Quick Question: Why Trust Paul's Description of Himself?

This might seem like a silly question, for the first reason I will give and that it is ad hoc. Every time I've read about arguments which use Philippians 3:4-6 and Galatians 1:13-14, the skeptics don't debate he actually believed it. But still, I thought of this question and an answer, so here it is.

Paul was writing in the time of the eyewitnesses. He himself spoke of how the church of Galatians "had heard" of his violent zeal against the church. He couldn't claim to be a dedicated, intelligent Jew, especially with living enemies who formally worked with him! Also, with the apostles that met him! They would know.

And, remember, Paul was constantly living under threat of persecution (he did some in his former life), with the knowledge that becoming a Christian (following a Messiah cursed by God, crucified by the Romans because of the Jews hatred) makes martyrdom a distinct possibility. Paul's claim does make a lot of sense. He was smart, and so knew enough about and was dedicated to Judaism to burn with anger against Christians. 

Less significantly, Bart Ehrman has mentioned in multiple writings that writing wasn't all that popular in first-century Palestine. Someone so skilled in writing Greek would be highly educated(1).

Citations:
1. See for example, Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 101-102.

Comments

Post a Comment

I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Would Anyone Not Believe in God?

If you read my blog project responding to philosophical challenges against Christianity, both morally and intellectually, the topic of why God doesn't give everyone undeniable proof will probably sound familiar to you. In part 2 I cited A. J. Ayer, a prominent atheist who had a near-death experience and saw a representation of God. Yet, afterward he still denied an afterlife and God's existence. Also in the conclusion I cited Romans 1:18-20, which had God allowing people who longed to be immoral to go their own way. Here is more of a presentation of why that makes sense. I have two examples that are straight from unbelievers themselves, and others that are reported by Christians. A major appeal in this post will be to the fact that what believers can say about unbelievers makes so much sense. Here I wish to argue that just because a lot of scientists don't believe in God, doesn't mean they are probably right. "...we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door," I...
Read more

The Resurrection of Jesus: Alternative Theories, part 3: The Major Challenge continued

  Paul Often times when I read about someone trying to explain away what happened to Paul, they include a guilt complex. Paul was a severe persecutor of the church, and eventually he felt bad for being so nasty to people.  But this idea can annoy me because there is "absolutely no hint  in the epistles" that Paul felt guilty(1). While he does talk about persecuting the church (see fact #7), he never says anything of the sort, like maybe God started to vindicate him of his sin before Jesus truly turned Paul's life around. However, Gerd Ludemann apparently once argued that such is not true, because Romans 7:7-25 could be on the pre-conversion Paul. Two responses, one by Robert H. Gundry and the other by William Lane Craig, were quite thorough and scorching. (Although I suggest you read it for yourself, and see just how clear it is that Paul was speaking of his thoughts before converting.) "Paul's [re-Christian versus Christian experience is overwhelmingly rejected ...
Read more

The Resurrection of Jesus: Reflecting on the Evidence (Conclusion)

Here is a very long quote from How Jesus Became God . I want to share it with you to show something of a summary of how skeptical scholars, specifically here Bart Ehrman, can view Christian arguments pointed at the resurrection.  "...more than anyone else, thinkers among [dedicated Christian] groups are committed to 'objective truth'... But the reality is that modern Christian apologists stress the importance of objectivity and champion it more than anyone--much more than most other educated people in our world. University intellectuals almost never speak of 'objectivity' any more, unless they happen to live on the margins of intellectual life. "...This is a standard weapon in the apologetic arsenal: you can look at all the evidence for the resurrection, objectively, and conclude, on the basis of overwhelming proof, that God really did raise Jesus from the dead. No other explanation can account for the objectively established historical data--for example, that...
Read more