freethinkers

The post below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia.

Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.

PAUL, ST.

PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.

While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).

Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.

The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."

After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.

Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.

Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.

Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point that he changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made many converts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.

Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).

At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.

It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.

The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him. Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.

Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority over his converts as their inspired teacher. The view often asserted, however, that Paul writes in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. His occasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

I am unable to confirm Gamaliel's leadership of the Pharisees. I notice the encyclopedia you quote mentions he occupies that position. Acts mentions that he was a Pharisee, a "teacher of the law," respected by the people, and that Saul was "educated under" him. I do attend to extra-Biblical historical sources, and wouldn't mind knowing the identity of one which confirms Gamaliel's leadership of the Pharisees. Or, if I have missed something in the Biblical record, please inform me. My thanks in advance.

On the subject of the encyclopedia, I appreciate your posting that. I would like, as a matter of routine course, to ask who was the author of that article?

Originally posted by Feivel
We can be sure there were NO Pharisees in the "mob" because the Pharasic view was tolerance until 1 generation after the crucifixion. If you refuse to understand that simple fact you can (and should) do your own research on the matter

Oh, I can understand the fact, but to agree with it I will, as you suggest, have to do my own research. Since we have come to a point in our debate where my knowledge (not my reason) fails, I must plead for adjournment. While such a thing would be impermissable in, for example, chess, I'm sure it is understandable in a discussion between gentlemen?
Would you like to recommend for me a few sources to get me started in a better understanding of the Pharisees and their relationships to other first century sects (among which I include for convenience Christianity)?

Also, are you familiar with textual critisism? Now if part of the group wanted to kill them and Gamaliel said do not murder them (which is a commandment if you didn't realize) but flog them and then release them, isn't that tolerance?

I am familiar with textual criticism, which is to say I know what it is and understand its basic principles. As for tolerance, I would consider the course of action chosen to be less intolerant than murdering the opposition. Still, I can't call beating and ordering the silence of opposition "tolerant." Perhaps we hold different operating definitions of the term?

I can assure you that I have...how do you explain my familiarity with the bible otherwise?

I can't, which is why I said, "I assume that you have read Christian books," and meant what I said.

I have heard MANY pastors imploring their congregants to only read christian books and NOT to read any non-christian literature. Some even go so far as to request their congregants NOT view any non-christian media at all.

I find that inexcusable. Incidentally, I have never heard a pastor say that, and would disagree to the face of one who did. I personally enjoy non-Christian scholarship, literature, and other media, and would recommend to any Christians that they do familiarize themselves to opposing viewpoints.

Not at all unless you consider the entire new testament to be the context. I am not restricting the reading to the same epistle or book.

I agree with you here. A verse or phrase must be considered within the context of the immediate passage, the natural flow of the discussion from which it comes, the book or letter as a whole, the set of all the particular author's writings, the New Testament as a whole, the Bible as a whole (in my opinion) and, ultimately, the entire course of world history. All these contexts or levels of context must be considered in an interpretation.

What exactly do my feelings about Paul's feelings about his writing have to do with anything?

Paul says that by not burdening the Corinthians he somehow wronged them. I wonder if you apply the same ultra-literal method of interpretation to this statement of his. I also wonder if in 13:13 of 2 Cor. you believe that Paul means, in so strictly a literal sense, that all the saints send greetings. I would have to wonder about the validity of such a literalistic interpretive method, or any interpretive method for that matter, not applied conistently by the interpreter.

You again restrict yourself to a narrow reading of Paul. Paul wrote much more than Chapter 3 of Romans.

Well, I didn't post here an exhaustive analysis of all Paul's writings. I don't see where, however, my interpretation of Romans 3:5-8, and in particular 3:7, conflicts with the set of Paul's writings as a whole. My interpretation is that, as with the quote from 2 Cor., Paul does not intend to claim that he is a liar. Whether or not he is a liar should, I think, wait until I've done my homework regarding his Jewishness. Anyway, our interpretive methods seem to differ, and so I don't think we'll agree about what Paul intends in either verse.

Notzrim must be Aramaic but what does this matter in regards to Paul's Jewishness?

I was just curious 🙁

A has a subgroup. What about the one who sets about to follow Jesus, fails and continues on doing the same "failure" intentionally.

The intentional nature of the continued "failure" would transfer the individual in question from category A to category B.

You, as a christian, can not make that judgement otherwise you would be sinning according to the new testament.

I reserve the right to judge actions and doctrines as Christian or non-Christian. I don't pretend to decide (judge) the eternal state of any individual's soul.

It is a Latin phrase that means we are friends.

Are we friends? I would be glad for that. At any rate, I am glad to have made your acquaintence, and I have enjoyed our discussion so far, a few unpleasantries aside.

I will post a more adequate reply later. For now i will post two short excerpt from http://xx.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/temenos/wisdom/rel_parties.htm
and http://www.triumphpro.com/hasidi_1.htm
that will answer a little of your question about Gamaliel.

Pharisee Party

This party was born in the Maccabean Revolt (167-164 BC). The Pious Ones or Hasidim were the people who were willing to die rather than adopt the Greek religion decreed by Antiochus IV "Ephiphanes" ("God with Us&quot😉. When the revolt succeed in establishing a Jewish government known as the Hasmonean Dynasty, the Pious Ones were given the priviledge of teaching in the Temple. This is why we find Pharisees teaching in the Temple in the NT. They are the party associated with revolution. Most of their followers were from the non-aristocratic classes.

The Pharisees were represented on the Sanhedrin but formed a minority party. Rabbi Gamaliel, Paul's teacher, was the leader of the Pharisee minority on this court. Records show that the Sadducee majority seldom if ever passed legislation that did not meet with Pharisee approval because the Pharisees were the party of the people. The Sadducees did not wish to risk revolution by opposing the masses.

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees did not feel "at home" in the world of the first century. They expected the world to end very soon with the coming of the successor to King David's throne, the Messiah or Christ who would lead the pious against the enemies of Israel, the Romans. He would be victorious because he would be upheld by God's power. The Messiah would found the final Jewish kingdom in this final age of the world. At the end of a 1000 years, the Jewish kingdom would disappear in the final destruction of the universe. The pious could be expected, however, to be resurrected by God from the dead and invited into an eternal banquet with him in the Kingdom of the Messiah.

The Pharisees considered the Scriptures to include both the written Torah and the unwritten tradition of the interpretation of the Torah passed on by mouth by the rabbis. The unwritten tradition was said to have begun with Moses and to have passed through the prophets to the sages (rabbis) of the first century. This tradition of the fathers is the Pirke Aboth. Pharisees expected people to live by the strictest possible reading of the Torah and the tradition.

Pharisee worship was centered in the synagogue, a gathering of ten or more males to study the Torah and to discuss its application to their daily lives. Study was worship.
----------------------
Now, since Gamaliel was the leader of the faction of the Pharisees known as the school of Hillel, being the leading sage of his time and one of only seven to be given the title of "Raboni" ("our teacher&quot😉, as opposed to the usual "Rabbi" ("my teacher&quot😉, it is obvious that all the members of the school of Hillel would have backed him up in his counsel and advice. And since he was a man of great reputation, he even persuaded the members of the school of Shammai, or many of them, to support his position concerning the apostles. Obviously, the school of Hillel was relatively tolerant toward religious Jews who differed in certain respects and was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least to co-exist with them, believing that God in due time would show who was right and who was wrong.

Amici Sumus

Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker

Originally posted by huntingbear
I am unable to confirm Gamaliel's leadership of the Pharisees. I notice the encyclopedia you quote mentions he occupies that position. Acts mentions that he was a Pharisee, a "teacher of the law," respected by the people, and that Saul was "educated under" him.

Originally posted by Feivel
[b]I will post a more adequate reply later. For now i will post two short excerpt from http://xx.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/temenos/wisdom/rel_parties.htm
and http://www.triumphpro.com/hasidi_1.htm
that will answer a little of your question about Gamaliel.

Originally posted by huntingbear
While such a thing would be impermissable in, for example, chess, I'm sure it is understandable in a discussion between gentlemen?
Would you like to recommend for me a few sources to get me started in a better understanding of the Pharisees and their relationships to other first century sects (among which I include for convenience Christianity)?

Al ...[text shortened]... ve made your acquaintence, and I have enjoyed our discussion so far, a few unpleasantries aside.

Originally posted by huntingbear
Thank you. You even go the extra mile and provide some information yourself. I'm sure you'd expect nothing less from me than to do a thorough research myself, beginning and not ending here. I am happy to read conclusions, but I like most to see scholars' methods and the evidence from which they draw their conclusions. I will begin with these li ...[text shortened]... ut: do you subscribe to a particular religion or non-religious worldview and, if so, what is it?

one more bit of reading from a source that you will find "interesting."

The first Christian. All the world still believes in the authorship of the "Holy Spirit" or is at least still affected by this belief: when one opens the Bible one does so for "edification."... That it also tells the story of one of the most ambitious and obtrusive of souls, of a head as superstitious as it was crafty, the story of the apostle Paul--who knows this , except a few scholars? Without this strange story, however, without the confusions and storms of such a head, such a soul, there would be no Christianity...
That the ship of Christianity threw overboard a good deal of its Jewish ballast, that it went, and was able to go, among the pagans--that was due to this one man, a very tortured, very pitiful, very unpleasant man, unpleasant even to himself. He suffered from a fixed idea--or more precisely, from a fixed, ever-present, never-resting question: what about the Jewish law? and particularly the fulfillment of this law? In his youth he had himself wanted to satisfy it, with a ravenous hunger for this highest distinction which the Jews could conceive - this people who were propelled higher than any other people by the imagination of the ethically sublime, and who alone succeeded in creating a holy god together with the idea of sin as a transgression against this holiness. Paul became the fanatical defender of this god and his law and guardian of his honor; at the same time, in the struggle against the transgressors and doubters, lying in wait for them, he became increasingly harsh and evilly disposed towards them, and inclined towards the most extreme punishments. And now he found that--hot-headed, sensual, melancholy, malignant in his hatred as he was-- he was himself unable to fulfill the law; indeed, and this seemed strangest to him, his extravagant lust to domineer provoked him continually to transgress the law, and he had to yield to this thorn.
Is it really his "carnal nature" that makes him transgress again and again? And not rather, as he himself suspected later, behind it the law itself, which must constantly prove itself unfulfillable and which lures him to transgression with irresistable charm? But at that time he did not yet have this way out. He had much on his conscience - he hints at hostility, murder, magic, idolatry, lewdness, drunkenness, and pleasure in dissolute carousing - and... moments came when he said to himself:"It is all in vain; the torture of the unfulfilled law cannot be overcome."... The law was the cross to which he felt himself nailed: how he hated it! how he searched for some means to annihilate it--not to fulfill it any more himself!
And finally the saving thought struck him,... "It is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus! Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the law!"... Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law?
The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews--no, of all men--seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth. For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law...
This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity. Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians.

from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s.68, Walter Kaufmann transl

Amici Sumus

Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker

Originally posted by Feivel

If your knowledge fails here can't you see that your beliefs are premature and NOT based on reason or logic?

This puts you on a slippery slope. To carry your logic through to its ultimate end would have us in absolute skepticism about everything, unless we were omniscient. Unless you know everything, by your logic, then all your beliefs as well as mine are premature and not based on reason or logic. You can't eat your cake and have it.
As it is, my beliefs are founded upon what I consider to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You have now raised an issue (the claim that Paul is not in fact Jewish) which I have decided is worth further investigation. Should I accumulate enough evidence to prove Christianity unreasonable, I'll be done with it. At this precise moment I consider the balance of evidence drastically in favor of Christianity. My research into your objection may tip that balance the other way; it may not. For now there simply is not enough doubt accumulated for me to consider it reasonable.

you really must not listen to many pastors then.

There is one pastor at my church, which I have attended for nearly three years. There was one pastor at my former church, which I attended for less than one year. Before that, I had no interest in pastors. I have now and then listened to guest preachers or visited other churches. I've probably listened to a few dozen. More if you count radio preachers, written sermons I've read, etc. etc. You may consider that few or many, it doesn't matter. The belief that Christians should ignore non-Christian media is not universal among Christians, and not a belief that I hold.

His second statement has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and neither does my interpretation of it.

Oh no, my friend. It's not that simple. Your interpretive method is the topic at hand. At least, that's the thing about which I'm asking. In order to accept the plausibility of your method, I must know how consistently you apply it. If you apply it to "I deceived you by guile," but not to "Forgive me this wrong" and "All the saints greet you," then your practice of interpreting Biblical texts is inconsistent and, for this and other reasons, unreliable. So again I would like to ask, do you interpret all texts in this rigidly literalistic manner?

Once you judge someone as a christian or a non-christian, your not determining the ultimate state (end state if you will) of their soul? C'mon, we all see the contradiction you just made.

The contradiction is imaginary. I never claimed to be able or permitted to judge whether someone (that is, a specific individual) who claims to be a Christian is or is not, in fact, one. I merely acknowledged the fact that there do exist claims to faith in Christ which are made by people who have no genuine intention of following Him. Of the existence of insincere Christians I am certain; of their identity I am neither permitted nor able to judge. I am, however, permitted to decide whether a professing Christian's beliefs are in fact accurate. This is all rather simple. The Catholics are a perfect example. Let us suppose a Catholic friend of mine, whom we'll call Bill, says to me "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." I can't judge the truth of his statement; the state of his soul is his business and God's. If Bill tells me, "The division of priesthood from laity in the church is valid," I am free to disagree with him. You can see that I have judged his doctrine as un-Christian, but have made no judgment about the state of his soul. For the record, while I believe many Catholic doctrines are false, that does not mean that I insist those who believe them are not Christians.

Originally posted by Feivel

I didn't want his claim brought up regarding Paul simply because he is not Paul.

No source about Paul other than Paul is admissable? Does that hold for Gamaliel as well (since it was actually Luke's claims about Gamaliel to which I referred)? I'm afraid I don't understand why Luke's merely not being Paul renders his claims irrelevant. That's why I assumed you had some specific reason to distrust Luke. I understand that we are not examining at present Luke's claims about Paul's "Jewishness," but that does not mean that nothing Luke has to say is relevant. In the course of examing Paul's own claims to be a Jew or a Pharisee, certain other historical questions (eg, the position of Gamaliel within the Pharisee sect) may come up, questions about which Luke has something to say.

I have answered this question in another thread here. I believe in God. I do not ascribe to any reavealed religion (no revealed religion is logical). Now my question is what was your purpose for asking?

I was just curious. Your reply raises in me a fresh curiosity. Is it the idea of a revealed religion that you consider illogical, or is it that each religion which claims to be revealed seems to you illogical? Perhaps it's both, and then I'd ask: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Originally posted by huntingbear
Originally posted by Feivel

[b]If your knowledge fails here can't you see that your beliefs are premature and NOT based on reason or logic?

This puts you on a slippery slope. To carry your logic through to its ultimate end would have us in absolute skepticism about everything, unless we were omniscient. Unless you know everything, by yo ...[text shortened]... doctrines are false, that does not mean that I insist those who believe them are not Christians.[/b]

Originally posted by huntingbear
Originally posted by Feivel

[b]I didn't want his claim brought up regarding Paul simply because he is not Paul.

No source about Paul other than Paul is admissable? Does that hold for Gamaliel as well (since it was actually Luke's claims about Gamaliel to which I referred)? I'm afraid I don't understand why Luke's merely not being Pa ...[text shortened]... you illogical? Perhaps it's both, and then I'd ask: which came first, the chicken or the egg?[/b]

The question of interpretive method carried over from our discussion about whether Paul claims to be a liar. If you would like that particular "thread within a thread" suspended until his Jewishness is settled on fact, that's fine with me. I certainly had no intention of clouding the issue. My intent was only to continue the discussion as it stood.

Originally posted by Feivel

i did not want Luke brought up since he is not Paul and his desire is to show Paul in the best possible way.

Now it is clear. I was correct to think you had a specific reason to distrust Luke: you consider him too biased. You could have given this answer when first I asked about your aversion to Luke 😉

how do you expect to use the new testament as a source?

I'm not the only one in this debate to use the NT as a source. That aside, I consider that it remains to be proven that the NT is unreliable. I seem to sense the beginnings of a circular shape to this argument. I have every confidence that you'll correct this impression I've gotten.

This is another attempt at clouding the original issue with something that does not matter at all in the current topic.

No, this is no attempt at clouding. This is curiosity. I do not intend to argue about the topic, I was just wondering where you stood. I view discussions in the forums as conversations, and am uncomfortable with a strict formalism. If you don't want to discuss something, don't. There's no need to accuse me of clouding things.
I have two grievances. One is your constant assumption of the worst in me. This reaction of yours is emotional and it interferes with our discussion. The other grievance is your assumption of the role of arbiter in this debate, and the final determiner of what is, and what is not, the current topic. As you are a participant in this debate, there is a conflict of interest if you are also the arbiter.

Originally posted by huntingbear
The question of interpretive method carried over from our discussion about whether Paul claims to be a liar. If you would like that particular "thread within a thread" suspended until his Jewishness is settled on fact, that's fine with me. I certainly had no intention of clouding the issue. My intent was only to continue the discussion as it stood.
...[text shortened]... u are a participant in this debate, there is a conflict of interest if you are also the arbiter.

Originally posted by Feivel

The new testament cannot be used as a source to verify itself.

Agreed. I haven't begun using any source, let alone itself, to verify the NT. I don't think you'd care to hear why I consider the NT reliable anyway.

I have posted not only confirmation from the new testament though but from encyclopedia and other sources.

I have so far seen conclusions. I have heard your conclusion, and Nietzsche's, and that of the unknown author of the encyclopedia article. I reserve the right to investigate the evidence and lines of reasoning which led to those conclusions. I have yet to visit the web sites you provided, but I will do so. As for confirmation from the New Testament, the strength of that confirmation depends in large part on the validity of your interpretive method, but I understand we're not supposed to talk about that.

In this case I can say your assumption totally missed the target (it was 180 degrees off).

I address first your reply to my second complaint: I apologize. It was unfair of me to say that. I do sometimes feel it's odd what things you refuse to discuss, but I was out of line to accuse you of deliberately bullying me away from certain topics. If by "180 degrees off" you mean to suggest that I myself have attempted to control which topics are permissable in the debate, I deny that accusation as sincerely and earnestly as I retract, with apology, my own similar accusation.

Ok I can answer your first grievance by stating that my reaction is not based on emotion {. . .} , I have had too many negative experiences with your christian bretheren (moreso because I am Jewish).

Believe it or not, I can understand that. While I am not Jewish and haven't been, I was once a non-Christian and I know well that Christians do a lot to hurt their own reputation. That being said, I think you tend to interpret my intentions too much by that stereotype. We Christians aren't mass-produced from an assembly-line, but each have individual personal histories and whatnot. Please, though, I do empathize and don't mean to make light of your feelings on this matter. Sometimes a tangent I introduce is a mere curiosity (like when I asked about your worldview) and sometimes we disagree about the relevance (eg, Biblical interpretation) of a topic. Either way, I won't push you to discuss them.

Ok. If I'm not mistaken (is that possible?😵 ) we've reached a stage where we have nothing left to discuss. I will of course gratefully review any more material you care to post about Paul's Jewishness, but I don't intend to debate that specific topic any more until I've done a thorough investigation of the available evidence. I'm sure you'll agree that's reasonable.