Paul, Not Jesus Spead Chrisitianity

[Harshaw]

See the edit. I then look forward to your heartfelt and humble apology. Please stop spreading disinformation. The population of Judea at the time of Christ was around a million on the LOW END of scholarly estimates. Higher estimates are in the two to three million range.

What you did is prove that 1) I am indeed "worth your time," and 2) that you don't have what you originally cited, and most likely never read it, which is what we call real "bull****." If you had it, you could have typed it, just as you typed from the other thing you dug up. But no, you just copied the citation from something else.

But here's a link for you:

The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership & Worship - Arthur G. Patzia - Google Books

Which disagrees with that which you typed from your new-found source, if indeed even that was for real.

I have no doubt you wish to expand the term "region" to as wide an area as possible to be right, though.

 

[ecofarm]

THis is nothing new to me, but my question has to do with whether or not Paul really had an epiphany on the road to Damascus, or whether he simply saw an opportunity to co-opt the movent he had been fighting so ruthlessly?

Wait a minute. Saul was a Pharisee, educated by the finest Pharisee, of position unknown to one of his age, a member of death sentence tribunals in the temple, granted high priest permission to kill and capture followers of Jesus and (locally) powerful beyond anything we can imagine in the modern world. And you think it was a good political move to switch sides? No, sorry. Not if we take the Bible account as accurate.

If you'd like to reinvent Saul as some middle-class person without better options, perhaps.

 

[ecofarm]

Did he ever claim that Jesus spoke to him? I tend to suspect that his own conscience was speaking to him, and had nothing to do with Jesus himself. He may have been influenced by the teachings of Jesus, but when a person undergoes inner change, it comes from within him.

Nothing to do with Jesus himself? Nonsense. Jesus was the inspiration for Saul to see the light, the guidance of his spiritual awakening, the Lord of his soul.

 

[Gardener]

Wait a minute. Saul was a Pharisee, educated by the finest Pharisee, of position unknown to one of his age, a member of death sentence tribunals in the temple, granted high priest permission to kill and capture followers of Jesus and (locally) powerful beyond anything we can imagine in the modern world. And you think it was a good political move to switch sides? No, sorry. Not if we take the Bible account as accurate.

If you'd like to reinvent Saul as some middle-class person without better options, perhaps.

I'm not suggesting he switched sides. I am suggesting he co-opted the movement so to put his own stamp on it.

If it wasn't such a good political move for him, why did his will to power result in his name being the most famous among Pharisees, and his influence so far exceed that of Jesus?

 

[Guy Incognito]

What you did is prove that 1) I am indeed "worth your time," and 2) that you don't have what you originally cited, and most likely never read it, which is what we call real "bull****." If you had it, you could have typed it, just as you typed from the other thing you dug up. But no, you just copied the citation from something else.

But here's a link for you:

The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership & Worship - Arthur G. Patzia - Google Books

Which disagrees with that which you typed from your new-found source, if indeed even that was for real.

I have no doubt you wish to expand the term "region" to as wide an area as possible to be right, though.

Like I said, the cite is for the benefit of innocent third parties who might actual believe the bull**** you are spewing. You are most assuredly not worth my time.

The first cite clearly supports my proposition since a million pilgrims coming from the region clearly implies at least a million people in the region. The second cite is more on point, and blows your bullshiy out of the water entirely.

The region in question is the levant. That you are unclear on this ply further underscores your own ignorance.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm not suggesting he switched sides. I am suggesting he co-opted the movement so to put his own stamp on it.

There's no political benefit, only catastrophe.

If it wasn't such a good political move for him, why did his will to power result in his name being the most famous among Pharisees, and his influence so far exceed that of Jesus?

He was famous among the Pharisees before the road to Damascus. He was a young man of unparalleled and even unheard of stature and bearer of high priest death sentences with juristiction throughout Judea. He was something like top Senator in the temple and he traded it for rags and persecution.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Like I said, the cite is for the benefit of innocent third parties who might actual believe the bull**** you are spewing. You are most assuredly not worth my time.

The first cite clearly supports my proposition since a million pilgrims coming from the region clearly implies at least a million people in the region. The second cite is more on point, and blows your bullshiy out of the water entirely.

The region in question is the levant. That you are unclear on this ply further underscores your own ignorance.

But that whole thing about not reading your own citations is clearly projection. Just look at page 24 of the book you cited but clearly did not read. "it is estimated that the total population of Palestine in the rest century was between 1.5 and 2 million people."


Hahaha. Your ignorance is amusing.

 

[Harshaw]

Like I said, the cite is for the benefit of innocent third parties who might actual believe the bull**** you are spewing. You are most assuredly not worth my time.

As your fifth post to me attests, yes. Will you go for a sixth? That'd really show how much I'm not worth your time.

The first cite clearly supports my proposition since a million pilgrims coming from the region clearly implies at least a million people in the region.

You've provided absolutely no language from it, which is pretty hard to do when you've never actually read it, much less have it on hand, I realize.

The second cite is more on point, and blows your bullshiy out of the water entirely.

No, it doesn't, especially when I've provided a link which contradicts it. That you would claim your own to be superior means exactly diddly-squat, which to say it is actually unfair to most things diddly-squat.

The region in question is the levant. That you are unclear on this ply further underscores your own ignorance.

No, that's the "region" you wish to define in order to be right, which is what I said. In this case, you're pretty much trying to tie in the entire Asian Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. I stated specifically I was referring to Judea.

 

[Rainman05]

I learned something this weekend I never knew. A man named Saul was determined to kill off al followers of Jesus Christ and aided in the murder of nearly all of them. He then had a "experience" that changed him to then spread the word of Jesus. According to this documentary he changed his name to Paul and spent his life spreading the word. It went on to say if it were not for this man Paul it may be that Chrisitanity never would have survived for the lack of followers. One question jumps out at me, if Jesus was the Messiha (sp) why was his following so tiny? Just how many of his follwers were there? I know nothing of the Bible but I always assumed there were hundreds of thousands following him (Jesus) while he was alive.

All the apostoles spread the word of Jesus. It was why they were given the gift to speak in all the tongues of men.

 

[Harshaw]

But that whole thing about not reading your own citations is clearly projection. Just look at page 24 of the book you cited but clearly did not read. "it is estimated that the total population of Palestine in the rest century was between 1.5 and 2 million people."

Yes. Look what it said about Judea, not "Palestine." And I posted it because it refutes what YOU posted about "low end," etc.

So, this IS that sixth post addressed to me (though you quoted yourself). Apparently I'm very much worth your time. G'head, make it seven, eight, or nine.

See, now you're in a bind -- you want to keep insisting I'm beneath your contempt, but you can't stop responding to me. And the more I point it out, the more of fool you look like for continuing. But you also can't bail, because that would look just as bad. You, of course, did this to yourself.

Well, you wanted to play. C'est la vie. I'd have been just as happy leaving you be.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Hey, harsh, we are all talking about Judea! You said Judea had a population "barely in the hundreds of thousands.". This is false. Jerusalem alone had a population in the hundreds of thousands and Judea had a population at a minimum of around a million, not including Galilee. You are ignorant and if you had any courage or intellectual honesty you'd admit that your unsupported assertion in the first page of this thread is clearly false. Be a man!

 

[Smeagol]

I learned something this weekend I never knew. A man named Saul was determined to kill off al followers of Jesus Christ and aided in the murder of nearly all of them. He then had a "experience" that changed him to then spread the word of Jesus. According to this documentary he changed his name to Paul and spent his life spreading the word. It went on to say if it were not for this man Paul it may be that Chrisitanity never would have survived for the lack of followers. One question jumps out at me, if Jesus was the Messiha (sp) why was his following so tiny? Just how many of his followers were there? I know nothing of the Bible but I always assumed there were hundreds of thousands following him (Jesus) while he was alive.

Paul was in fact instrumental in spreading the Gospel but if he'd not been available God would have used someone else. If you're building a new house, you hire a General Contractor. If your first choice isn't available, you hire a different one. Not taking anything away from Paul who did great things all Christians can appreciate, its not about Paul. If he where posting here I'm sure he would agree.

I honestly encourage you to read the Bible, for entertainment if nothing else. Its a really good read. The Old Testament; the books of Genesis through Malachi deal with ancient man, Mesopotamian and of course ancient Jewish history with a lot of great stories of people living at the time. The New Testament; the books of Matthew through Revelation deal with the time Jesus was on the earth, the Roman Empire and the early Church.

Interesting betch didn't know Bible trivia:

-Some people have theorized the first man was a hermaphroditic based on the Biblical account.
-Move over Ozarks, Bible patriarch Abraham was married to his half sister and Jacob was married to his first cousins, two sisters at the same time but was tricked into it by his uncle.
-Moses was inter-racially married.
-Daniel accurately predicted all of the major empires (bronze age, iron ages, etc.) down to today's world power divided by East and West along with hints of the characteristic steel and concrete infrastructure, unimaginable access to global travel and information.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes. Look what it said about Judea, not "Palestine." And I posted it because it refutes what YOU posted about "low end," etc.

So, this IS that sixth post addressed to me (though you quoted yourself). Apparently I'm very much worth your time. G'head, make it seven, eight, or nine.

See, now you're in a bind -- you want to keep insisting I'm beneath your contempt, but you can't stop responding to me. And the more I point it out, the more of fool you look like for continuing. But you also can't bail, because that would look just as bad. You, of course, did this to yourself.

Well, you wanted to play. C'est la vie. I'd have been just as happy leaving you be.

Yeaj, read the next sentence, the Jewish population of Judea was 500000 to 600000, not including samaritans, Romans, or Greeks. The non Jewish population of Judea was at least. Quarter million, probably more. Do the math.

Hardly a population "barely in the hundreds of thousands.". I await even a single source to back up your blatant falsehood.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeaj, read the next sentence, the Jewish population of Judea was 500000 to 600000, not including samaritans, Romans, or Greeks.

Seven! Oh, you're showing me, no doubt!

You don't get that it still refutes your "low end." :lamo

Which is why I posted it:

But here's a link for you:

The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership & Worship - Arthur G. Patzia - Google Books

Which disagrees with that which you typed from your new-found source, if indeed even that was for real.

I have no doubt you wish to expand the term "region" to as wide an area as possible to be right, though.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Seven! Oh, you're showing me, no doubt!

You don't get that it still refutes your "low end." :lamo

You are so full of ****. You said it was barely a hundred thousand. This is false, even taking a low end estimate.

 

[Harshaw]

You are so full of ****. You said it was barely a hundred thousand. This is false, even taking a low end estimate.

Eight! Hot diggity!

And no, I didn't:

There were barely "hundreds of thousands" of total people in the entire region.

Point being, in order to have "hundreds of thousands" of followers, as the OP said he thought Jesus had, it would have required nearly everyone in Judea at the time. As in, it was a poor assumption that he had that many, given the population.

You simply failed to understand the post, apparently.

 

[Harshaw]

Hey, harsh, we are all talking about Judea! You said Judea had a population "barely in the hundreds of thousands.". This is false. Jerusalem alone had a population in the hundreds of thousands and Judea had a population at a minimum of around a million, not including Galilee. You are ignorant and if you had any courage or intellectual honesty you'd admit that your unsupported assertion in the first page of this thread is clearly false. Be a man!

Hey, NINE! You are proving I'm "not worth your time" by the minute! :lamo

And no, you weren't talking about "Judea." You're simply lying. You said yourself:

The region in question is the levant.

And you got snarky about it:

That you are unclear on this ply further underscores your own ignorance.

But Levant was much, much, much bigger than just Judea.

And then here you invoked "Palestine," not just "Judea":

But that whole thing about not reading your own citations is clearly projection. Just look at page 24 of the book you cited but clearly did not read. "it is estimated that the total population of Palestine in the rest century was between 1.5 and 2 million people."


Hahaha. Your ignorance is amusing.

And again attempted to mock me as "ignorant" for it.

But now, NOW, "we are all talking about Judea"? Interesting "we" that you include yourself in. While, of course, claiming that I'm the one "spewing bull****."

Go ahead, let's get to ten, eleven, even twelve here. I'm sure the more pissed you get, the more posts you're going to make. Indeed, proving how much I mean to you.

 

[lizzie]

Nothing to do with Jesus himself? Nonsense. Jesus was the inspiration for Saul to see the light, the guidance of his spiritual awakening, the Lord of his soul.

An inspiration is one thing. Believing that Jesus appeared before you, and told you what to do, is another. I'm not inclined toward believing that people are changed from the outside, except in that they may listen to what someone else has to say, and it sparks a thought which then prompts them to change themselves from the inside. I'm not inclined toward believing in miracles, but I do think that the imagery and symbolism in religious texts does help a person change his state of mind and his course of action.

 

[digsbe]

Paul was one of those who spread the Gospel early on. Before his conversion he was known as Saul and was part of the Jewish order than went around killing and imprisoning Christians for their beliefs. The Bible says on the road to Damascus God blinded Saul and asked him "Why do you persecute Me?" Saul was instructed to go to Damascus and wait. As a Christian the main thing that I take out of Paul's conversion isn't some miracle where the Holy Spirit confronts him (which did happen), it's the fact that God chose to use a man that at one point was killing Christians for their faith to in turn spread the truth of God's word. This man, despite his past, was able to be forgiven but was also given the task of planting churches, instructing people in the faith, and spreading the truth about God. This passage from Acts 9 (NIV version) speaks to that. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 9&version=NIV

11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,

(bolded part done by me).

In the end Paul chose to follow Christ and spread the Gospel, and ultimately he did suffer much for God and was executed for his faith.

 

[lizzie]

As a Christian the main thing that I take out of Paul's conversion isn't some miracle where the Holy Spirit confronts him (which did happen), it's the fact that God chose to use a man that at one point was killing Christians for their faith to in turn spread the truth of God's word. This man, despite his past, was able to be forgiven but was also given the task of planting churches, instructing people in the faith, and spreading the truth about God. This passage from Acts 9 (NIV version) speaks to that. Acts 9 NIV - Saul


(bolded part done by me).

In the end Paul chose to follow Christ and spread the Gospel, and ultimately he did suffer much for God and was executed for his faith.

To me, the bolded is very significant, as many of the greatest figures in Biblical (and other) history have some pretty serious flaws. I don't think that is a bad thing, and in fact, think it's probably one of the reasons that they are great figures who have been remembered to this day. One of the biggest problems in some religions (my opinion only) is that people are taught that they must be "good" to earn God's favor, when that does not seem to be the case at all. People who have serious flaws often have the greatest strength of character, and it's how they use those flaws for accomplishing great personal strength that interests me.

 

[Josie]

I learned something this weekend I never knew. A man named Saul was determined to kill off al followers of Jesus Christ and aided in the murder of nearly all of them. He then had a "experience" that changed him to then spread the word of Jesus. According to this documentary he changed his name to Paul and spent his life spreading the word. It went on to say if it were not for this man Paul it may be that Chrisitanity never would have survived for the lack of followers. One question jumps out at me, if Jesus was the Messiha (sp) why was his following so tiny? Just how many of his follwers were there? I know nothing of the Bible but I always assumed there were hundreds of thousands following him (Jesus) while he was alive.

You JUST learned the story of Saul/Paul? How is that possible?

 

[Wessexman]

THis is nothing new to me, but my question has to do with whether or not Paul really had an epiphany on the road to Damascus, or whether he simply saw an opportunity to co-opt the movent he had been fighting so ruthlessly?

He never met Jesus while alive, and his own message was not always in alignment with that of Jesus, especially in regards to tolerance, and so I do wonder.

My own attitude is that one should read the red letters and sift though the rest. Red always trumps black in this particular case.

Paul was accepted by the Apostles, including Peter, the rock on which the Church was built, and John, the disciple whom Christ loved. From a Christian point of view that makes Paul's conversion and contact with Christ basically unimpeachable.

It is certainly true that Christ trumps Paul, and, except for a few Protestants down the ages, the Gospels have always been treated with greater reverence than the epistles. But I'm always perplexed when people say things like Christ was more tolerant than Paul. Actually, Christ often is clearly marking out the path of perfection, the path of the Saint. Hence, we see Christ say things like to look on a woman with lust is to commit adultery in your heart. Paul actually adapts Christianity, providentially no doubt, to the Gentiles and with far greater emphasis on the spiritual path of the average, sinful man. There are imbalances in Paul's perspective no doubt, which will burst forth in Augustinian and then, even more so, in Protestant Christianity (Luther's devotion to a Pauline position is so strong as to make him refer to the epistle of James as the epistle of straw and wish to remove it from the Scriptures, for example).

 

[lizzie]

You JUST learned the story of Saul/Paul? How is that possible?

If you aren't raised in the Christian church, it's easy not to know the story. It's not exactly news headlines, or in school history textbooks.:2razz:

 

[Josie]

If you aren't raised in the Christian church, it's easy not to know the story. It's not exactly news headlines, or in school history textbooks.:2razz:

I guess I just thought the Bible was common knowledge even for non-religious people. Hmm.

 

[JC Callender]

I also think a lot of people won't open a Bible because they feel guilty that they've been too bad. Reading stories of Paul, David, etc....made me feel a little better about myself.

To me, the bolded is very significant, as many of the greatest figures in Biblical (and other) history have some pretty serious flaws. I don't think that is a bad thing, and in fact, think it's probably one of the reasons that they are great figures who have been remembered to this day. One of the biggest problems in some religions (my opinion only) is that people are taught that they must be "good" to earn God's favor, when that does not seem to be the case at all. People who have serious flaws often have the greatest strength of character, and it's how they use those flaws for accomplishing great personal strength that interests me.