This is true, but we have ample evidence that the other Apostles were also driving forces.
The earliest writings we have from Paul mention the other apostles Apostles. Likely around 20 years after the death of Christ. For example, in the letter to the Galatians, Paul mentions Cephas and James. Here is what he says:
This shows that they had a common faith.
I wouldn’t say it that way. See Galatians 2 where he mentions the council of Jerusalem.
Paul presents this as a decision that was made together with the leaders of the church. I don’t see why we should not believe him.
That’s a big 300 year jump being made there and neglects all the church fathers that came in between. There were definitely controversies before Nicaea. And the documents from Paul were certainly primary in evidence. But the I think the Trinity is most clearly displayed in the Gospel of John, who shows no dependence on Paul’s writings.
That is pretty much the single biggest stretch I have ever come across. If these types of accusations are all that the anti-religion atheists can come up with then we have no fear of them causing too much trouble.
Or it could be possible that Paul’s conversion story was simply made up to give him/his cause more credibility.
This is important. We have Ignatius of Antioch and others with connection to John the Apostle; then we have the church at Rome with its dependency on Peter’s (and Paul’s) preaching. And then there are traditions about where the other apostles went.
I don’t know what that means.The truth is that Christianity was invented by the second Vatican council!
I ask again, why? Why would he join a cause that he had until then vehemently hate? Why would he intentionally add false doctrine to what he thought was already a bunch of false doctrines?
And I’ll reiterate again, maybe Paul never vehemently hated Christians/Christianity. Maybe that was cooked up to lend more credibility towards his movement.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but you aren’t reiterating because you didn’t technically say that. When I hear “Paul’s conversion” I think of when Paul had a vision of Christ, went blind and may or may not have fallen off his horse. You made a pretty big assumption that all of the earlier stuff would be naturally grouped in with the phrase. Anyway . …
The problem is that with your example is if someone were to pull that, it would only work if their supposed former non-belief was very private. Paul’s was not. He had a reputation for persecuting Christians. Acts 9 tells us that when Ananias was first asked to baptize Paul, his first reaction was basically “But Lord, I’ve heard about that guy. He hates our guts.” When Paul went back to Jerusalem, most of the disciples were afraid of him because, y’know, persecution. They were reacting to something that they had firsthand knowledge of.
How do you know that Paul’s was not? He may have never persecuted a single Christian and the story cooked up to lend credibility and to showcase the power of God and conversion.
Exactly. You’re using the Bible to prove itself. Circular reasoning.
Well… Not really at all. The Bible at that time wasn’t a single book that people read all in one sitting. It’s made up of many books by many different authors. Saying that Acts mentions Paul is really no different than finding that two historical records in a library mention George Washington. Saying it’s circular reasoning to use the Bible as a source is like saying it’s circular reasoning to use a library or an encyclopedia.
It was all written by the same movement.
Its prejudice to point out the fact that the books of the Bible were all written by Christians?Talk about prejudice!
God bless,
Ut
That would require everyone, including the non-Christians he knew before his conversion, to be in on it. Dozens or even hundreds of people would have to go along with something that flew in the face of public knowledge. Paul went around getting people thrown into prison, threatening people and even ask for (and receiving) approval from the high priest. These are public things that the general population would notice and remember. If he said he did these things but no one remembered him doing them, then surely somebody, particularly the Jews or some of Paul’s opponents within Christianity, would challenge him.
And what sources do you have? None, just a conspiracy theory backed only by “well maybe . . .”
