Jump to content

NT Wright on women preachers


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Paul/Saul persecuted the early Christians. It's my understanding that he was in cahoots with the Romans while he was doing this. He changes his name from Saul to Paul after he became a believer and falling out of the cahoots. 

I have never seen anything close to this among the biblical or early Christian scholars I have read. It seemed that Saul needed no greater motivation than what he perceived as an insult on his faith. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 407
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Time to throw AJ into all this.  

Forgiveness is the only way to rid yourself of resentment.  It does nothing for the other, but everything for the self.

I agree.

On 7/30/2020 at 7:37 PM, PaulS said:

I disagree - Paul is the reason 'Pauline Christianity' is the foundation of western civilization.  Paul changed Jesus' version of Christianity for how he interpreted the Jesus he never met.

I'm thinking that I might well agree with you on this, at least in a good part or piece of what you are saying

On 7/30/2020 at 7:44 PM, PaulS said:

Some of the things Erhman's scholarship has to say about Paul (in no particular order):

I do see some continuities between what Jesus had to say and what Paul had to say (about which I’ll say some things in my next post), but at the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.”   Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection.

Paul inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different.

But it is safe to say that of all the early Christian thinkers and missionaries, Paul is the one we know best as the one who forcefully advocated this Christian message, in contradistinction to the message of Jesus. In the writings of Paul more clearly than almost anywhere else in the NT we see that the message *of* Jesus has become the message *about* Jesus: that is, the message that was preached by Jesus during his life was transformed into a message about the importance of his death.

Differences Between Jesus and Paul

  • Jesus taught that the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom was a figure that he called the Son of Man, someone other than himself, who could come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment.   Paul taught that Jesus himself was the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom, who would come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment.
  • Jesus taught that to escape judgment, a person must keep the central teachings of the Law as he himself interpreted them.   Paul taught that reliance on the observance of the Law in no sense would bring salvation; to escape the coming judgment a person must, instead, believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus
  • Jesus taught that “faith” involves trusting God, as a good parent, to bring his future kingdom to his people; Paul taught that “faith” involves trusting in the past death and resurrection of Jesus.  It wasn’t only faith in God but faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.
  • For Jesus, his own importance lay in his proclamation of the coming of the end and his correct interpretation of the Law.  For Paul, Jesus’ importance had nothing to do with Jesus’ own teachings (which Paul hardly ever quotes) but strictly in his death and resurrection.
  • For Jesus, people could begin to experience what life would be like in the future kingdom if they would accept his teachings and begin to implement his understanding of the Jewish law in their lives.    For Paul, people could begin to experience life in the kingdom when they “died with Christ” by being baptized and thus overcame the power of sin.

This is all interesting and good information. One could add to and on some points disagree with Ehrman - this is perhaps best for another post thread - I'm thinking that I gotta read the New Testament all over again a few times to get into and cover all of it. Thanks for sharing this outline. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that a person can have none of these negative effects on themselves, no resentment, hatred, vengeance, anger, etc. and what this person has done is just let it go and given it up to God.

It's on and up to God whether that person is forgiven or not. The person(s) who have been injured can elect to have nothing to do with it, and leave that decision is up to and with God. If a person wants forgiveness they can take it up with God themselves  

That is the definition of forgive. 

for·give
/fərˈɡiv/
  1. stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake.
     
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thormas said:

Tuning to oneself has not, seemingly, always worked out too well. It would seem that one had to 'check' or measure their discernment against their community or some others of 'like mind.'.

Yes, it's nice, great and wonderful to have community agreement and to have and find people who are of a "like mind". This can also affirm and confirm what one believes in their heart themselves.

There are other times however that one truly feels and believes and understands something, and they can find no one, but no one, who agrees with them or affirms what they are saying or thinking. In fact they may find a number of people who actually affirm the opposite. Here one shouldn't just go with their own ideas or insights willy-nilly or just cause it's their own idea. They should think it over and think it over again and think it over as much as they need to. But if they truly believe that their/the  idea or insight(s) is true and even true to the true spirit of God, then they should go with it and stick with it, even if they have real, and even considerable opposition. Even if they have to stand alone in their position.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Yes, it's nice, great and wonderful to have community agreement and to have and find people who are of a "like mind". This can also affirm and confirm what one believes in their heart themselves.

There are other times however that one truly feels and believes and understands something, and they can find no one, but no one, who agrees with them or affirms what they are saying or thinking. In fact they may find a number of people who actually affirm the opposite. Here one shouldn't just go with their own ideas or insights willy-nilly or just cause it's their own idea. They should think it over and think it over again and think it over as much as they need to. But if they truly believe that their/the  idea or insight(s) is true and even true to the true spirit of God, then they should go with it and stick with it, even if they have real, and even considerable opposition. Even if they have to stand alone in their position.  

I agree.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thormas said:

I have never seen anything close to this among the biblical or early Christian scholars I have read. It seemed that Saul needed no greater motivation than what he perceived as an insult on his faith. 

It looks like you are right concerning this. I've been looking it up a bit and it seems that it was only in cahoots with the Jewish authorities that he might have been working in persecuting the Christians. Perhaps though the Jewish authorities were in cahoots with the Romans however, as sometimes seems to be the case.

I'm thinking that I've gotten my idea that Saul/Paul was in cahoots with the Romans because of some of the rather famous art I've seen that depicts him in a roman uniform and or with roman soldiers around him. There is definitely art that makes him either look like he's wearing a uniform or with people who are in uniform.

Sorry about that. I had really thought I had read it that way from the NT, but perhaps my impression is mostly or only from these paintings.

Here is one such painting of this type (there are other paintings like this as well as one's where he's wearing more regular clothes)

f901c687acb6fe2525ae9086872836d6.jpg

Edited by Elen1107
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree it looks like a uniform but it is dramatic.

This video shows several rather famous paintings of Saul/Paul's conversion. The most featured painting definitely looks like that's a roman helmet lying next to him. Most of the other paintings show him dressed in a roman uniform or surrounded by roman soldiers that he is working with. (They have painted him to look like he's in cahoots).

You don't have to watch the whole video. Just put it on pause in YouTube and then flip through the different scenes. YouTube gives one a little thumb-nail if one holds the curser over the red line at the bottom of the video.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JosephM said:

That is the definition of forgive. 

for·give
/fərˈɡiv/
verb
 
  1. stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake.
     

I've looked up a few different definitions for 'forgive'. I'm thinking it's something that I will prob. focus on a bit later... what it means and how different people understand the word.

If you are right, then we both are about the same things being important. Great to find some agreement on something, somewhere, even if we have been using different word(s). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

This video shows several rather famous paintings of Saul/Paul's conversion. The most featured painting definitely looks like that's a roman helmet lying next to him. Most of the other paintings show him dressed in a roman uniform or surrounded by roman soldiers that he is working with. (They have painted him to look like he's in cahoots).

Then again, European painters depicted Jesus with light/white skin and eyes....................and Raphael painted his face and the faces of other artist as the faces of Plato, Aristotle and others ..............so while beautiful to look at they lack in accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thormas said:

Then again, European painters depicted Jesus with light/white skin and eyes....................and Raphael painted his face and the faces of other artist as the faces of Plato, Aristotle and others ..............so while beautiful to look at they lack in accuracy.

The one that really gets me is the blonde, blue eyed Jesus. Now how likely is that. Thing is everyone, at least most groups, depict Jesus as looking like them. In a certain way it is a complement to the man. The real thing is however, when one really thinks about it, Jesus himself wouldn't care one bit what we look like, what our race is, or whether we look like him or not. At least the Jesus that I know and understand wouldn't.

-------------------------

I've been thinking about the whole Saul/Paul thing. It's evident that he was working with the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin. In Acts 12 we have Herod and Roman soldiers arresting the apostles and other Christians. Any chance that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin could have been in cahoots with Herod and the Romans? If they were, then one might surmise that Saul/Paul could have been in cahoots with them too, and that's why we get all the pictures of him looking like one or at least working with them.

I've got to read Acts again, as well as a few of Paul's letters, it's been a while since I've done that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

The one that really gets me is the blonde, blue eyed Jesus. Now how likely is that. Thing is everyone, at least most groups, depict Jesus as looking like them. In a certain way it is a complement to the man. The real thing is however, when one really thinks about it, Jesus himself wouldn't care one bit what we look like, what our race is, or whether we look like him or not. At least the Jesus that I know and understand wouldn't.

-------------------------

I've been thinking about the whole Saul/Paul thing. It's evident that he was working with the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin. In Acts 12 we have Herod and Roman soldiers arresting the apostles and other Christians. Any chance that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin could have been in cahoots with Herod and the Romans? If they were, then one might surmise that Saul/Paul could have been in cahoots with them too, and that's why we get all the pictures of him looking like one or at least working with them.

I've got to read Acts again, as well as a few of Paul's letters, it's been a while since I've done that.

The Sanhedrin were the Vichy government of their day.  I would look at Josephus first, then Maccabees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burl said:

The Sanhedrin were the Vichy government of their day.  I would look at Josephus first, then Maccabees.

What do you have from Josephus and Maccabees on this subject?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

What do you have from Josephus and Maccabees on this subject?

I can look tomorrow.  Those are the first two books I would pull.  

I don’t remember anything about the various Jewish sects in the NT.  Just Jesus and the other Pharisees.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Thing is everyone, at least most groups, depict Jesus as looking like them. In a certain way it is a complement to the man. The real thing is however, when one really thinks about it, Jesus himself wouldn't care one bit what we look like, what our race is, or whether we look like him or not.

Well said.......

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I've been thinking about the whole Saul/Paul thing. It's evident that he was working with the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin. In Acts 12 we have Herod and Roman soldiers arresting the apostles and other Christians. Any chance that the chief priests and the Sanhedrin could have been in cahoots with Herod and the Romans? If they were, then one might surmise that Saul/Paul could have been in cahoots with them too, and that's why we get all the pictures of him looking like one or at least working with them.

Was this evident? Was Paul working in Jerusalem, i.e. going after the Jesus community circa 33 CE or was he working in the Dispora? The Sanhedrin and the priest were in Jerusalem, correct? If this is accurate then Saul might have been in touch with 'local' authorities but not the Sanhedrin.  Just speculation, haven't checked.

The chief priest seemingly was in 'cahoots' (btw great word) or cooperated with the Romans ...............but I don't see how that suggests that Saul was.

Just like pictures of Pilate washing his hands, the Paul paintings could also be the work of the imagination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thormas said:

Was this evident? Was Paul working in Jerusalem, i.e. going after the Jesus community circa 33 CE or was he working in the Dispora? The Sanhedrin and the priest were in Jerusalem, correct? If this is accurate then Saul might have been in touch with 'local' authorities but not the Sanhedrin.  Just speculation, haven't checked.

The chief priest seemingly was in 'cahoots' (btw great word) or cooperated with the Romans ...............but I don't see how that suggests that Saul was.

Just like pictures of Pilate washing his hands, the Paul paintings could also be the work of the imagination.

Paul was working in Jerusalem, but from there going as far abroad as Damascus. 

I've got this from a link I found:

"Saul was soon to arrive, with all the necessary legal machinery (that is, the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin130) to arrest and extradite131 the saints who were in the city. "

These are the notes to the above sentence:

130 In our text, we are told the Saul “went to the high priest” to ask for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus (9:1-2), but in Acts 22:5-6 Paul indicates that the “Council” (the Sanhedrin) was also involved in providing him with letters of authorization to arrest Christians in Damascus. Furthermore, in Acts 26:10 Paul testifies that he received letters from the chief priests, not just the chief priest alone.

131 “. . . the Romans . . . required neighboring states to grant it the privileges of a sovereign state, including the right of extradition. A letter delivered at that time by a Roman ambassador to Ptolemy VIII of Egypt concludes with the demand: ‘If any pestilent men have fled to you from their own country {Judaea}, hand them over to Simon the high priest, so that he may punish them according to their law’ (1 Macc. 15:21). In 47 B.C. Julius Caesar confirmed those rights and privileges anew to the Jewish nation (although Judaea was no longer a sovereign state), and more particularly to the high-priesthood.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 180-181.

This is the link

https://bible.org/seriespage/14-conversion-saul-acts-91-31#P1489_574949

------------------------------

"cahoots' is Burl's word. I picked it up from him earlier in this thread.

Apparently we weren't the only ones who had it in our heads that Paul/Saul was in cahoots with the Romans. A good number of painters and perhaps their patrons seem to have thought so too. I think myself, I've gotten this impression as much from art and paintings as I have from the NT. The two have combined in my mind.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

Paul was working in Jerusalem, but from there going as far abroad as Damascus. 

Thanks, will check into it and read your link tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

...The real thing is however, when one really thinks about it, Jesus himself wouldn't care one bit what we look like, what our race is, or whether we look like him or not. At least the Jesus that I know and understand wouldn't.

The only thing I'd say about that is that I think Jesus didn't particularly have time for the Romans and I think he was specifically preaching a message to Jews about preparing for the kingdom, in the context of the evil the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Romans, being dominated by them and all.  I don't see Jesus as that all encompassing 'love everybody' figure that is often portrayed about him.  I think he was a Jew with very human emotions, and these affected what he thought of the Romans, in my opinion, for what it's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, PaulS said:

The only thing I'd say about that is that I think Jesus didn't particularly have time for the Romans and I think he was specifically preaching a message to Jews about preparing for the kingdom, in the context of the evil the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Romans, being dominated by them and all.  I don't see Jesus as that all encompassing 'love everybody' figure that is often portrayed about him.  I think he was a Jew with very human emotions, and these affected what he thought of the Romans, in my opinion, for what it's worth.

But didn't he interact with a number of Roman soldiers and do or say good things to them during his ministry? Times I've read the NT I haven't really been paying attention to whether he was communicating to a Jew or a Roman or a Samaritan, or someone else. I've been more interested in what he was saying than who he was talking to. Him talking to a centurion  . . .  Looked it up >  In Matthew 8:5 , a centurion who lived at Capernaum approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant.

Holman Bible Dictionary. Centurion. An officer in the Roman army, nominally in command of one hundred soldiers. In Matthew 8:5 , a centurion who lived at Capernaum approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant.

centurion

[senˈt(y)o͝orēən]

NOUN

the commander of a century in the ancient Roman army.

I believe he did end up healing the centurion's servant.

------------------------------------

I'm thinking there might be other Roman type people that he interacted with in the NT as well.

-----------------------------------

This might sound a little funny, but in a certain way Jesus and Peter and a number of other Christians did kind of take over the entire Roman government. They've even got a big cathedral in the middle of Rome called 'Saint Peters', they have pictures of the Jewish patriarchs and prophets all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, (painted by Michelangelo, of course), where the Pope gets elected, as well as many scenes from the Old Testament, and the Pope himself wears a little hat just like all the Jewish men do. 

There's more to it of course,... (just thought I'd mention it  )

-----------------------------------------------

I think Jesus was more into converting  or changing people - than overthrowing, conquering, retaliating, going to war with, etc. That's the best I can understand it at this time in my life. 

---------------------------------------------------

Edit, > went and found the whole verse

5 And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, 6 and saying, "Lord , my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." 7 Jesus said* to him, "I will come and heal him." 8 But the centurion said, "Lord , I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." 10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. 11 "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment .
Edited by Elen1107
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

But didn't he interact with a number of Roman soldiers and do or say good things to them during his ministry? Times I've read the NT I haven't really been paying attention to whether he was communicating to a Jew or a Roman or a Samaritan, or someone else. I've been more interested in what he was saying than who he was talking to. Him talking to a centurion  . . .  Looked it up >  In Matthew 8:5 , a centurion who lived at Capernaum approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant.

Don't quote me on it, but I think that might be the only mention in the entire NT of Jesus interacting with a Roman (other than his arrest).  There certainly isn't much to be said in the NT about Jesus acting positively towards Romans specifically. 

Bart Erhman sums it up like this: "Jesus really did see himself as the future king of the Jews, who would rule God’s people when the Son of Man arrived in judgment and overthrew the kingdoms aligned against God and set up a new kingdom here on earth."

It's hard to imagine a Jesus who favours the Jews so much, to be as equally forgiving and loving toward the Romans who he simultaneously considered part of the kingdom aligned against God.    

9 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I think Jesus was more into converting  or changing people - than overthrowing, conquering, retaliating, going to war with, etc. That's the best I can understand it at this time in my life. 

I think he believed God would overthrow the Roman Empire and it was going to happen shortly, which is why he was warning Jews to get ready for the coming Kingdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Don't quote me on it, but I think that might be the only mention in the entire NT of Jesus interacting with a Roman (other than his arrest).  There certainly isn't much to be said in the NT about Jesus acting positively towards Romans specifically. 

 

Here's a clip I've found on centurions in the NT

An officer in the Roman army, nominally in command of one hundred soldiers. In Matthew 8:5 , a centurion who lived at Capernaum approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant. In Mark 15:39 , a centurion who witnessed the crucifixion identified Jesus as the Son of God. In Acts 10:1 , the conversion of the centurion Cornelius marked the beginning of the church's outreach to the Gentile world. In Acts 27:3 , the centurion Julius treated the apostle Paul with courtesy. These passages illustrate the generally favorable impression made by the centurions who appear in the New Testament. They were usually career soldiers, and they formed the real backbone of the Roman military force.

from this link https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/c/centurion.html

I don't remember what other non-Jewish people Jesus is depicted as interacting with, besides the woman at the well, and his mention of the "good Samaritan". I'd need to spend some time on that.

18 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think he believed God would overthrow the Roman Empire and it was going to happen shortly, which is why he was warning Jews to get ready for the coming Kingdom.

I don't agree with everything that Bart Ehrman says, even though he does have a lot of great insights. Obviously I don't agree with how he understands Jesus all the time.

Seems like it took a bit longer to convert the Romans. 

The Kingdom of Heaven is about everybody living together and sharing and caring and loving one another. People just started doing this, and possibly were ignoring all the authority type people, whether they were Jewish or Roman. Ignoring some governments can be a good thing at times, I should know, I live in the US 🙂 .

They weren't waiting to do this, It started happening right away. In that sense the Kingdom of Heaven started inbreaking right then and there. Who was in authority didn't matter too much, and everyone was accepted, no matter where they came from or who or what their ancestry was.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

An officer in the Roman army, nominally in command of one hundred soldiers. In Matthew 8:5 , a centurion who lived at Capernaum approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing servant. In Mark 15:39 , a centurion who witnessed the crucifixion identified Jesus as the Son of God. In Acts 10:1 , the conversion of the centurion Cornelius marked the beginning of the church's outreach to the Gentile world. In Acts 27:3 , the centurion Julius treated the apostle Paul with courtesy. These passages illustrate the generally favorable impression made by the centurions who appear in the New Testament. They were usually career soldiers, and they formed the real backbone of the Roman military force.

None of these are examples though of Jesus interacting with Romans, or what he had to say to them.  Well may have some Romans thought favorably of Jesus (or what was later said about him).  That doesn't demonstrate that Jesus thought his message of the coming Kingdom included them.  To the contrary, he clearly thinks that the 'forces' against the Jews will be overthrown - aka the Romans.

Quote

The Kingdom of Heaven is about everybody living together and sharing and caring and loving one another. People just started doing this, and possibly were ignoring all the authority type people, whether they were Jewish or Roman. Ignoring some governments can be a good thing at times, I should know, I live in the US 🙂 .

I think this is a kind of harmonization of the stories of Jesus rather than a critical analysis of what we think he did and said.  From what I have read, I'm pretty certain he believed in a very imminent coming of the Kingdom of God, for the Jews, to overthrow those that oppressed them.  Jesus lived in very apocalyptic times and he wasn't the only prophet to be pushing this message.  He does talk about the Kingdom of God being within, but I think that is in the context of the personal relationship a Jew could have with their God, as was soon going to be the case when God's kingdom actually arrived.

Quote

They weren't waiting to do this, It started happening right away. In that sense the Kingdom of Heaven started inbreaking right then and there. Who was in authority didn't matter too much, and everyone was accepted, no matter where they came from or who or what their ancestry was.  

I'm not sure that was ever Jesus' message or actually was happening during his time.  Really the first we hear about that sort of approach was after Jesus' died and Paul rose to prominence.  I think Paul broadened the Jesus message to include all - I don't think that was Jesus' intention.  Paul too thought the kingdom was imminent, but he was pushing the 'all persons' barrow which is where I think we get that from.  When Jesus didn't return in Paul's lifetime later Christians started saying Jesus will come later, then later, then later.  Christians have generally been waiting about 2000 years for the Kingdom of God that Jesus thought was imminent for the Jews, there and then in his lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Jesus was human with human emotions and also that he preached for the Jews. However as a knowledgeable Jew he would have known that when the Kingdom came all the empires of the world would come to worship the one God and 'live in the Kingdom.' Thus is what Paul focused on and this understanding in the hands of one such as Jesus is revealed in a broader reach that was 'inclusive' of non-Jews.  

While we don't know all of Jesus's interactions, the gospels do present him as one who is not bound (a Spongism) by his Judaism in a way that he rejects those who are not Jews. He is shown as open and interacting and caring for the Samaritan woman and the Roman soldier. Did it happen? Who knows. Was it an accurate or true portrayal of the Jesus who was known/remembered - probably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Paul was working in Jerusalem, but from there going as far abroad as Damascus. 

Just to further muddy the waters, the biblical scholar, Paul Fredriksen, in her book 'Paul, The Pagans' Apostle' indicates that while Paul visited Jerusalem, she considers it (an unanswered) question if Paul ever lived or studied in Jerusalem. Unlike Acts there is no mention in Paul's authentic letters that he ever lived in Jerusalem or studied  under Gamaliel and he does not mention Stephan in his time persecuting Christians.

it seems that scholars give some reliability to Acts on Paul but they give priority to his own letters when there is a discrepancy between Acts and his letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service