The Search for the Historical Paul - John Dominic Crossan

John Dominic Crossan, the eminent historical Jesus scholar, and Jonathan L. Reed, an expert in biblical archaeology, reveal through archaeology and textual scholarship that Paul, like Jesus, focused on championing the Kingdom of God----a realm of justice and equality----against the dominant, worldly powers of the Roman empire.
Many theories exist about who Paul was, what he believed, and what role he played in the origins of Christianity. Using archaeological and textual evidence, and taking advantage of recent major discoveries in Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Syria, Crossan and Reed show that Paul was a fallible but dedicated successor to Jesus, carrying on Jesus's mission of inaugurating the Kingdom of God on earth in opposition to the reign of Rome. Against the concrete backdrop of first--century Grego--Roman and Jewish life, In Search of Paul reveals the work of Paul as never before, showing how and why the liberating messages and practices of equality, caring for the poor, and a just society under God's rules, not Rome's, were so appealing.
Why 10 scrolls when Christianity's New Testament attributes 13 letters to the apostle Paul: letters to communities such as the Romans, Corinthians (twice), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (twice) and to individuals such as Timothy (twice), Titus and Philemon.
There is, however, a massive consensus in modern scholarship that those three letters to Timothy and Titus were written in Paul's name but long after his death. It would seen, then, that around 1265 a Byzantine artist at Sopoćani already accepted that viewpoint -- hence, only 10 scrolls for 10 letters.
There is also a strong (but not massive) consensus among much of modern scholarship that a further three of those 10 letters were not written by Paul. In other words, we have seven letters certainly from the historical Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), three others probably not from him (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and a final three certainly not from him (1-2 Timothy, Titus). Those are all, of course, historical conclusions and not dogmatic presumptions. Paul of the authentic seven letters (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) is slowly but steadily morphed into the conservative Paul of the probably inauthentic threesome (Ephesians Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and finally into the reactionary Paul of those certainly inauthentic ones (1-2 Timothy, Titus).
In other words, the radical Paul is being deradicalized, sanitized and Romanized. His radical views on, for example, slavery and patriarchy, are being retrofitted into Roman cultural expectations and Roman social presuppositions.
www.huffingtonp...

[@jimtussing]

“You can have a Democracy or you can have an Empire, but you can’t have both for long.”

[@danmiller6462]

Very interesting presentation. Crossan ranks in the upper tier wth Ehrman and Bishop Spong. Very educated and dedicated men.

[@6Uncles]

looking for other people to read/watch. Recommendations along the same line?

[@tylerstorey5531]

@@6Uncles Marcus Borg fits.

[@DBCisco]

When Ehrman stops teaching at a Christian University, maybe he will stop pushing the Bible as history.

[@tylerstorey5531]

@@DBCisco Ehrman doesn't teach at a Christian university.

[@DBCisco]

@@tylerstorey5531 I stand corrected.

[@MrResearcher122]

A beautiful interpretation of the Pauline Message. Context is so important, and setting the backdrop within the Roman World helps identify the man, the message, the struggle: ''I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith''- although the above scholars, appear to doubt those were Paul's words, but,as they say, its a historical conclusion not a dogmatic presumption, and one I'd question, since its a conclusion which, unsurprisingly, agrees with the contemporary 'ideological presumptions of today'. Minds change when,as it were, Emperors change.

[@JP-io1uo]

111 1 ,!

[@sebolddaniel]

Sounds like the silly lyrics to that Frank Sinatra song: "I did it my way.". It has gotten to the point where the narrators in the the New Testament sound ridiculous in how they preach to the audience: "And they were amazed."

[@Achill101]

@@sebolddaniel - why do you think the lyrics are silly in "I did it my way"? I think a good case could be made for this song being a great hymn to American individualism, both confirming the existing trend and welcoming its continuation.

[@sebolddaniel]

Because it is shopworn cliche. As TS Eliot or maybe Ezra Pound said: "Make it new " Robert Frost's often quoted in high school yearbooks, "and I took the less traveled by and that and made all the difference," is actually poking fun of that worn out thought. If you read that poem literally it is about a man who says "ages and ages hence" I am going to lie myself and come up with this inane rationalization when the paths were "really worn about the same"

[@ComradeAgopian]

I disagree theologically with Professor Crossan on several points , but , I still find his work very stimulating and thought provoking .

[@PatricksLesson]

Whenever one speaks of what happened to Paul on the Damascus road, they (to use Crossan language) grope around in the dark. Paul didn’t only have a mystical experience, he saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ!

[@ReligionWatch]

Dom is simply a world class scholar.

[@wilkiebunkers1352]

I love Crossan's perspective

[@ArnaGSmith]

Yes, we hear in America say all people are equal; however, we know from the reality of certain lives that some people are more equal than others -- to this day.

[@thetruthseeker5448]

Two years after your comment, it is more obvious and troublesome!

[@michaeltelson9798]

The Romano Jewish historian Josephus has some historical references that are very interesting. 1) The Sanhedrin could only be convened with the permission of the Roman Governor. This was shown in reference to the stoning of James the Just when the then Governor was in Alexandria. The High Priest was sacked for convening the Sanhedrin without permission. That implies that Pilate had the same power. 2) When Paul left Damascus through the wall, there was conflict between Arab Damascus and the nearby Herodian states (Galilee. etc) due the Herodian king divorcing the daughter of the Arab king of Damascus a few years earlier. The conflict was during a period that Tiberius died as client states weren’t allowed to fight each other. 3) Besides the Pastoral Epistles, Luke and Acts of the Apostles are thought to be written by the same person as vocabulary and style are similar. 4) According to the true epistles of Paul, he and Peter never reconciled. Peter wanted to follow the Law and Peter wanted exceptions.

[@Achill101]

4) The conserved epistles of Paul describe a limited time, before Paul went to Rome, and we can't know from them if Peter and Paul reconciled at any later time. Instead of writing: "according to the true epistles ... they never reconciled...", maybe:"the true epistles ... show no sign of them reconciling"?

[@jerryg3524]

Fr. Dominic (ex-Fr. Dominic that is) is hilarious, he's also a great theologian, his knowledge of the ancient world at the time of Jesus and Paul is amazing

www.jesusneverexisted.com is more honest and accurate

[@jeanettecampbell2110]

Paul said he'd be a law-keeper to law-keepers, law-breakers to law-breakers, etc..., as long as he wins. Paul's agenda is to win. And Christianity was given up to Rome and severely paganized.

[@wowojeejee]

Historians agree that there is no written eyewitness account of Jesus. Paul's (Saul) biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well-known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination if he actually existed. He never actually saw Jesus; he experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. John Gresham Machen wrote: The establishment of Christianity as a world religion, to almost as great an extent as any great historical movement can be ascribed to one man, was the work of Paul. I also read that when the Romans arrested Paul, they asked him: Who is this Jesus you keep talking about?

[@lepidoptera9337]

Well, he probably saw something because he was hallucinating. His account of that sounds very much like an episode of methanol poisoning... in other words, he drank way too much of really poorly made booze.

[@hduster1]

Thank you

[@1913gg]

Professor Crossan you are just a smart, intelligent American. You told us all about the 50% of history,,, etc. The Matter. How about the rest? Should we go to Mountain Athos for the rest?

[@MrResearcher122]

@doina grecu He is Irish. He lives in USA. Irish accent is similar to American English.

[@moesypittounikos]

Desperately needs photo's of the things Crosson describes.

[@dannyscoggin]

I didn't find this informative. I do understand the backstory he was presenting but it seemed to stop at the roman background

[@captainace4276]

I LOVE GOD TURN TO HIM REPENT AND ACCEPT HIM AND BE SAVED LIKE ME AND ALL CHRISTIANS AND FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND FATHER GOD OUR CREATOR AMEN 🙏

[@DBCisco]

Which denomination and doctrines is the True Christianity ?

[@TorianTammas]

Saved from what? Which denomination do you follow? How do you know it is the true one as a lot of other denomination considers other Christians to folllow the wrong path.

[@walkinginthelight587]

Why do people still think they have discovered something new 2000 years after the fact.

[@stevenrogersfineart4224]

Because it was until a few hundred years ago we even had a translation of the Bible many could read, and it wasn't until a few years ago that the dead sea scrolls and many other research material was accessible to all. I would say we have "discovered" more evidence without necessarily discovering more content :P

[@TorianTammas]

Because we start to unravel all the fantasies that for the 1900 year was piled upon the facts.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

It’s interesting that the Gospels ascribed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John never mentions Paul of Damascus. But it is mainly Acts and a few usurps in the Pauline epistles that refer to Paul. I’m starting to believe that Paul is a construct of the 1st and 2nd century early New Testament Church. What do you 🤔?

[@1Rokyro]

All 13 Pauline epistles start with the writer identifying himself as Paul. Including Acts that is 14 different biblical documents, just off the top of my head. Then there are others, which are almost certainly indirect references to him, such as the Book of James and John's Revelation. I'm not aware of any serious scholar, historian or theologian that claims Paul was invention of the early Church. More convincingly, Paul was in conflict with the early church, that is the earliest followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, including Jesus's own brother, James. The Gospels which you mention, are largely Pauline forms of Christianity, especially Luke, as is most of the New Testament.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

The four gospels cannot be Pauline in nature if they do not mention or reference Paul. Acts which is supposedly written by Paul and the Pauline letters written by Paul, are Paul claim that he met Jesus and the apostles, no eyewitnesses to his story other than Paul and his assertions. The facts

[@1Rokyro]

@@chosenskeptic5319 Why would the gospels mention Paul? Their stories end with the death of Jesus, and in the case of Matthew, Luke and John, his resurrection appearances. I think we should be careful with language so as not to obscure the facts. Christian tradition claims that Luke, an apostle of Paul, wrote Acts. I haven't seen any Christian tradition or scholarly claim that Paul himself is the author. No, I doubt that the author of Acts was an apostle of Paul, but he was more than likely a member of a second-generation Pauline church. One of the main reasons why the 7 authentic letters of Paul are so valuable, is because they are they the only undisputed primary documents we have in the bible. When we compare them to Acts, we see significant differences, both in historical accounts and theology. Christians hate to admit this. The letters are of immense historical value because Paul almost certainly never imagined them one day becoming scripture. Had he, it would be unlikely he would have written about topics such as sleeping with one's step-mother or his disputes with the original followers of Jesus. There are no eye witness claims to Paul, but that's the case with the vast majority of ancient, historical figures, including Jesus himself, of course. You and I are probably mostly on the same page (I'm guessing, could be wrong). I just think it's unwise to throw the baby out with the bath water. There's a lot in NT testament documents that Christians find embarrassing and inconvenient and that they try to explain and rationalize away. I don't think that the historicity of Paul is one of them. On the other hand, ask a Christian why Paul and problems with Peter and James (the brother of Jesus, something they also try to explain away) and watch the fireworks fly!

[@chosenskeptic5319]

I appreciate your honesty, I think 🤔 we are on similar pages. The doctrines of Paul are important assertions for the early church.

[@bengoldberg6198]

The reason Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John don't mention Paul is because all four gospels are telling the story of Jesus' ministry and so-called Passion. Acts, written by the same author as Luke, is akin to the sequel of the Gospel of Luke and is largely the story of Paul's conversion and ministry to the gentiles. Since Paul had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or the movement prior to Jesus' crucifixion, it makes sense that he's not mentioned in the gospels. Paul himself readily admits to never knowing Jesus before he died and to opposing the Christian movement after Jesus died.

[@icaiahdb1014]

If you have the holy spirit within you, you will perceive and discern, if the word spoken is the truth and or word of knowledge, when Paul had his road to Damascus experience, he was Saul, but after he preferred to be called Paul, Paul being his Roman name, it's suspected by biblical experts that when Paul talked about, a man who went to the third heaven, that he was actually talking about himself, I can just imagine how profound that experience must have been for him, after his return he knew the full gospel inside and out, during Jesus's ministry woman were co-equals in the faith, I think we a the church are slowly getting back to that, as it should be, man's doctrine made it that way, Paul couldn't speak in the first person in his letters in relation to Jesus Christ, may the Lord bless you and keep you

The bible is mere mythology. Paul is a literary invention. Jesus never existed.

@Sanji Kun juvenile; grow up kid. All gods are imaginary beings. Just stop making laws and policies based on your delusions.

When you ask Christians anywhere on the globe to point you to hell, they point down, meaning they see one another as hell. It is not a place, it's a cheap scare tactic.

Sanji is a stalker now.

[@TheRobdarling]

No evidence for any of it

[@hillarebelloc6014]

That was interesting

[@Nkosi766]

How did Paul travel to all those places in such short period of time without the Concorde???

[@efiq78]

THAT WHY I THINK,HE A LIAR,HOW CAN WE BELIEVE,JESUS ALSO WARN US ABOUT PAUL A LIAR..

[@DBCisco]

He borrowed Muhammad's flying horse. lol

[@bengoldberg6198]

If you look at a map you'll see it isn't unrealistic at all. Most historians think he converted about 3 years after Jesus' death. Jesus was crucified between 26 C.E.-36 C.E. (the years Pontius Pilate served as Prefect of Judea). His earliest letters are dated around the early 50s C.E. In other words, he was on the road for something like two decades.

[@Nkosi766]

@@bengoldberg6198 , catch phrase most historians, who are they?

[@nathanbell6962]

Horse is faster than you think. London to Glasgow could be done in 2 days by Stagecoach

[@hunszkita1]

Ralph Ellis (YT ) is the best about Jesus and Saul

[@tnormanthird]

Great informative presentation.

[@davidfrisken1617]

Isn't there 4 Pauls referred to by christian scholars, and not the 3 John refers to? 1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.) 2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.) 3) Pseudo-Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.) 4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

[@johnraymond1861]

Why dose Paul's testimony have 4different conversion story's acts 9 acts 22acts 26 and Galatians 2?? Please check it for yourselves if I'm wrong

[@digitaurus]

Paul is responsible for Galatians 2 only, not acts

[@johnraymond1861]

@@digitaurus Not true if you know history of acts Luke asked Paul questions because they traveled together it was Paul who told him! Some Scholars think acts was writer for Paul's trial in Roman

[@barbarabradley1402]

Lot of People do not believe the truth and falling away. So the falling away is starting like the Bible said. this man is one of them.

[@nbenefiel]

This man is the world's foremost expert on the historical Jesus and the history of the early church. He has read every extant version of the Bible, and all of the surviving documents from the original christians, before 2,000 years of interpretation got to them. Have you?

[@barbarabradley1402]

He can read all he wants. if its in the Bible its the Truth.

[@nbenefiel]

Unless you read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Amharic, how do you know what's actually in the Bible? Crossan reads all of those and knows exactly what the texts actually say.

[@barbarabradley1402]

Nancy Benefiel What is in the bible is all I need to know. G-d saw the end from the Beginning. if he didn't think the Holy Bible was enough are right. He would have don't something about it.

[@nbenefiel]

How can you believe literally in a book you have read only in translation?

[@internetsurfer777]

Hitofthe Partygoers Paul isnt writing about long hair as some kind of perfect command. He was writing to a specific congregation (Corinth) about a specific problem concenring gender behavior where they had departed from acting like women and men. He is not trying to say that in every single tribe or nation or cultural context its altogether wrong for men to have long hair. Just read what he connects his entire argument in 1 Cor 11 with - the customs in the congregations (1 Cor 11:16). Had men used makeup and mascara he would have adressed that, even if they had short hair. What he corrected was that people started to abandon the image of God: that we are created as men and women. Concerning Acts 13:1 it just shows that a member of the church was relative to Herod, and it doesn't say anything else. And Rom 16:11 just say there was a person named Herodion, and it doesnt say anything else.. Those thigns are a very weak proof for your theory. Its just your mere opinion and speculation. This world will be judged by the savior who died for our sins and was resurrected for our justification. You need to repent from sin and put your trust in jesus Christ. If you reject people who are sent by Jesus Christ, you are rejecting not only the messenger, but also the one who sent him. So if Jesus lived through Paul and instructed the church through Paul and you reject Paul then you reject Jesus. As for the main leader in Jerusalem, Peter, he accepted Paul, compared his scriptures with the old testament scriptures, called Paul "our beloved brother" and said people twist his words to their own destruction: "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 pet 3:15-16).

[@TorianTammas]

This guys name is Yeshuah. Why do you call a galilean jew by a roman name? Let me guess you don't realize that this is a translation and that even Greek is not the language Yeshuah used but he spoke Aramaic. Yes most people overlook the obvious the foreigner in a foreign language and he looked like every other middle Eastern guy with black hair, olive skin, and dark eyes.

[@jamesanonymous2343]

the internet is basically a video media, ie: "pictures". not audio with still shots.

[@antonius3745]

Crossan did do a great job on this subject but I'm not totally convinced by Crossan. He still sees Paul as the initiator of christian theology and sees him to much in the Greco-Roman Hellenistic jew. In Paul his lifetime there was no christianity! There only was the Way, the first movement of Jerusalem. Crossan still has the concept of the mystical revelation as a conversion. He had the merchavah jewish mystical revelation. He never saw Jesus in that revelation but Gods Glory. extending out to the all humankind. And he saw this revealed in the Resurrection. Want to now more read the book Paul was no christian, Pamela Eisenbaum.

[@kaiju2783]

In Pauls day there was something like Christianity. You seem to have forgotten the sotry where Paul is helped by people who would end up becoming Christians

[@antonius3745]

​@@kaiju2783 There was no Christianity in Paul's time, The ecclesia, the Greek word that is translated with church was already know in the Hellenistic Jewish communities. It denotes a group of people (only males) that were organized with special goal or aim (mostly social or cultural). In the Jewish community they were present as the "synagogue of the released or liberated". we do not know for sure what is meant with that. Christianity as we know it is not earlier than the year 70 AC and as late than the 2th century. Paul, Jesus and the apostles were no christians!

[@kaiju2783]

@@antonius3745 Correct. There was no Christianity in Pauls time. They were Jews who followed Jesus. I never said they were Christians. Everyone knows they were Jews People say early Chrstians to not be confused with the jews during that time. You dont call them jews because then people get confused. Ive seen some scholars date Paul as early as 100BC with great evidence. And its possible that the movement that started Christianity was around 100 years before 70AD.

[@antonius3745]

@@kaiju2783 i quote: In Pauls day there was something like Christianity. So what is what? Furthermore what yr telling is totally rubbish. There is no serious study or expert on Paul claiming he was born 100 BC. Second the Jesus movement called The Way in Acts, was totally part of Judaism. Christianity did originates after the Gospels were written and that is not earlier than 70 AC. Until that time there was NO CHRISTIANITY IN WHAT FORM SO EVER. There were only Gentiles that converted to Judaism or were associated to Jewish communities and that learned about a Jewish messiah called Jesus. For that reason the gospels were written in the first place: to learn those converts about Judaism in the perspective of Jesus life as an example.

[@robertmcgee1771]

I would have to disagree it seems to me the religious community has warped the manuscript so badly and tends to purposely ignore the inconsistencies and added forgeries throughout the text. For example his referencing the existence of a church, the only problem is the word Church in the concept did not even exist until the 4th century and is actually derived from the word Kirk. It was not translated it was just magically added as the word Ecclesia and church are two different words with two different meanings.. Thus the whole idea never came out of any of the first century Apostles nor Jesus's mouth a single time, now if these people were interested in the truth the truth would have been spoken but, it seems rather imminent for them to make a dollar off of playing make believe...

[@grahamstoute4245]

Very interesting and highly recommended.

[@197615july]

2nd Kings 16:6.

[@2tone941]

I missed all the historical facts about Paul's existence...

[@TheRobdarling]

Well besides the fact that there aren't any...

[@Gumbi1012]

@@TheRobdarling you deny Paul's existence? This is a troll I hope?

[@Gumbi1012]

Paul existed. This is accepted by every historian lol

[@DBCisco]

There aren't any. Even secular scholars play the "Paul was real and lived in the first century" game.

[@TorianTammas]

@@Gumbi1012 Half of the letters of Paul are fraud and the other half have one author, but this could be Bob the builder for all we know. So several persons claimed to be Paul AND used him as a sock puppet.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Genesis is framed on a creation, then many monomyths. Downstream from there is no change.

[@ispinozist7941]

Starts at 2:05

[@ghostriders_1]

"We know Paul was a Pharisee"? Apart from a claim that he was, where is the evidence? Can he speak or write in Hebrew? Does he use the Hebrew or Greek version of scripture? Wouldn't a real Pharisee look at the use of the Septuagint with disdain?

[@TorianTammas]

As Pharisees usually lived in Jerusalem this claim is nonsense, to begin with nor did anything Paul wrote reflect that he ever was one.

[@Achill101]

@@TorianTammas - which source says that Pharisees normally lived in Jerusalem? I've heard that Saducees were more bound to the priesthood (in Jerusalem) while Pharisees came more from the provinces.

[@Achill101]

IIRC Paul was a student of Gamaliel, a famous Pharisee. . . . The disdain for the Septuagint and the Greek language in general and a preference for Aramaic is of later time, after the destruction of the temple in 70CE.

[@ghostriders_1]

@Peter T I doubt that is actually true. If he was he would have been " known by face" as he puts in Judea yet he tells us he wasn't. I think the disdain for the LXX predates the war & what you assert is wrong but if you can quote a peer reviewed scholar on it, I'm open to it. As I have said before there is no indication in any of his 7 authentic epistles that he could either read, write or speak Hebrew.

[@Achill101]

@@ghostriders_1 - what do you or did Paul mean with "known by face"? . . . I will look out for literature when I got time.

[@markusEuro]

civil war, civil unrest: peace through victory: Empire; Roma, Amor, armor, teaching authority

[@ghostriders_1]

What a weak answer Dominic too the question of why Paul doesn't seem to know or care about the earthly life of Jesus. A much better answer can be found in Jesus: neither God or man by Earl Doherty.

[@lucciana71]

cool

[@chidaschukwu4422]

Hello Brothers And Sisters The Really Jesus come in the middle of the 12 tribes of Hebrew Israelites All The Saints oF God And Apostes are working. with Our Lord Jesus messiah Moses Leads The 12. Tribes to West Africa 25th January

[@AnHebrewChild]

Or Paul shaped his message depending on his audience. I know... hard to fathom anyone would do that.. as we are hard pressed to find examples of human beings ever doing this. /s What's on display here is called cognitive rigidity. Paul himself tells his readers, "I became all things to all men, that I may gain some." "To the Greek I became a Greek. To the Jew, I became a Jew. To the lawless, I became as lawless" (1 Corinthians, an undisputed letter) Next...

[@TorianTammas]

It was a fraud as people used Paul's authority to get through with their message. It is saying like Jesus told me that you have to bring the garbage out.

[@wuwei6403]

"he got it wrong, get over it" what else did the fraud get wrong.?...

[@haroldcrenshaw5630]

Is the bible some kind of novel or something?

[@thetruthseeker5448]

pure fiction. Edit a novel would have been better, yet it is not to be

[@jeanmullen]

The Truth Seeker And you call yourself a " truth seeker". Contradiction or what?

[@thetruthseeker5448]

@@jeanmullen I seek truth that can be proven, not based on myths, legends, gossip, or fiction. Any book that contain a word of hate, anger or violence will be used as toilet paper, and the Bible belongs to the latter and it has already been used up. Have a nice day!

[@jeanmullen]

The Truth Seeker Well that will narrow your field considerably. Good luck with that.

[@stevenrogersfineart4224]

So this guy believes in the historical Paul but doesn't believe the Bible? That's quite confusing.

[@bengoldberg6198]

He thinks Paul is misunderstood.

[@TorianTammas]

Why should you believe in Harry Potter? Is is a fictional story collection with several authors. In the letters of Paul the 7 possible not fraudulent ones is nothing about any of the fantasy stories about Jesus.

[@Sportliveonline]

who wrote the gospels

[@stevenwhite4230]

No, Who is on first!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@thesweatypro8133]

2 Peter 3:14-16 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR Own DESTRUCTION. Go thy way heretic. Galatians 1:8. Galatians 1:9. Upon your soul.

[@markusEuro]

democracy not = Empire

[@bthompson1767]

yahshua

[@ihatetheparty6340]

Feisty Paul was coopting the original Christians for the Romans. Evidence: he was a friend of King Herod's half brother, Manaen (Acts 13:1)--the same Herod who interrogated the Zealot (rebel against Rome) Jesus! He also ended one letter with greeting to his relative, one "Herodian" (Romans 16:11). He wrote that it was a "shame" for men to have long hair (as Jesus, James, and John the Baptists did--Nazorean style), whereas all Romans cropped their hair (now acceptable for that chameleon, Paul).

[@johnnykay7411]

Pol/Paul/Apollonius of Tarsus traveled to Kerala, India and studied, just like Jesus, but refused the Initiation rites at Qumran, which is why James and the others had problems with him once James had assumed the role of leadership. Apollonius is well known for advising Roman emperors and found great favor throughout the empire, where his reputation survives to this day, as well as his travels and studies in India which mirror those of Jesus. Did Rome hijack Apollonius' theology to create the church of Rome over several centuries? Absolutely. Or we'd already know why Jesus never died for the sins of the world, but taught how we save ourselves, rather than the pablum taught to this day to keep churning trillions in revenue to the undeserving, and those more comfortable believing someone else did the work, so they don't have to, when pew squirming and theatrics are so much more entertaining than the truth. It's up to each of us to seek truth where it may not be comfortable to do so. Of course, that involves courage and a desire for that truth to manifest when we seek it.

[@antonius3745]

What do you mean? Is Apollonius the same as Paul? where do you got this information?

[@bengoldberg6198]

Rome created the church over several centuries? Really? That's news to the Christians who were persecuted under Diocletian, among others. You're basically off on every point you make, but that one is a doozy. The Roman government tolerated Christianity at times prior to the rise of Constantine, but they never received imperial support until Constantine became sole emperor. After that, the church and government became symbiotic, but before then the best Christians could hope for (and usually received) was an imperial government that begrudgingly looked the other way.

[@bengoldberg6198]

@@antonius3745 I'm not saying this to sound arrogant or mean spirited, but the guy has no clue what he's talking about. Apollonius was a Greek philosopher and contemporary of Jesus. The two never met. Apollonius never advised an emperor. In all likelihood he never met an emperor, though there is a tradition which is probably not historical in which Apollonius defended himself during his (alleged) trial in Rome against the emperor Domitian. Again, this story is almost certainly apocryphal. There is zero evidence Paul ever traveled to India. The tradition that Apollonius went there developed a long time after he died and is almost certainly untrue. What we know of his philosophy is clearly Greek based and has nothing to do with India. Nothing Paul said would have come from India. Paul's entire theology was based on Jewish apocalyptic expectations and his unyielding belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the redemptive power thereof. Apollonius was said to have performed similar miracles to Jesus and when the struggle between Christianity and paganism became acute in the late third and early fourth centuries, many pagans cited Apollonius as superior to Jesus.

[@antonius3745]

@@bengoldberg6198 I totally agree. That humbug about Jesus in India is just from a Russian author in the 19th century how claims that. Besides Jesus and Paul were Jews and no Christians that is common sense. And as Jews they never could approve the Indian religious and philosophical culture. Secondly the persecutions under Diocletian were also pointed to the Jewish community. your are right that Christianity in that time was differentiated from rabbinical Judaism. One can say that after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Bar Kochba war the two Jewish main perceptions on the Jewish heritage of the Second Temple (the Jesus movement and the Pharisees) separated into rabbinical Judaism and in jewish-christianity and hellinistic-christianity. Those Hellenistic Christians became under Constantine the Imperial church that split into Orthodoxy and Catholicism in 1054. The most critic remarks here on church history are only focused to Catholicism or the Roman catholic church. it is a typical western-protestant's view failing to see that what we now call the Orthodox Christianity was the predominant form of Christianity until the 10th century. All Christian dogmas and theology was formulated in the eastern hemisphere of the Mediterranean Sea were Orthodox Christianity was mainstream (Alexandria and Constantinople). Rome did not even have any influence on it. That is what this guy is mixing up.

[@bengoldberg6198]

@@antonius3745 agreed. I would only day that I think modern scholars who say the separation between what became rabbincal Judaism and Christianity happened long after the Bar Kochba war are wrong. I know a lot of modern scholars think that, but I respectfully disagree. I think the separation was already well under way when Paul was alive and a done deal by the end of the First Jewish War and the destruction of the Second Temple.

[@PaulaCypressPark]

Not to brag but those who deny Paul existed never knew him or the one who sent him. Even the demons recognized the authority of Messiah and his chosen servant Paul.

[@oxusriver]

what you bleating about?.. Paul likely did exist, he belonged to a branch of the Essene who taught that Jesus/the Messiah was on his way... Only Paul believed the Christ was gonna turn up in the next few years... he never believed that jesus had already been and left...

[@modo203]

the demons lol. How old are you? Do you teach your little kids this garbage? This psychotic crap poisoning the minds of children? And supposing you do, what kind of mother are you? Yes you are bragging. You talk about that pathological liar as if you used to have hookah with him, or with the one who sent him.

[@haroldcrenshaw5630]

Ahhh ze demonz ... oooh

[@TorianTammas]

Paula inventing a unicorn that has seen that the dragon ate your home work does not make your claim plausible,

[@sebolddaniel]

Pretty boy Paul hung out in the bath houses of Ephesus with his hand covering his throbbing heart while he watched the Roman soldiers boys stripping off their pleated soldier skirts. This is Paul's little secret.

[@PaulaCypressPark]

Paul is the chosen servant of Messiah. this brilliant character suffered a lot of idiots through history and kept his humor up but he was despised and rejected by his own people and others. He is the scholar who replaced Judas perhaps. and an apostle who learned torah cause he loved the jews even after they booted him out of their assemblies. yes he does shift to accomadate the audience but he backs it up with scripture. he confirms the truth and they hated him for it cause their deeds were Evil intended. no worries. he shall occupy a place of honor in His kingdom.

[@christophersalter3555]

The letters of Paul were written by Josephus Flavious, Paul and Josephus are the same people. Josephus, backed by the Romans, created the New Testament, a very good propaganda piece. Look into the work of Ralph Ellis if you want to know who wrote or a least heavily edited The New Testament by combining ancient spiritual knowledge with King Izus (Jesus) Manu of Edessa an Egyptian/Persian King married to Mary Magdalena who was defeated in Jerusalem in AD 72 and crucified and declared King of the Jews. He also was a Nazarene and had 12 disciples. The same story you were told but backdated 40 years. This is why there is no historic record of Jesus or of his disciples in AD 30 to 33, it all happened 40 years later with some important modifications and name changes, those sneaky Romans. The truth will set you free. God bless. History is alway written by the winners, sad but true. God is the true King not to be found in any stories written by corrupt men, you must find God without religion on your own.

[@zachariahfritz2220]

He was a Jew Paul !!

[@almsahrah]

Paul and Jebus never met. Paul was a Jew who persecuted "Christians" up until he saw the scam and decided he wanted in. So he faked his "on the road to Damascus" vision and set about getting himself some Christian trim while setting up "churches" all through the land.

[@TorianTammas]

Why do you use jewish terms? Jews showed that the Messiach is not a dead guy on the cross, but that he would rule of Israel as king and all countries would worship him and there would be peace on earth and so much more. Why does no one actually read the book?

[@sandyeyles]

You forgot 'the hypocritical Paul"

[@captainace4276]

🙏✝️💛💯❤️❤️

[@theofulk5636]

Jesus is the Holy Spirit--- Paul is the Spirit of Truth to steer it. He explained ( and his name means "small'}, that a little leaven can transform it all.

[@MurrayEstes]

Paul simply smelled money and created a worldwide franchise: Which promise the stench of heaven....

[@gazgandalf4854]

Joshua - I'm so glad there are 'thinking' and logical Christians who hear utter nonsense and are able to give a reasoned answer to empty-headed "Well I heard it somewhere" or "This will sound funny" ... posters :- )

[@JapanJohnny2012]

What's made of French bread, and holds unorthodox religious views?....... John Dominic Croissant.

[@haroldcrenshaw5630]

Lol

[@patriley1026]

Imagine leaving letters as proof of your story. Oh yeah, Paul did that in 13 books of the New Testament. Check Mate.

[@abdulmunim318]

Shows how little you know. Paul actually wrote seven of the Pauline epistles (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), but that three of the epistles in Paul's name are pseudepigraphic (First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus) and that three other epistles are of questionable authorship (Second Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians).

[@DBCisco]

@@abdulmunim318 All we historians can say about the "magical Seven" is that they appear to be by the same person, no date or identity. The earliest surviving manuscript of the letters is P-46 circa 200 AD.

[@Achill101]

@@DBCisco - we can also say that these seven Pauline letters show no signs of the Roman war 66-70CE and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a traumatic event in Jewish history.

[@perezsan1]

Ridiculous theory.

[@barbarabradley1402]

To say Paul didn't write these letters is saying the Bible is a liar. I believe he wrote everyone of them

[@FramedArchitecture]

+Barbara Bradley _the Bible is a liar_ First, the recognition that Paul is not the author of *some* of the letters attributed to him grew out of serious biblical scholarship, and it allows us to better understand the early Christian movement. Surely you agree that greater understanding is a good thing. Secondly, nobody is saying the Bible is a lie, but rather that it is a collection of works written from many different perspectives. That is not a slander, but a recognition that early Christianity was a complex and diverse movement, much as it is today.

[@barbarabradley1402]

FramedArchitecture no its not. you are

[@FramedArchitecture]

Barbara Bradley That doesn't make any sense given what I wrote in my above response. I will take that as your desire not to have a conversation... best, FA

[@barbarabradley1402]

Not with non believers. their minds have been turned by Satan’s lies I believe in the Bible

[@FramedArchitecture]

Barbara Bradley If your beliefs cannot withstand debate and discussion, what good are they?

[@457christiaan]

From among the most bitter and relentless persecutors of the church of Christ, arose the ablest defender and most successful herald of the gospel. With the apostolic brotherhood of the chosen twelve, who had companied with Christ from his baptism even to his ascension, was numbered one who had never seen the Lord while he dwelt among men, and who had heard his name uttered only in unbelief and contempt. But beneath the blindness and bigotry of the zealot and the Pharisee, Infinite Wisdom discerned a heart loyal to truth and duty And the voice from Heaven made itself heard above the clamors of pride and prejudice. In the promulgation of the gospel, Divine Providence would unite with the zeal and devotion of the Galilean peasants, the fiery vigor and intellectual power of a rabbi of Jerusalem. To lead the battle against pagan philosophy and Jewish formalism, was chosen one who had himself [p. 10] witnessed the debasing power of heathen worship, and endured the spiritual bondage of Pharisaic exaction. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, not only by descent, but by the stronger ties of lifelong training, patriotic devotion, and religious faith. Though a Roman citizen, born in a Gentile city, he was educated in Jerusalem by the most eminent of the rabbis, and diligently instructed in all the laws and traditions of the Fathers. Thus he shared, to the fullest extent, the hopes and aspirations, the lofty pride and unyielding prejudice, of his nation. He declares himself to have been "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." He was regarded by the Jewish leaders as a young man of great promise, and high hopes were cherished concerning him as an able and zealous defender of the ancient faith. In common with his nation, Saul had cherished the hope of a Messiah who should reign as a temporal prince, to break from the neck of Israel the Roman yoke, and exalt her to the throne of universal empire. He had no personal knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth or of his mission, but he readily imbibed the scorn and hatred of the rabbis toward one who was so far from fulfilling their ambitious hopes; and after the death of Christ, he eagerly joined with priests and rulers in the persecution of his followers as a proscribed and hated sect. The Jewish leaders had supposed that the work of Christ would end with him; that when his voice was no longer heard, the excitement would [p. 11] die out, and the people would return to the doctrines and traditions of men. But instead of this, they witnessed the marvelous scenes of the day of Pentecost. The disciples, endowed with a power and energy hitherto unknown, preached Christ to the vast multitude that from all parts of the world assembled at the feast. Signs and wonders confirmed their words; and in the very stronghold of Judaism, thousands openly declared their faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified malefactor, as the promised Messiah. And but a short time after the events of Pentecost, a mighty miracle, wrought by the apostles, filled all Jerusalem with excitement. A cripple who had been lame from his birth was healed by Peter and John in the presence of the people, within the very precincts of the temple. This astonishing cure was performed in the name of Jesus, the apostles declaring that he had ascended to the heavens, and thence imparted power to his followers; and they fearlessly charged upon the Jews the crime of his rejection and murder. Great numbers of the people received the doctrines preached by the apostles. Many of the most determined opponents could but believe, though they refused to acknowledge, that Jesus had risen from the dead. They did not, however, repent of their terrible crime in putting him to death. When the power from Heaven came upon the apostles in so remarkable a manner, fear held the priests and elders from violence; but their bitterness and malice were unchanged. Five thousand had already openly declared their faith in Christ; and both Pharisees and Sadducees decided among themselves that if those new teachers were suffered to go on unchecked, their [p. 12] own influence would be in greater danger than when Jesus was upon earth. If one or two discourses from the apostles could produce results so marvelous, the world would soon believe on Christ, and the influence of priests and rulers would be lost. They therefore seized upon the apostles, and thrust them into prison, expecting to intimidate and silence them. But the disciple who in cowardice had once denied his Lord, now boldly declared the power of a risen Saviour. In vain the rulers commanded to speak no more in that name. Their threats were powerless, and at last, being restrained from violence by fear of the people, they set the apostles at liberty.

[@TorianTammas]

Fascinating how one can dive to so deep in a fictional contradicting story collection.

[@jenschristiansen9490]

Paul is clearly a fictional character just as Jesus is.

[@gabrielszohner6243]

BULL CRAP SCHOLAR !

[@thomasrhodes5013]

I absolutely disagree with John Crossan regarding the normalcy of homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality There may be a few men who appreciate the physical beauty of another created being, but these few men do not have a secondary desire to copulate with this object of appreciation. I am not offering this perspective to comply with Pauline Dogma, or any social philosophy defining; normalcy''. The LINCHPIN, as Crossen has often said, is the concomitant physical desire to copulate with....this is un-natural.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, your opinion is, indeed, unnatural. It is also irrelevant.

[@thomasrhodes5013]

@@lepidoptera9337 Apparently it was relevant enough for you to inject your unusual sense of normalcy.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@thomasrhodes5013 I am simply on a mission to give attention to kids who didn't get enough from their Moms, kid. :-)

[@thomasrhodes5013]

@@lepidoptera9337 I would contend that you are simply a ''sock-puppet''. Crossan tried to pray his ''gay'' away in a religious order while you pretend to campaign for social welfare.in an effort to find balance. Both of you are 'odd'.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@thomasrhodes5013 So you don't even know what a sock puppet is, kid. I will give you attention anyway. ;-)