Did Paul create Jesus?

[Unknown Soldier]

Obviously Christians have always believed in the resurrection,

I don't see that as obvious.
I honestly doubt it's true.

Belief in the resurrection can be found in the earliest writings of the Christian religion. For example, in Paul's epistle to the Romans, he writes of the resurrection of Jesus in 1:4.

Or, to be more clear, I doubt that Jesus's original followers would qualify as Christian.
Tom

I suppose they weren't really Christians at that time, but that's irrelevant to what Christians believed later.

 

[excreationist]

What I do doubt is that Paul was persecuting them if that persecution involved armed violence. The Romans were not known to stand around while the people they had conquered ran around with weapons.

That quote by Bart Ehrman doesn't seem to claim the persecution involved armed violence. Also I thought the Bible says many of the apostles were put to death - like Stephen being stoned to death. (see also Deuteronomy 13:6-11 about brothers/sisters) A related thing is the stoning of the adulteress in John 8.

1 Corinthians 15:9
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

So it seems Paul himself is saying he persecuted Christians.

Paul said a lot of things I doubt. A dishonest, possibly mentally ill person is not what I would call a credible source of information.

Well this claim agrees with Acts or do you think Paul didn't actually persecute Christians at all?

Or that the reason he persecuted them was primarily because of their belief in the resurrection?

That's what we're told, but Paul never explains why he would persecute anybody because they believed a man was resurrected. There's no Jewish law against it as far as I know.

Maybe he thought it involved the worship of another god (see Deuteronomy 13:6-11). The resurrection is related to the supposed godhood of Jesus.

 

[TomC]

What I do doubt is that Paul was persecuting them if that persecution involved armed violence. The Romans were not known to stand around while the people they had conquered ran around with weapons.

Paul wasn't Judean and he was a Roman citizen from birth. Whatever he was up to before his "Road to Damascus" experience is anybody's guess. But he definitely had perogatives that poor Judean people didn't have.
Tom

Then there's the vagueness of both words, "persecution" and "Christian".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What I do doubt is that Paul was persecuting them if that persecution involved armed violence. The Romans were not known to stand around while the people they had conquered ran around with weapons.

Paul wasn't Judean and he was a Roman citizen from birth. Whatever he was up to before his "Road to Damascus" experience is anybody's guess. But he definitely had perogatives that poor Judean people didn't have.

Paul was Jewish, too. He claimed to be persecuting Christians for reasons related to his religion. The Romans would not have allowed Paul to carry out any such persecution.

Then there's the vagueness of both words, "persecution" and "Christian".

What's so vague about them? Persecution involves mistreating people through the use of force and violence if necessary. A Christian is a person whose religion is based on the crucified and risen Christ.

 

[TomC]

Paul was Jewish, too. He claimed to be persecuting Christians for reasons related to his religion. The Romans would not have allowed Paul to carry out any such persecution.

Which is why I don't think he did persecute them over religious beliefs.
I think it more plausible that he persecuted them for being anti-Roman activists.

What's so vague about them? Persecution involves mistreating people through the use of force and violence if necessary. A Christian is a person whose religion is based on the crucified and risen Christ.

Neither the word persecution or Christian are clear in the modern world. Much less the words that got translated into English from the original. Or what Paul and his audience meant by the words that got translated into English as persecute and Christian.

You keep using your own understanding of what words mean. Words Paul didn't use. And trying to get meaning from them that doesn't match the ancient scenario.
Tom

 

[Learner]

Ehrman tends to make assertions he cannot know to be true. For example, here Ehrman claims that Paul prior to his conversion had been persecuting Christians for their belief in the resurrection. How does he know that?

It's not clear whether you are skeptical about whether Paul persecuted Christians or whether those Christians believed in the resurrection....Obviously Christians have always believed in the resurrection, so I don't doubt that the Christians of Paul's day believed in the resurrection. What I do doubt is that Paul was persecuting them if that persecution involved armed violence. The Romans were not known to stand around while the people they had conquered ran around with weapons.

Rome allowed the Jews to practice their Jewish laws and traditions, (an advantageous political strategy no doubt). Christians were targeted/persecuted often with blasphemy, in which, if considering what Jesus taught about His teachings; is actually conflicting with the traditions of the Sanhedrin etc.. And If one was found guilty, then violence like stoning was often permitted by Romans.

1 Corinthians 15:9
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

So it seems Paul himself is saying he persecuted Christians.

Paul said a lot of things I doubt. A dishonest, possibly mentally ill person is not what I would call a credible source of information.

Yes well, if it were case, but... can it be demonstrated by you (plural) that Paul shows that particular psychological profile of any of the above (dishonest or mentally ill), which gives you that conclusion?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Paul was Jewish, too. He claimed to be persecuting Christians for reasons related to his religion. The Romans would not have allowed Paul to carry out any such persecution.

Which is why I don't think he did persecute them over religious beliefs.
I think it more plausible that he persecuted them for being anti-Roman activists.

Well, you get an A for being novel. So Paul was working for the Romans putting down Christian rebels for them. I am new to that hypothesis. Does Paul ever mention it?

What's so vague about them? Persecution involves mistreating people through the use of force and violence if necessary. A Christian is a person whose religion is based on the crucified and risen Christ.

Neither the word persecution or Christian are clear in the modern world. Much less the words that got translated into English from the original. Or what Paul and his audience meant by the words that got translated into English as persecute and Christian.

There is some ambiguity in those words like any words, but generally most people are pretty clear what's meant by persecution and Christian.

You keep using your own understanding of what words mean.

Whose understanding of words do you rely on?

Words Paul didn't use. And trying to get meaning from them that doesn't match the ancient scenario.

It wasn't that ancient. Some things don't change much even over many centuries. Christians and persecutions today are much like Christians and persecutions of twenty centuries ago.