S
- Status
H
hellopeople
Guest
Why visit Mary? He did visit Peter and other church fathers.
C
crazzeto
Guest
We have no record as to whether or not he did visit the Virgin Mary, perhaps he did. Just because he didn’t write about it in his Epistles doesn’t mean it never happend. Mary lived wtih St. John, yet St. John never put quill to paper about it.
You can’t refute the inescapable historical evidence, just because Paul never put quill to paper about having met the Holy Mother.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I would not call you evidence “inescapable” or even “historical” evidence.
No secular writings of that time mention this guy. And he claims so many connections to so many people, we would expect it would have resulted in a mention.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Your argument is ludicrus, there is a ton of writing supporting Paul. More over, the writing we have dates back closer to Paul’s time than so called “secular sources” can trace back the likes of Playto and Socrates and many other people we just accept blindly.
I’m sorry but your arguments are comming from a pure denialism angle. I challenge you to present any evidence which contradicts the existance of Paul.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Did you mention any secular writings to support Paul at all?
I missed it if you did. Josephus had nothing to say about him, Pliny, nothing to say… Many others…
Can you come up with a single one outside of your text?
D
davidv
Guest
Do you have any secular writing from the period that deny Paul’s existance?
Arguements from silence aren’t very compelling.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Paul was probably living and studying in Tarsus during the time of Jesus’ ministry. If he resided in Jerusalem during Jesus’ time, he probably would have still been a student under Gamaliel and would not “rise up” against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was over 30, and thus was a teacher. Saul, being a student, would not be able to teach and preach authoritatively yet.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Why should there be secular writings? It seems that when Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Galatians, to the Colossians, and to the Thessalonians, they wouldn’t have held them up to read in their liturgies if Paul never existed.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
D
diggerdomer
Guest
There’s no way to authoritatively claim that Paul started persecuting Christians at least 10 years after Jesus’ death. Actually, the opposite is claimed by most Catholic Scripture scholars, i.e. Paul’s conversion happened in the 30s.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I believe the stoning of Stephen is said to have occurred in the late 30’s, roughly 37-38AD? If Jesus died in 30AD, then there is a 7 or 8 year gap.
P
Poco
Guest
Hello, StrawberryJam! 
While I don’t like to cite Wikipedia as a “reliable source”, this article has a lengthy list of references you can check out.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to my “New Jerome Biblical Commentary” at the moment. If I get a chance, I’ll try to take a look at it later today and post something about it.
I think so. You may want to look at this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
While I don’t like to cite Wikipedia as a “reliable source”, this article has a lengthy list of references you can check out.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to my “New Jerome Biblical Commentary” at the moment. If I get a chance, I’ll try to take a look at it later today and post something about it.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Honestly I find Jam’s arguments rather disengenous, they have nothing, nothing at all to support thier presuppisition that Paul never existed. There for, they are manufacturing an argument by claiming “there are no secular sources to prove his existance”.
This is a red harring, Jam is ignoring the fact that there is more good evidence to support Paul, which exists closer to the time of Paul, to substantiate his existance than there is for most of Acient histories that Jam likely accepts with out batting an eye.
Jam’s entire argument is pure denialism, just keep denying it until the denail is true. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Oh, I understand that, but I’m willing to give our good StrawberryJam the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul.
But, consider that others may read this thread who wonder the same thing. Even if Jam’s doubts are disingenuous, there may be the idle reader who’s doubts are genuine.
Bring forth your arguments and points to those readers, my brother! It’s as simple as that.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I started thinking about Paul after reading this from another site.
Here is what got me re-thinking Paul.
In ACTS, it is said that Paul hears the voice of Jesus say:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you, this kicking
against the goads [pros kentra laktizein]” (ACTS 26:15).
In the Bacchae, which is approximately five hundred years older than ACTS,
the situation is parallel. Dionysis, the persected God, says to King
Pentheus, his persecutor:
“You disregard my words of warning… and kick against the goads [pros
kentra laktizoimi]” (line 794).
It is highly probable that ‘Luke’ has ‘borrowed’ this from the Bacchae,
because ‘Luke’ retains the plural form of the noun ‘kentra,’ which, while
maintaining the meter in the Bacchae, seems out of place in ACTS.
‘Luke’ also apparently plagiarized the Bacchae when constructing the
jail-break scenes of Peter and Paul. When Peter is imprisoned in Jerusalem,
an angel appears, saying:
“Quick! Get up… And the chains fell away from his wrists. [When they
appraoch the prison gate, it] opened for them of its own accord” (ACTS
12:8,10).
Similarly, when Paul and Silas are imprisoned in Phillipi, “all the doors
burst open and all the prisoners found their fetters unfastened” (ACTS
16:26).
Both scenarios seem to be derived from the Bacchae, where the persecuted
Maenads [followers of Dionysus] find that “The chains on their legs snap
apart …untouched by any human hand, the doors swing wide, opening of their
own accord” (lines 447-8).
Randel Helms observes that “it really is not surprising that this play
should have had such a lasting effect on Luke’s imagination; for it concerns
a young, persecuted and misunderstood deity, the son of Zeus and a mortal
woman (Semele)…” (Who Wrote the Gospels, 91).
Do historians of the first rate contradict themselves? Luke’s gospel
presents the ascension as occuring on the same day as the resurrection, on
the Emmaeus road. Acts, on the other hand, describes a forty-day period
seperating the resurrection and ascension. Why do all of the other NT books
fail to mention an ascension at all?
Luke’s chronology is confused. George Wells, in his “Historical Evidence for
Jesus,” observes:
“Luke is in such complete confusion over the chronolgy of events that
occurred in the first half of the first century as to suggest that he was
not close to them in time. In Acts 5, where the scene is Jerusalem about the
mid-30’s, Gamaliel reviews bygone Messianic risings and mentions that of
Theudas. But we know from Jospehus that Theuadas’ Messianic promises were
made when Fadus was procurator (AD 44-46) and so could not have been known
to Gamaliel at the time when he is represented as speaking. . . Gamaliel
continues by saying that, after Theudas, there was a Messianic uprising
under Judas the Galillean at the time of the census. Luke knows of only one
census, that under Quirinius (LK 2:1-2) of AD 6-- forty years before
Theudas. In his gospel Luke compounds the muddle by dating this census of AD
6 under Herod, who died in 4 BC” (“The Historical Evidence for Jesus,” 119).
So, I hope that clears up the reasons for my questions.
Here is what got me re-thinking Paul.
In ACTS, it is said that Paul hears the voice of Jesus say:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you, this kicking
against the goads [pros kentra laktizein]” (ACTS 26:15).
In the Bacchae, which is approximately five hundred years older than ACTS,
the situation is parallel. Dionysis, the persected God, says to King
Pentheus, his persecutor:
“You disregard my words of warning… and kick against the goads [pros
kentra laktizoimi]” (line 794).
It is highly probable that ‘Luke’ has ‘borrowed’ this from the Bacchae,
because ‘Luke’ retains the plural form of the noun ‘kentra,’ which, while
maintaining the meter in the Bacchae, seems out of place in ACTS.
‘Luke’ also apparently plagiarized the Bacchae when constructing the
jail-break scenes of Peter and Paul. When Peter is imprisoned in Jerusalem,
an angel appears, saying:
“Quick! Get up… And the chains fell away from his wrists. [When they
appraoch the prison gate, it] opened for them of its own accord” (ACTS
12:8,10).
Similarly, when Paul and Silas are imprisoned in Phillipi, “all the doors
burst open and all the prisoners found their fetters unfastened” (ACTS
16:26).
Both scenarios seem to be derived from the Bacchae, where the persecuted
Maenads [followers of Dionysus] find that “The chains on their legs snap
apart …untouched by any human hand, the doors swing wide, opening of their
own accord” (lines 447-8).
Randel Helms observes that “it really is not surprising that this play
should have had such a lasting effect on Luke’s imagination; for it concerns
a young, persecuted and misunderstood deity, the son of Zeus and a mortal
woman (Semele)…” (Who Wrote the Gospels, 91).
Do historians of the first rate contradict themselves? Luke’s gospel
presents the ascension as occuring on the same day as the resurrection, on
the Emmaeus road. Acts, on the other hand, describes a forty-day period
seperating the resurrection and ascension. Why do all of the other NT books
fail to mention an ascension at all?
Luke’s chronology is confused. George Wells, in his “Historical Evidence for
Jesus,” observes:
“Luke is in such complete confusion over the chronolgy of events that
occurred in the first half of the first century as to suggest that he was
not close to them in time. In Acts 5, where the scene is Jerusalem about the
mid-30’s, Gamaliel reviews bygone Messianic risings and mentions that of
Theudas. But we know from Jospehus that Theuadas’ Messianic promises were
made when Fadus was procurator (AD 44-46) and so could not have been known
to Gamaliel at the time when he is represented as speaking. . . Gamaliel
continues by saying that, after Theudas, there was a Messianic uprising
under Judas the Galillean at the time of the census. Luke knows of only one
census, that under Quirinius (LK 2:1-2) of AD 6-- forty years before
Theudas. In his gospel Luke compounds the muddle by dating this census of AD
6 under Herod, who died in 4 BC” (“The Historical Evidence for Jesus,” 119).
So, I hope that clears up the reasons for my questions.
B
BouncingBall
Guest
Well that’s what happens when you are trying to seek the LORD; the enemy has some websites just for you! Fun!
But Strawberry, check these out:
lookinguntojesus.net/ata20060730.htm
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0759.html
@Strawberry, Are you just surfing the 'net to find the Truth or are you in an RCIA program?
But Strawberry, check these out:
lookinguntojesus.net/ata20060730.htm
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0759.html
@Strawberry, Are you just surfing the 'net to find the Truth or are you in an RCIA program?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
While I am not in the RCIA program, I do have weekly (or sometimes more often) in person discussions with a priest who is excellent. I have hard copies of the CCC and a growing assortment of catholic books that are quite helpful. I also listen to a catholic radio program when I can. I am not ready to join the RCIA. The priest talked me into popping in to one session. The majority in attendance in that class are there because they are getting married to a catholic. None are starting off with no belief, all are converting from theism to catholicism. I would merely impair the progress they are making by attending IMHO. My questions are not related to objections to marian dogmas, or other typical hesitations that seem to be on the top of the list for them. At least my priest has accepted my reasons for not joining. We even go out to breakfast after Mass now and then. He’s that nice of a guy. Never a dull conversation with him.
R
Rolltide
Guest
StrawberryJam,
I don’t know if this helps or not, but I can tell you as a professional historian that there aren’t very many secular historians that doubt the existence of Paul. I would also mention that there is rather good evidence that his bones are genuinely buried in the tomb under the Vatican, although it would certainly be impossible to prove beyond a doubt.
I don’t know if this helps or not, but I can tell you as a professional historian that there aren’t very many secular historians that doubt the existence of Paul. I would also mention that there is rather good evidence that his bones are genuinely buried in the tomb under the Vatican, although it would certainly be impossible to prove beyond a doubt.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Thomas!
I really don’t know how the rumor got out that I doubt the existance of Paul.
I’m doubting his stories and claims he makes. Even worse now, it sounds like there has been some plagerism going on with the Bacchae. It predates the christian writings by 500 years and has some stunning parallels.
- Status