The Twelve Disciples created by the Jerusalem Church

[outhouse]

I have noted a few days ago that he states what he thinks without attribution. ..

Actually I have attributed evidence. It is ignored and hand waived off as not being relevant.


Pauls and Acts writing while not the best evidence, is still factual evidence even if it has to be put under a microscope to pull any credible knowledge from it.


I have posted wiki links showing some amount of persecution is the academic standard here.


The only REAL question here is WHO paid Paul and WHY?

[outhouse]

It would be good manners to apologise for your original posts if they can be misinterpreted rather than attack the reader for their comprehensive abilities, but maybe this isn’t the “done thing” on the internet.

Mike I'm sorry you feel the way you do about our exchange here.


From my perspective you seem to not comprehend what I'm writing from lack of contextual knowledge on the topic. I could be wrong but its not looking that way. You have also a few time made statements saying I said things I clearly did not.

Your the one going against academia here and have not once provided any source what so ever to support your position. That is fine and dandy, criticism is fine. It is however the level of certainty your placing on this said criticism where I have issue as it is unsupported.


If you have any "credible" sources I would love to see them.

[outhouse]

I have asked you to discuss the historicity of 2 Cor 11:24-25..

I do not need to. It is non sequitur here as it is only a small piece of the puzzle. I will address it though soon.


"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished" (Acts 22:4-5).


Do you have evidence or credible sources stating this is 100% fiction with no possibility of ever taking place?

[outhouse]

2 Cor 11:24-25.

You do understand what rhetorical prose is?

You do understand this was written as a method of persuasion IN CONTEXT over an actual historical account?


While the details may not be accurate, the tradition behind it very well may be true, and even if partially correct, persecution still took place.


YOUR view has not changed anything as far as to effect historicity one way or the other.



During this time period it would ONLY be odd if there were NO persecutions. Not only that YOU have to ask yourself if these authors would build up and vilify Paul as a murderer? OR are they going to deal with the negative traditions by softening them up downplaying Paul's terrible actions against early followers?

[Michael BG]

She (Candida Moss) talks about the context of punishment of this time period.

My favourate quote from Candida Moss is “Stephen offers what is possibly the least effective speech of defense in recorded history.”

She writes. “the traditional history of Christian martyrdom is mistaken. … Very few Christians died, and when they did, they were often executed for what we in the modern world would call political reasons. There is a difference between persecution and prosecution. A persecutor targets representatives of a specific group for undeserved punishment merely because of their participation in that group. An individual is prosecuted because that person has broken a law.”

It is nowadays recognised that most Christians were not persecuted in the first 300 years CE.

Provide credible sources.

Because even the most critical scholars claim persecution as a certainty.

Again you are requesting me to do something you haven’t done. This is not a rational way to have a debate. You haven’t quoted a named modern scholar who supports your position.
It appears to me that only Christian apologetic scholars believe there was widespread Christian persecution in the Roman Empire.

If you can’t present your case I don’t understand why you just can’t admit it.

All the evidence is on my side.

I have posted some and you ignore it.

I have posted that Pauls and Acts are two separate accounts. If you cannot refute these two accounts and you factually have not, then it is you who is left wanting here.

There are no instances where I have ignored your evidence. The problem is that you have posted so little evidence and lots of assertions. This is the first time you have actually used the word “Acts”.

I will remind you Pauls community and Acts describe first century persecution and of sect members being hunted down.

Please can you quote all the times Paul says anyone was “hunted down”?

Pauls and Acts writing while not the best evidence, is still factual evidence even if it has to be put under a microscope to pull any credible knowledge from it.

I have posted wiki links showing some amount of persecution is the academic standard here.

You have not yet presented any quotes from Paul or Act and presented a case for any of them to be historical. I have presented such a case, but you have ignored it and posted just generalisations.

We exchanged Wikipedia quotes which proved that there was no agreement on the scale of Christian persecution and I thought it proved it was not general and not early, but you don’t engage with me when I provide alternative evidence.

I also note you keep trying to discuss something completely different. If you wish to discuss that why don’t you open a new topic?

It would be good manners to apologise for your original posts if they can be misinterpreted rather than attack the reader for their comprehensive abilities, but maybe this isn’t the “done thing” on the internet.

From my perspective you seem to not comprehend what I'm writing from lack of contextual knowledge on the topic. I could be wrong but its not looking that way. You have also a few time made statements saying I said things I clearly did not.

Your the one going against academia here and have not once provided any source what so ever to support your position. That is fine and dandy, criticism is fine. It is however the level of certainty your placing on this said criticism where I have issue as it is unsupported.

If you have any "credible" sources I would love to see them.

Again you attack me for my lack of comprehension instead of providing the quotes.
I am sure that I have always posted what you posted when I quote you.
I understand that those who can’t provide evidence resort to ask the person they are debating with to provide evidence of the alternative.
It was not me who claimed that Christians went in fear of their lives before 64 CE.
When I asked my simple question I didn’t have a strong opinion either way, but your failure to present any evidence has led me to consider the evidence and conclude there is little reliable evidence for your position.

I have already commented about 2 Cor 11:24-25. Paul managed to preach his message about Jesus Christ for over 16 years without being killed. There are lots of other apostles and they managed to preach for a similar time. There are no reliable accounts of any of these apostles being killed by the Roman authorities. And only two of them being killed by Jews. This is not evidence of widespread persecution. It is evidence that once in a while less than 1% of Christians were killed by Jews. No mass persecution.

"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished" (Acts 22:4-5).

Do you have evidence or credible sources stating this is 100% fiction with no possibility of ever taking place?

Again you sound like an evangelical Christian.
You have failed to address what if anything in this is likely to be historical.
I hope you wouldn’t present a quote from Luke’s gospel in the same manner.

There is a problem with the historicity of Paul going to Damascus to bring anyone back from Damascus to face punishment in Jerusalem. As far as I know no one has found any evidence that the Roman authorities would allow this.

The phrase “to their death” is unlikely to be historical as the Jewish Sanhedrin, it is generally accepted, did not have the power to sentence people to death.

Therefore it is possible that Luke’s source if he had one only had,
"I persecuted the followers of this Way, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people (text lost).”

Also the accounts in Acts which state that Paul went to Jerusalem after Damascus do not agree with Gal 1:17-18.

2 Cor 11:24-25.

You do understand what rhetorical prose is?

You do understand this was written as a method of persuasion IN CONTEXT over an actual historical account?

While the details may not be accurate, the tradition behind it very well may be true, and even if partially correct, persecution still took place.

YOUR view has not changed anything as far as to effect historicity one way or the other.

During this time period it would ONLY be odd if there were NO persecutions. Not only that YOU have to ask yourself if these authors would build up and vilify Paul as a murderer? OR are they going to deal with the negative traditions by softening them up downplaying Paul's terrible actions against early followers?

Firstly you question the historicity of 2 Cor 11:24-25 but do not present a case for anything to be historical. Again you make general points and not specific.

Then you argue that (I assume) Luke presents Paul as a murderer and because Luke says so it has to be true. It seems that all the gospel writers present negative pictures of the disciples and it is possible that this is done to encourage current Christians that their past failures (or in the case of Paul actions against Christians) do not exclude them from being Christians and saved at the end of time.

I am not alone in not accepting the historicity that Paul went round killing Christians. This does not mean that he wasn’t present when Stephen was killed, he might have been and it is this one act that has grown in the telling.

Quoting summaries of scholars will not persuade others to your view. You need to engage with their arguments and present the reasons for their conclusions so others can assess them. Perhaps it is time for you to accept you can’t discuss historicity with specifics.

[outhouse]

Then you argue that (I assume) Luke presents Paul as a murderer and because Luke says so it has to be true.


.

Why do you constantly assume?

[outhouse]

I am not alone in not accepting the historicity that Paul went round killing Christians.



.

Non sequitur.


If you said you are not alone in your belief of unicorns, that would hold the same exact weight as the above claim.

[outhouse]

The problem is that you have posted so little evidence and lots of assertions.

.

False.

I have posted that we have two different traditions with Paul and Acts, and that is the evidence that gives his accounts the historicity they hold.


It is not upon me to prove the historicity in place. It is upon YOU to challenge the status quo


PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

[outhouse]

Quoting summaries of scholars will not persuade others to your view.

.

HA HA

I'm not trying to persuade anyone here. My statements are academic and already have historicity.

[Michael BG]

Then you argue that (I assume) Luke presents Paul as a murderer and because Luke says so it has to be true.

Why do you constantly assume?

Because you are often very vague. It you didn’t mean Luke then who are you referring to when you wrote:

Not only that YOU have to ask yourself if these authors would build up and vilify Paul as a murderer? OR are they going to deal with the negative traditions by softening them up downplaying Paul's terrible actions against early followers?

The problem is that you have posted so little evidence and lots of assertions.

I have posted that we have two different traditions with Paul and Acts, and that is the evidence that gives his accounts the historicity they hold.

It is not upon me to prove the historicity in place. It is upon YOU to challenge the status quo

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

I think you have two miscomprehensions:
Firstly no one can prove anything about the time of Jesus and Paul. All anyone can do is provide a case for that which they think is most likely. This was what I asked you to do a week ago when I posted this:

And knowing early on they were hunted down possibly being seen as a threat to the temple, they kept their practice on the down low.

And what evidence do you have for this and is it reliable?

Secondly you seem to believe I have to counter your case before you present it, but this is not the way to answer my questions.

Do you believe that all anyone has to do is quote some scholar for that opinion to be credible? If that is your criteria then I have already passed that test.
However I have a different test. And this might be where you have misunderstood me.
I thought my questions were clear enough.
I thought it was clear I was asking you to state clearly what evidence you have for your opinion.
PLUS for you to post a discussion of the evidence to consider how reliable it is and if there is any historicity behind the texts that you provided as evidence.

Now sometimes a scholar has to be quoted setting out their evidence and how they have assessed the evidence for historicity and this is also acceptable in answer to my linked two questions.

Some people accept that they don’t wish to provide this level of detail and that is fine with me. I wish you had said this a week ago, instead of presenting opinions of scholars as if they are facts agreed by everyone.

I was truly interested in reading your case for your position and your examination of the evidence for historicity.

Quoting summaries of scholars will not persuade others to your view.

HA HA

I'm not trying to persuade anyone here. My statements are academic and already have historicity.

Yes that is the problem. I wanted you to try to persuade me, but you think it is enough to say that some academic agrees with you and to imply that they have made a case for historicity and that then settles the debate.

Maybe our views on how to debate issues are so far apart there is no benefit in our continuing this discussion?