Paul's strange conversion and illogical actions

A great deal of contemporary Christian doctrine is dependent on the letters of Paul to various First Century churches. It is problematic that Paul never met Jesus, but it is especially disturbing that he also made no attempt to investigate the life and ministry of Jesus. After his revelatory conversion, this should have been the first order of business. The following is taken from:

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2017/03/theology-under-influence-of-ocd_24.html#more

So picture this. Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ—he never gives the exact details in his letters—those we find in three fictionalized versions in the Book of Acts. Wouldn’t you think that, after bouncing back from the trauma of hearing Jesus from the sky (which included being struck blind), he would have rushed back to Galilee or Jerusalem to find the disciples? Surely there were apologies to be made for his persecution campaigns, and surely he would be desperate to learn as much as he could about Jesus, whom he had never met.

But no, Paul bragged to the Galatian Christians about not getting his information from disciples and eyewitnesses. All he knows came from “revelations.”

What? Let that sink in. Why aren’t Christians massively suspicious about this? Why would you pay any attention whatever to a man who hallucinated his way into this new Jewish cult?

This represents a red flag for Christianity. Paul should have been curious to find out all he could about Jesus from the disciples and other eyewitnesses. And much of what he learned should have become prominent features of his letters. His failure to do so indicates that he was a delusional renegade who attempted to steal the movement for his own devices, and therefore his doctrine was most assuredly a distortion of whatever truth might have existed.

Yes, it is extremely odd that the nearest author in the NT to Jesus knows next to nothing about him other than that he was crucified (with no details). No teachings of Jesus, nothing.

And it isn't just the disciples. What about Mary? Why didn't Paul get in touch with Jesus's own mother and learn something about him.

Paul spends page after page justifying the concept of a resurrection for believers but he could have saved himself the trouble. All he had to do was mention Lazarus. Yet he seems to be entirely ignorant of the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. How can that be?

It gets even worse. If you believe the gospels, Jesus appointed Peter to be the rock on which he built his church. Paul must have known this. Despite this, he had barely disguised contempt for Peter and the Jerusalem pillars who were sticking to Jewish customs. In fact, by some accounts, Paul was lucky to escape with his life when forced into a meeting with them over doctrinal conflicts. So Peter was the leader according to Jesus but Paul was in open conflict with him.

Very little of early Christianity makes any sense.

Funnily enough I'm doing a debate right now where I talk about some of this.

" It is problematic that Paul never met Jesus "

" Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ "

Well? Which is it?

So picture this. Paul experienced his dramatic Damascus Road conversion to Christ—he never gives the exact details in his letters—those we find in three fictionalized versions in the Book of Acts. Wouldn’t you think that, after bouncing back from the trauma of hearing Jesus from the sky (which included being struck blind), he would have rushed back to Galilee or Jerusalem to find the disciples? Surely there were apologies to be made for his persecution campaigns, and surely he would be desperate to learn as much as he could about Jesus, whom he had never met.

His letters are not a personal testimony of how he became a Christian. They are letters addressing specific problems within the churches of the day. Where would his testimony fit in exactly? And no, I don't think Paul should have rushed to the disciples to investigate Jesus.

First of all:

Paul was a pharisee who was persecuting the church for at least some time. He would have investigated the founder of the movement then. Christianity being, at the time, a major threat to the strict law keeping of the Jews would have warranted a pre-conversion investigation from Saul right then and there. Most of what He knew about Jesus, as far as basic facts, most likely came from pharisees who knew Jesus Himself during His ministry.

Furthermore, why would Paul go to the disciples when ***Jesus Himself*** was giving Paul revelation?

Also, simply stating that Act's record of Paul's conversion is "fictionalized" is not an argument.

" But no, Paul bragged to the Galatian Christians about not getting his information from disciples and eyewitnesses. All he knows came from “revelations.”
"

You put revelations in quotes as though Paul is lying about his experiences. You seem to already be starting with the assumption Paul is not telling the truth, and the conclude from there Paul is not telling the truth.

Again, if Paul truly had revelations (plural) from Jesus, we wouldn't expect him to take a second hand source, but keep in communion with the source of his revelations. (Hence his alone time)

" Paul spends page after page justifying the concept of a resurrection for believers but he could have saved himself the trouble. All he had to do was mention Lazarus. Yet he seems to be entirely ignorant of the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. How can that be?
"

Because Lazarus ***wasn't*** a resurrection ***as what happened to Jesus***. 1st Corinthians 15 is all about the resurrection body, which Lazarus didn't receive. Only Jesus did and therefore Lazarus was not relevant to the discussion. Yes, Lazarus was raised again, but not like Christ, with an immortal body that could do what Jesus' did.

" Despite this, he had barely disguised contempt for Peter and the Jerusalem pillars who were sticking to Jewish customs. In fact, by some accounts, Paul was lucky to escape with his life when forced into a meeting with them over doctrinal conflicts. So Peter was the leader according to Jesus but Paul was in open conflict with him.
"

Peter was the leader to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. The only conflict was when Peter, who knew that the O.T. customs were no longer in effect, continued to do them because of his public image.

" What? Let that sink in. Why aren’t Christians massively suspicious about this? Why would you pay any attention whatever to a man who hallucinated his way into this new Jewish cult? "

I pay attention to Paul ***precisely*** because he was converted independent of the disciples. Also:

Paul was in **no mental state*** to hallucinate.

We have here a man who gave the go ahead for Christians to be killed. Let me make clear that Paul, was again, in no position to have visions of a risen Christ, who he held in contempt because he viewed Christ as a law breaker, and considering Christ's manner of death, the Jews believed Christ would have been punished by God because He "hung on a tree".

Many cite the hallucination theory as though Paul ***wanted*** to see Jesus. He didn't. He wanted to do away with His movement.

" This represents a red flag for Christianity. Paul should have been curious to find out all he could about Jesus from the disciples and other eyewitnesses. And much of what he learned should have become prominent features of his letters. His failure to do so indicates that he was a delusional renegade who attempted to steal the movement for his own devices, and therefore his doctrine was most assuredly a distortion of whatever truth might have existed. "

See, above. However, you have to explain what "his own devices mean."

Paul lost everything in becoming a Christian.

His place among the Pharisees
His friends and rabbis who he had a sense of comraderie with.
His esteem among the Roman empire. (Preaching a Crucified Savior to the Romans was unthinkable. You must explain WHY ANYONE would go around the Roman Empire telling the Romans to believe in a Man as God who died the death of slaves and rebels. NOBODY would have wanted to do this of their own accord)
And ultimately, his life.

So again, what did Paul gain?

In expounding on what I wrote above, the Roman author Qunitillian states crucifixion was such a horrible death, that the thought must not enter into the mind of a Roman. Does anyone seriously think Paul was eager to go around preaching Jesus to the Romans unless he had actually been commissioned by Jesus?

Jesus was the opposite of what every Roman wanted to believe. They were polytheists, Jesus was not. They weren't particularly fond of the Jews, Jesus was Jewish. They believed being from a major city gave one a higher honor rating. Jesus was from an obscure village.

The early critics of Christianity cite Jesus' death on the cross as unthinkable for a god. Paul would have been better of trying to sell them literally anything else. No man, no less an educated pharisee, would have wanted to twist Christianity and use it for personal gain.

*

O.S.A: His letters are not a personal testimony of how he became a Christian. They are letters addressing specific problems within the churches of the day. Where would his testimony fit in exactly? And no, I don't think Paul should have rushed to the disciples to investigate Jesus.

That is the standard apologetic response of course but it simply doesn't wash. Paul was formulating doctrine in the epistles. You would expect him to quote Jesus and his teachings as an authority on any aspect of such doctrine. Yet he doesn't, not even once. It's all coming out of his head (influenced by his reading of the Septuagint and other theology). His primary authority is the Old Testament. It is absurd to dismiss this issue as not fitting in to the purpose of his "problem solving" letters. The epistles were far more than that. In fact, it could be argued that Paul was the main architect of what became Christianity.

Paul was a pharisee who was persecuting the church for at least some time. He would have investigated the founder of the movement then.

And what better primary source than the disciples who accompanied him? And yet he displays no knowledge of the life of Jesus or anything he did (apart from being crucified). No miracles, no parables, no teachings. Nothing.

Because Lazarus ***wasn't*** a resurrection ***as what happened to Jesus***. 1st Corinthians 15 is all about the resurrection body, which Lazarus didn't receive. Only Jesus did and therefore Lazarus was not relevant to the discussion. Yes, Lazarus was raised again, but not like Christ, with an immortal body that could do what Jesus' did.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making. A resurrection is a resurrection. If you are justifying the concept of human resurrection after death (that it is possible - hey, it happened for Lazarus) then you would have to mention Lazarus if only to differentiate your conception from what Jesus did. In fact this only serves to strengthen the argument that Paul had no knowledge of Lazarus otherwise he would have explained the distinction between a spiritual body (as Paul envisaged resurrection) and a fleshy one. Paul made that distinction but failed to mention Lazarus even though such an example was begged for.

Peter was the leader to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. The only conflict was when Peter, who knew that the O.T. customs were no longer in effect, continued to do them because of his public image.

What? This is just a glib response which attempts to sweep the problem under the carpet. Peter was a leader to the Jews? Where do you get that nonsense? The Jews had Judaism and it already had an established priesthood (leaders) and teachers. We are talking about proto-Christian communities here. They included both ex-pat Jews and gentiles. Paul and Peter were in competition vying for their hearts and minds, hence the conflict between them. Peter insisted that these communities adhered strictly to Jewish customs (such as circumcision) and dietary rules. You claim that he did so for his "public image" but I have no idea where you are getting that from. His motivation is not really relevant anyway. The point is that there was conflict with Paul and you don't disagree.

The fact remains that Peter was appointed by Jesus as the head of his church to come, yet Paul defied him. How do you explain Paul going against the express wishes of Jesus? There is only one possible explanation. Paul had no such knowledge. Paul knew nothing of note about Jesus and what he might have wanted at all.

dee-em: " That is the standard apologetic response of course but it simply doesn't wash. Paul was formulating doctrine in the epistles. You would expect him to quote Jesus and his teachings as an authority on any aspect of such doctrine. Yet he doesn't, not even once. "

Why would Paul quote Jesus' doctrine which was already established if he was formulating ***new*** doctrine? And your statement that Paul didn't quote Jesus once is simply not true. He quotes Jesus' teaching on the Lord's supper in 1st Corinthians 11:23-26 and he says and acknowledges that Jesus' teachings are already in circulation and know.

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

Paul lived in a society where oral tradition reigned supreme. That's simply a fact of the ancient world, and Paul would have no need to constantly quote Jesus if he was

A. Formulating new doctrine

B. Already aware that Jesus' teachings existed and were in circulation, whether orally or otherwise

That's not the scope of Paul's letters. They're not commentaries on the gospels.


" And what better primary source than the disciples who accompanied him? And yet he displays no knowledge of the life of Jesus or anything he did (apart from being crucified). No miracles, no parables, no teachings. Nothing.

I am talking about a ***pre-conversion*** investigation. Paul would have gotten his information from other Pharisees, why would he trust the disciples who he wanted dead? Are we seriously thinking Paul would have used them as a reliable source prior to conversion?

And no, Paul does display knowledge of Jesus' genealogy (Romans 1:1-3) Jesus statements on His second coming (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And I'm sure Paul was aware of Jesus' miracles taking into account the fact that Paul could heal himself (Acts 19:12)

Keep in mind, Paul converted some time after Jesus was ascended to heaven, there would have been ample time for Jesus' teachings to be well known.

And perhaps, more importantly, the argument that Paul should have mentioned Jesus' life details in his letters completely ignores the fact that these letters were not the only communication Paul had with his churches. Paul PLANTED these churches and of course he had verbal interaction with them.


" What? This is just a glib response which attempts to sweep the problem under the carpet. Peter was a leader to the Jews? Where do you get that nonsense?


Galatians 2:7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Peter was head of the church, Paul being the main apostle (leader) to the gentiles in no way "defies" this. Practically, Paul was versed in several languages, and was a Roman citizen, so his mission to the gentiles would have been much more effective.


" Paul and Peter were in competition vying for their hearts and minds, hence the conflict between them.

No, the conflict between them was because Peter knew the O.T. system was no longer in place and yet preached it anyway.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Peter already had agreed that the Gentiles didn't need to follow the law. (Acts 10, Acts 15) That's why there was conflict between them.

" The point is that there was conflict with Paul and you don't disagree. "

There was also conflict between Paul and Barnabas, boy that Paul really cant get along with the disciples now can he?

" How do you explain Paul going against the express wishes of Jesus? "

Again, he didn't. Peter was established as the leader of the apostles, but Paul's mission to the gentiles was not in conflict with that. Paul himself said he is not the leader of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:9) When I said Paul was the leader, I meant in the sense of him leading the mission to the gentiles.


Paul had no such knowledge. Paul knew nothing of note about Jesus and what he might have wanted at all.

I have already demonstrated that Paul usurping Christianity for some personal gain was exactly the last thing he would have done for personal gain. The argument just doesn't work that Paul was pretending so he could somehow gain something out of making everyone believe he was a Christian. The argument is just conspiracy theory and has no true basis for claiming ***why*** Paul would have done that and what he would have gained.

Again, what did Paul gain?


***Had Paul actually changed Christianity***

He would have gotten rid of the doctrines which were offensive to the people he was trying to reach. If I was trying to take over a religion and change it, I would want as many converts as I can get to believe my new version of Christianity. Keeping the crucifixion, bodily resurrection (which the Greeks would have scoffed at) and the Jewishness of Jesus is not something Paul would have done.

Again, one has to provide a motivation for Paul not being a true convert, and then get around the fact that he didn't gain anything but lost pretty much everything, and the doctrines which would not have gone over well with the Roman empire still being there.

dee-em: " I'm not sure what point you think you are making. A resurrection is a resurrection. If you are justifying the concept of human resurrection after death (that it is possible - hey, it happened for Lazarus) then you would have to mention Lazarus if only to differentiate your conception from what Jesus did. In fact this only serves to strengthen the argument that Paul had no knowledge of Lazarus otherwise he would have explained the distinction between a spiritual body (as Paul envisaged resurrection) and a fleshy one. Paul made that distinction but failed to mention Lazarus even though such an example was begged for. "

The scope of 1 Corinthians 15 is ***glorification*** AND resurrection. The former didn't happen to Lazarus, so again, Lazarus is not relevant to the discussion. However, let's say Paul didn't know about Lazarus at the time.

What does this exactly prove? How does Paul knowing every single detail from Christ's life have any bearing on whether or not he was a true apostle? I simply don't see the connection.

O.S.A: Does anyone seriously think Paul was eager to go around preaching Jesus to the Romans unless he had actually been commissioned by Jesus?

Recall that Paul was not a Roman. He was a Freeman living in Rome.

O.S.A: What does this exactly prove? How does Paul knowing every single detail from Christ's life have any bearing on whether or not he was a true apostle? I simply don't see the connection.

It is not that Paul doesn't know every single detail of the life of Jesus. It is that he doesn't know any details apart from him being crucified. This is someone who was definitely a contemporary to Jesus unlike the gospel authors and he wrote decades before the gospel authors. The subject of this thread is that Paul has obviously made no attempt to find out something about Jesus by looking up the disciples or members of Jesus's family. Don't you find that illogical? Here is the saviour of mankind, a god in human form, and yet Paul is totally uninterested in what he might have had to say. That makes no sense.

O.S.A: Why would Paul quote Jesus' doctrine which was already established if he was formulating ***new*** doctrine?

I have no idea what doctrine you think Jesus established. Paul displays no knowledge of it so I fail to see how it was "established". Paul formulated what became Christian doctrine because he was operating in a vacuum.

1st Corinthians 11:23-26

A probable interpolation. In fact everything between 10:23 and 11:29 is very likely later pastoral interpolation as explained here:

http://vridar.org/2007/03/14/pastoral-interpolation-in-1-corinthians-10-11/

1 Timothy 6:3

Not authentic Paul.


Paul lived in a society where oral tradition reigned supreme. That's simply a fact of the ancient world, and Paul would have no need to constantly quote Jesus if he was

A. Formulating new doctrine
B. Already aware that Jesus' teachings existed and were in circulation, whether orally or otherwise

That's not the scope of Paul's letters. They're not commentaries on the gospels.

*sigh* These arguments rely on knowledge you don't have but simply assume. Paul would not need to formulate new doctrine if Jesus had already done it. You assume that Jesus's teachings were "in circulation". You assume that Paul knew of oral gospels. These are just assertions based on nothing.

I am talking about a ***pre-conversion*** investigation.

Why? I'm not.

And no, Paul does display knowledge of Jesus' genealogy (Romans 1:1-3) Jesus statements on His second coming (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And I'm sure Paul was aware of Jesus' miracles taking into account the fact that Paul could heal himself (Acts 19:12)

2 Thessalonians is disputed as being authentic. Romans 1:3 (in fact 2-6) is a very probable interpolation:

http://vridar.org/2015/02/17/jesus-the-seed-of-david-one-more-case-for-interpolation/

As to Paul having knowledge of miracles, this is yet another bare assertion. The point is that he displays no knowledge of them. I'm not interested in what the author of Acts wrote later, only what came directly from Paul.


Keep in mind, Paul converted some time after Jesus was ascended to heaven, there would have been ample time for Jesus' teachings to be well known.

How does that address the problem of Paul not being aware of them?

And perhaps, more importantly, the argument that Paul should have mentioned Jesus' life details in his letters completely ignores the fact that these letters were not the only communication Paul had with his churches. Paul PLANTED these churches and of course he had verbal interaction with them.

Can we please stick to what Paul actually wrote, ie. the facts, and not what you imagine happened?

< to be continued >

dee-em: Since you refuse to accept the fact that Paul's letters didn't exist in a vacuum (I.e he was writing to people he already had interaction with and in a time when him and the disciples were already preaching Jesus apart from written letter) and the fact that Paul's letters don't represent the entirety of everything Paul would have know (have to ever written a letter that exhausted every single ounce of knowledge you had on a subject?)

And since you dismiss my Scripture quotes as "possible interpolations"

I'll be more than obliged to take our coversation to the debate arena.

Please keep several things in mind however

1. All my internet interaction is from the library (where I only have two hours to type)

2. Or from my phone which is not a good platform to type responses.

So any debate we engage in will have to allow me ample time to actually sit down in front of a computer and type with my two hour a day time limit. Keeping in mind I have a 9-5 job as well.

Also, if you could state your case just for clarity. You believe Paul knew nothing of Jesus, that I understand. But what exactly are you attempting to show with this claim?

Again I'd be more than happy to have a written debate so long as the accommodations can be made. I think the best option would be to allow the community to decide.

dee-em: have no idea what doctrine you think Jesus established. Paul displays no knowledge of it so I fail to see how it was "established"

Quick question:

If Jesus' teachings were not established what would you have liked Paul to quote?

O.S.A: Galatians 2:7-9

This is just Paul trying to sideline the Jerusalem pillars. What else would you expect him to say? "You stay on your turf and I'll stay on mine". Unfortunately the fact is that the Jerusalem pillars were actively trying to undermine Paul's influence in remote communities by sending delegations there and insisting that Jewish customs and dietary laws had to be obeyed. Paul defied them. If the Jerusalem pillars had only been interested in Jews this would never have been an issue. I really don't know how you can dispute this.

Peter was head of the church, Paul being the main apostle (leader) to the gentiles in no way "defies" this.

Of course it does. They were in open conflict. Read Galatians 1:6-9 and 2:11-13 (the Incident at Antioch). Or, better still, Galatians 5:2-12 where Paul is scornful of the Jerusalem faction and their agitation:

The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Peter already had agreed that the Gentiles didn't need to follow the law. (Acts 10, Acts 15)

Please don't quote Acts to me. It is historically unreliable and only amounts to hearsay anyway in relation to Paul.

There was also conflict between Paul and Barnabas, boy that Paul really cant get along with the disciples now can he?

Thank you for agreeing with me. Isn't that the point I have been making all along?

Again, he didn't.

But he did. Jesus appointed Peter to head his church. Paul defied Peter (and James). Therefore he went against the express wishes of Jesus.

I have already demonstrated that Paul usurping Christianity for some personal gain was exactly the last thing he would have done for personal gain.

You are attacking a strawman. When did I say anything about personal gain?

He would have gotten rid of the doctrines which were offensive to the people he was trying to reach. If I was trying to take over a religion and change it, I would want as many converts as I can get to believe my new version of Christianity. Keeping the crucifixion, bodily resurrection (which the Greeks would have scoffed at) and the Jewishness of Jesus is not something Paul would have done.

Oh please. More assertions. The crucifixion was essential for absolving original sin (probably borrowed from the suffering servant in Isaiah). Resurrection, far from being scoffed at, would have been a highly attractive selling point to the Greeks (or anyone). It still is to this day. As to the Jewishness of Jesus, Paul barely mentions it, if at all. The scant reference to being of the line of David is a probable interpolation.

Again, one has to provide a motivation for Paul not being a true convert, and then get around the fact that he didn't gain anything but lost pretty much everything, and the doctrines which would not have gone over well with the Roman empire still being there.

More tedious assertions and strawmen which have nothing to do with anything I have argued.

O.S.A: Since you refuse to accept the fact that Paul's letters didn't exist in a vacuum (I.e he was writing to people he already had interaction with and in a time when him and the disciples were already preaching Jesus apart from written letter) and the fact that Paul's letters don't represent the entirety of everything Paul would have know (have to ever written a letter that exhausted every single ounce of knowledge you had on a subject?)

Why should I when all you are doing is making assertions? You can't possibly say what Paul knew or didn't know except by recourse to what he actually wrote down.

And since you dismiss my Scripture quotes as "possible interpolations"

I have provided links to compelling arguments for them being interpolations. You may not accept those arguments but you are not allowed to present your verses as unassailable facts. You are of course free to quote scripture which is not disputed.

I'll be more than obliged to take our coversation to the debate arena.

Sorry, I'm not interested in formal debates. I prefer the rapid interaction and informal nature of the forum.

You believe Paul knew nothing of Jesus, that I understand. But what exactly are you attempting to show with this claim?

Have you lost track of the thread subject? If it is apparent that Paul knew next to nothing about Jesus then why didn't he make any effort to find out by quizzing the apostles and/or members of Jesus's family? It is illogical for him not to have done so. What are other possible explanations for his ignorance about Jesus?

O.S.A: Quick question:

If Jesus' teachings were not established what would you have liked Paul to quote?

How does that question make any sense? If Jesus's teachings were not established then there would be nothing to quote. And that appears to be what actually happened. It's not just teachings though. It's every aspect of his alleged life. Here is a list of things Paul does not display any knowledge of in relation to Jesus:

No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all. No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all. No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/

In fact Paul positively renounced any knowledge of Jesus through human sources. Why would he do that if there was a wealth of knowledge floating around through oral tradition as you assert?

dee-em: Oh please. More assertions. The crucifixion was essential for absolving original sin (probably borrowed from the suffering servant in Isaiah). Resurrection, far from being scoffed at, would have been a highly attractive selling point to the Greeks (or anyone). It still is to this day. As to the Jewishness of Jesus, Paul barely mentions it, if at all. The scant reference to being of the line of David is a probable interpolation.

Quick comments on this:

Firstly, the crucifixion was essential ***from a Christian perspective***. Try selling a Crucified Man as God to a Roman or Greek. Prepare to get laughed at. I suggest you read Celsus, as his attitude towards the crucifixion is picturesque of what the Romans and Greeks would have thought about Jesus. And no, the bodily resurrection was NOT attractive to the first century Greek or Roman. Today we look at the resurrection and say "Hey that would be pretty cool" but to the Greeks who believed the body was a prison to be escaped, bodily resurrection would have been laughed at as well. Again, read Celsus as he quotes Plutarch in that they both agree the material world was to be escaped. Thirdly, you mention Paul not mentioning the Jewishness of Jesus, well...Paul believed that Jesus was the ***Messiah***, who was a ***Jewish*** King from the line of David. So I cant really see Paul seeing Jesus as any other ethnicity.

The reason I bring this up was not that I was refuting a "straw man" but was responding to the original poster's comments that Paul was trying to "steal Christianity".


" Sorry, I'm not interested in formal debates. I prefer the rapid interaction and informal nature of the forum.


And that pretty much tells me what I needed to know. Any and all responses from me on this topic will be in a public debate. Otherwise this thread is no closed as far as I'm concerned.

O.S.A: Firstly, the crucifixion was essential ***from a Christian perspective***. Try selling a Crucified Man as God to a Roman or Greek. Prepare to get laughed at.

Try selling it to a Jew! Lol.

Sorry, but you are asserting again. You can sell anything if you do a good job of it. Paul did a pretty good job. He sold it on the basis that Jesus took all the sins of the world upon himself and then willingly sacrificed his life to atone for those sins, thereby negating original sin and paving the way for humans to be saved and have eternal life. I'm Greek and I'm almost sold! As I said he probably got this idea from the suffering servant in Isaiah.

And no, the bodily resurrection was NOT attractive to the first century Greek or Roman. Today we look at the resurrection and say "Hey that would be pretty cool" but to the Greeks who believed the body was a prison to be escaped, bodily resurrection would have been laughed at as well. Again, read Celsus as he quotes Plutarch in that they both agree the material world was to be escaped.

Um, in Paul's concept of resurrection the material world would be escaped with a new spirit body. Have you actually read Paul? He believed in heaven and even claimed to have visited the third level of heaven himself. You are arguing another strawman.

Thirdly, you mention Paul not mentioning the Jewishness of Jesus, well...Paul believed that Jesus was the ***Messiah***, who was a ***Jewish*** King from the line of David. So I cant really see Paul seeing Jesus as any other ethnicity.

Where are you getting that from? Paul didn't see Jesus as the messiah (an earthly King) as the Jews envisaged in the OT. You are just making it up. In fact he explicitly stated (pre-conversion) that the idea of a crucified messiah was repellent to Jews.

The reason I bring this up was not that I was refuting a "straw man" but was responding to the original poster's comments that Paul was trying to "steal Christianity".

But you were having a discussion with me, not the OP, and I never made that claim. In my opinion, there was nothing to steal. Paul was inventing most of what became Christianity.

And that pretty much tells me what I needed to know. Any and all responses from me on this topic will be in a public debate. Otherwise this thread is no closed as far as I'm concerned.

Your choice. See you around.

Hmmm. When O.S.A runs away he really runs away. He seems to have deactivated his account.
Oh well.