additionally, based primarily on Robert Price's book The Amazing Collossial Apostle, I believe it's possible Paul was only a literary character and therefore didn't write anything. If, however, Paul was a real person then the evidence suggests his Epistles were severely edited by Marcion & Simon, & possibly even rewritten so that they reflected their Gnostic beliefs. It isn't likely we will ever know for sure though. 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

Thank you. I am uncertain about your reference to lying. The only person I remember historians referenced saying lying was acceptable as long as it was for the better good was Eusebius not Paul. Can you be more specific about that reference? 

 

Well, I was quoting you. It's in your second post. Here's the full paragraph:

 

On 7/31/2017 at 3:23 PM, Geezer said:

Many things like that, in Acts, says 'Paul is a Roman sympathizing, Sadducean client' yet Paul in his letters says he is a Pharisee of Pharisees (he also says he will lie to serve his purposes of course).

 

[Geezer]

25 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

Well, I was quoting you. It's in your second post. Here's the full paragraph:

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

Well, I was quoting you. It's in your second post. Here's the full paragraph:

 

 

 

Thank you. I knew that wasn't familiar to me  & I knew I had no memory of writing that.  I noted at the beginning of that post that a Jewish friend of mine was adding a Jewish perspective of Paul. In other words she wrote that but I apparently didn't make that clear. I'm not sure why she added that thought, but I'll ask her. I didn't notice it until you brought it to my attention. You're very observant. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

37 minutes ago, Geezer said:

Thank you. I knew that wasn't familiar to me  & I knew I had no memory of writing that.  I noted at the beginning of that post that a Jewish friend of mine was adding a Jewish perspective of Paul. In other words she wrote that but I apparently didn't make that clear. I'm not sure why she added that thought, but I'll ask her. I didn't notice it until you brought it to my attention. You're very observant. 

 

Ok, that makes sense. I'd taken it as though the information came from her but not that it was a direct quotation from her. Anyway, yeah, find out if she was alluding to Romans 3:7, as it seems to be to me. If so, then I disagree with that assessment. That's just one little flaw, though, and everything else makes sense as far as I can tell.

 

[rjn]

Quote

History exhibits clearly that the Gnostics and the Orthodox (Later to become the Catholic Church) were bitter enemies and were fighting for dominance at this time in history. Even today Paul is a minor figure in the Catholic Church, their main guy is Peter.

 

An interesting remark. The Catholic Church, as an institution that has spent much of its history focusing on a worldly, mundane struggle for power and dominance, can be seen as demiurgical, i.e: The very embodiment of what the gnostics opposed.

[LogicalFallacy]

Brilliant post Geezer. Thank you.

 

One question: Historians generally agree that Acts of the Apostles was written by the same author who penned The Gospel of Luke. Luke is believed to have been written around AD 70-90. This poses a problem for Acts being written in the 2nd century.

 

But however it might explain why some details in Act's differ from Luke if there were different writers.

 

Another point. Paul apparently persecuted early Christians, catching them, and stoning them. This is in Judea. Would Romans allow this sort of mob behaviour back in the day? Or would have they put a stop to internal religious conflicts for fear of destabilisation?  Or were they only concerned with direct threats against the Roman empire?

[Geezer]

3 hours ago, Citsonga said:

 

Ok, that makes sense. I'd taken it as though the information came from her but not that it was a direct quotation from her. Anyway, yeah, find out if she was alluding to Romans 3:7, as it seems to be to me. If so, then I disagree with that assessment. That's just one little flaw, though, and everything else makes sense as far as I can tell.

 

 

She just got back with me. It appears she was thinking about Eusebius statement & attributed it to Paul. Again, thanks for pointing that out. She was raised Church of Christ but converted to Judaism a long, long, time ago. She is a great resource because she is very knowledgable about both religions.

[Geezer]

48 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Brilliant post Geezer. Thank you.

 

One question: Historians generally agree that Acts of the Apostles was written by the same author who penned The Gospel of Luke. Luke is believed to have been written around AD 70-90. This poses a problem for Acts being written in the 2nd century.

 

But however it might explain why some details in Act's differ from Luke if there were different writers.

 

Another point. Paul apparently persecuted early Christians, catching them, and stoning them. This is in Judea. Would Romans allow this sort of mob behaviour back in the day? Or would have they put a stop to internal religious conflicts for fear of destabilisation?  Or were they only concerned with direct threats against the Roman empire?

 

The dating of the gospels is an educated guess. Some historians date them in the late first century, but others date them as late as the first quarter of the second century. The actual authors of all the gospels are unknown. The author of Luke & Acts does not seem to very familiar with Judaism & even appears to be anti-Jewish.

 

Roman did not tolerate any form of rebellion or anything else that threatened their authority. All religions apparently were tolerated as long as Caesar was accepted as a God too. Rome had a policy of incorporating conquered countries & cultures religions as one of their many religions. All religions were welcome in Rome as long as Ceasar was accepted as one of their Gods.

 

The Jews, obviously,  would not accept Caesar as God & that eventually led to the distraction of the Temple in 70 AD. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

The dating of the gospels is an educated guess. Some historians date them in the late first century, but others date them as late as the first quarter of the second century. The actual authors of all the gospels are unknown. The author of Luke & Acts does not seem to very familiar with Judaism & even appears to be anti-Jewish.

 

Roman did not tolerate any form of rebellion or anything else that threatened their authority. All religions apparently were tolerated as long as Caesar was accepted as a God too. Rome had a policy of incorporating conquered countries & cultures religions as one of their many religions. All religions were welcome in Rome as long as Ceasar was accepted as one of their Gods.

 

The Jews, obviously,  would not accept Caesar as God & that eventually led to the distraction of the Temple in 70 AD. 

 

So therefore the idea that Paul was persecuting Christians and executing them in the name of the Jewish authorities is fallacious - that's what you are getting at?

[Geezer]

14 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

So therefore the idea that Paul was persecuting Christians and executing them in the name of the Jewish authorities is fallacious - that's what you are getting at?

 

Yes. It seems the entire book of Acts is a fictional account of the early church history. Robert Price notes no evidence has been found that any of Paul's letters were received by the churches that he supposedly wrote to. Price's book the Amazing Collossial Apostle presents the possibility Paul was a literary character not a real person. Price suggests Marcion & Simon created Christianity & were the actual authors of Paul's epistles, or at the very least edited & rewrote them.

 

The early Catholic Church considered Paul, Marcion, & Simon the biggest heretics of all time. Paul is still a minor figure in the Catholic Church. 

 

 

[mwc]

17 hours ago, Citsonga said:

 

Ok, that makes sense. I'd taken it as though the information came from her but not that it was a direct quotation from her. Anyway, yeah, find out if she was alluding to Romans 3:7, as it seems to be to me. If so, then I disagree with that assessment. That's just one little flaw, though, and everything else makes sense as far as I can tell.

 

     I was thinking about 1 Corinthians 9 where he talks about acting like whatever group he was with in order to win converts from that group.  To me that sounds like this sort of lying for the greater good since he's clearly not being honest with those people about who he or what he is or what his purpose is and doesn't care as long as it works.

 

     This is just what an undercover, covert, double-agent, or spy does.  Sleazy salesman even.  Whatever word you want to use.  None of them are along the lines of a straight-shooter or truly honest guy though.

 

          mwc

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

21 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I was thinking about 1 Corinthians 9 where he talks about acting like whatever group he was with in order to win converts from that group.  To me that sounds like this sort of lying for the greater good since he's clearly not being honest with those people about who he or what he is or what his purpose is and doesn't care as long as it works.

 

     This is just what an undercover, covert, double-agent, or spy does.  Sleazy salesman even.  Whatever word you want to use.  None of them are along the lines of a straight-shooter or truly honest guy though.

 

          mwc

 

 

I always saw that passage as a matter of accommodating others' traditions rather than lying. In reality, it would depend on how it's implemented, of course.

 

[mwc]

2 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I always saw that passage as a matter of accommodating others' traditions rather than lying. In reality, it would depend on how it's implemented, of course.

 

     Right, it does depend on what they mean.

 

     For example, if I'm in a discussion and I "become" like the person I'm talking to, in order to get into their head, then that may not be a problem.  All I'm trying to do is understand them after all so we can better connect.  But that's it.

 

     He says he had "become all things to all people" or something along those lines.  Maybe that means accommodating people but reads differently.  Especially since it's in a passage about preaching and whatnot.  It seems more like presenting yourself like one of those people when you were around them in order to have a better chance of them being receptive to your message.  Maybe it's more how politicians do while campaigning?

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

14 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

Yes. It seems the entire book of Acts is a fictional account of the early church history. Robert Price notes no evidence has been found that any of Paul's letters were received by the churches that he supposedly wrote to. Price's book the Amazing Collossial Apostle presents the possibility Paul was a literary character not a real person. Price suggests Marcion & Simon created Christianity & were the actual authors of Paul's epistles, or at the very least edited & rewrote them.

 

The early Catholic Church considered Paul, Marcion, & Simon the biggest heretics of all time. Paul is still a minor figure in the Catholic Church. 

 

 

     There's no evidence of it officially but Philo seems to advocate that zealots, um "deal," with people that they find to be problematic no matter what in his Special Laws (he doesn't really say much).

 

     We do have pretty good idea that zealots existed.  If they were officially sanctioned and were used to get rid of "problems" we probably can't know but I doubt.  This sounds like a great story to validate the whole mess.  Sort of a neo-zealotry movement perhaps?  Odds are it was just a bunch of people were zealots and other wrote about it and maybe advocated for it, until it got out of hand, then I imagine they denounced it but that genie was out of the bottle by then.

 

          mwc

 

[Geezer]

To offer some substance to your thoughts, Dr. Richard Carrier noted there is approximately a 100-125 year blackout period where documents were lost or destroyed that has severely hampered historians efforts to piece all of this together. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Another thing Carrier has said is that Acts is later than Josephus because Acts gets the order of two revolutionaries wrong (in Gamaliel's speech). The chronology in Josephus is correct, but Josephus changes the order of presentation. The author of Luke just repeats the same two revolutionaries but gives their chronological order as though it was Josephus' order of PRESENTATION. 

 

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

 

This Christian critic of Carrier does allow that "Luke" could have been writing in the early second century:

 

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1328/did-luke-use-josephus-as-a-source

 

[Geezer]

7 hours ago, ficino said:

Another thing Carrier has said is that Acts is later than Josephus because Acts gets the order of two revolutionaries wrong (in Gamaliel's speech). The chronology in Josephus is correct, but Josephus changes the order of presentation. The author of Luke just repeats the same two revolutionaries but gives their chronological order as though it was Josephus' order of PRESENTATION. 

 

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

 

This Christian critic of Carrier does allow that "Luke" could have been writing in the early second century:

 

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1328/did-luke-use-josephus-as-a-source

 

 

Thanks for the links. Interesting read. 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, ficino said:

Another thing Carrier has said is that Acts is later than Josephus because Acts gets the order of two revolutionaries wrong (in Gamaliel's speech). The chronology in Josephus is correct, but Josephus changes the order of presentation. The author of Luke just repeats the same two revolutionaries but gives their chronological order as though it was Josephus' order of PRESENTATION. 

 

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

 

This Christian critic of Carrier does allow that "Luke" could have been writing in the early second century:

 

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1328/did-luke-use-josephus-as-a-source

 

 

How about addressing the book to Theophilus, possibly the second century Theophilus of Alexandria.

 

Quote

Introduction

1 In my first book, Theophilus, I wrote about what Yeshua began to do and teach. This included everything from the beginning of his life ² until the day he was taken to heaven. Before he was taken to heaven, he gave instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles, whom he had chosen.