Paul’s is the funniest because he only got one letter changed from “Saul,” even though he had used to be the biggest menace. He was a Christian hunter. Not like a professional one, more like McCarthyism but against Christians.
Saul was a perfect example of sin, and Jesus said, “Let’s switch that 'S with a P, and he’s all good. '”
(Please don’t hurt me, I’m joking)
Edit: Wait, my bad. Jesus changed his Roman name, “Paul” to “Saul,” (which was Paul’s, Jewish name), and after Jesus died, when Paul moved to Rome, he went by “Paul” again. That’s also right before he was imprisoned and executed and where he’d write parts of the N.T.
I had to double-check everything, lol. That felt like the mendala effect. It turned out he also spent some time in the Bahamas dreaming about some guy named Yosef.
Saul (Sha’ul) is a Jewish/Hebrew name. Paulos is a Greek name. Even until now, bilingual people who are of a minority culture (compared to where they’re living) often have two names, one in their their native (family) language and one in the local majority language, one official, the other unofficial.
This was not limited to Paul, even in that immediate timeline. Levi (Jewish name) was also called Levi (Greek name). There’s no reason to believe Paul “changed” his name sheet his conversion. He continued to go by Saul after he became a Christian. He went by his Jewish name among Jewish people, then his Greek name when he travelled across Rome and interacted with Greek-speakers.
I think you’re getting your timeline mixed up. Paul converted to Christianity some time after Jesus died and quickly became a leader in the early church due to his prolific letter writing, with letters on all aspects of Christian life. Many of these letters (and a few that modern scholars believe are from people pretending to be Paul) ended up getting included into the New Testament as scripture because they were so popular and influential on early Christianity. However, these did not invent Christianity. All of these letters are to Christian communities that already existed in Paul’s own time, and a few of them mention how he used to persecute Christians because he was a hardcore Jew and thought they were corrupting Judaism.
All of the apostles saw Jesus. That’s what makes them apostles. I think your timeline is off. Paul was there after the crucifixion and witnessed the ascension. He was also a disciple, which means he followed Jesus when he was alive. (Judas is the only disciple who’s not an apostle)
“Jesus called him “Saul, Saul”[38] in “the Hebrew tongue” in the Acts of the Apostles, when he had the vision which led to his conversion on the road to Damascus.[39]”
They met on a road.
After Jesus died, he traveled to Rome to spread the word, where he was beheaded. I believe that’s also where Peter died by inverted crucifixion.
This is a level of stupidity and confident wrongness that I haven’t seen in some time. I would say this is a ChatGPT disaster but even ChatGPT isn’t this stupid. The incident on the road to Damascus was a description of a vision after Jesus’s death. Neither Acts, nor any of the gospels mention Paul in the ascension story, and none of Paul’s letters mention him knowing Jesus during his earthly life, witnessing the crucifixion, or the ascension.
Read Acts and tell me where Paul is before Chapter 8.
I mean, ultimately you’re both basically arguing over Star Wars about whether Han shot first or second. Its several non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story to push an agenda of control.
You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn’t mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn’t exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn’t say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.
I always thought the timeline was really confusing. That was the narrative we were taught in church. He persecuted early followers.
“According to the Acts, Paul lived as a Pharisee and participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, possibly Hellenised diaspora Jews converted to Christianity,[12] in the area of Jerusalem, before his conversion.[note 1]”
Paul’s is the funniest because he only got one letter changed from “Saul,” even though he had used to be the biggest menace. He was a Christian hunter. Not like a professional one, more like McCarthyism but against Christians.
Saul was a perfect example of sin, and Jesus said, “Let’s switch that 'S with a P, and he’s all good. '”
(Please don’t hurt me, I’m joking)
Edit: Wait, my bad. Jesus changed his Roman name, “Paul” to “Saul,” (which was Paul’s, Jewish name), and after Jesus died, when Paul moved to Rome, he went by “Paul” again. That’s also right before he was imprisoned and executed and where he’d write parts of the N.T.
I had to double-check everything, lol. That felt like the mendala effect. It turned out he also spent some time in the Bahamas dreaming about some guy named Yosef.
Saul (Sha’ul) is a Jewish/Hebrew name. Paulos is a Greek name. Even until now, bilingual people who are of a minority culture (compared to where they’re living) often have two names, one in their their native (family) language and one in the local majority language, one official, the other unofficial.
This was not limited to Paul, even in that immediate timeline. Levi (Jewish name) was also called Levi (Greek name). There’s no reason to believe Paul “changed” his name sheet his conversion. He continued to go by Saul after he became a Christian. He went by his Jewish name among Jewish people, then his Greek name when he travelled across Rome and interacted with Greek-speakers.
A Christian hunter? Before Christianity existed? What?
I think you’re getting your timeline mixed up. Paul converted to Christianity some time after Jesus died and quickly became a leader in the early church due to his prolific letter writing, with letters on all aspects of Christian life. Many of these letters (and a few that modern scholars believe are from people pretending to be Paul) ended up getting included into the New Testament as scripture because they were so popular and influential on early Christianity. However, these did not invent Christianity. All of these letters are to Christian communities that already existed in Paul’s own time, and a few of them mention how he used to persecute Christians because he was a hardcore Jew and thought they were corrupting Judaism.
All of the apostles saw Jesus. That’s what makes them apostles. I think your timeline is off. Paul was there after the crucifixion and witnessed the ascension. He was also a disciple, which means he followed Jesus when he was alive. (Judas is the only disciple who’s not an apostle)
“Jesus called him “Saul, Saul”[38] in “the Hebrew tongue” in the Acts of the Apostles, when he had the vision which led to his conversion on the road to Damascus.[39]”
They met on a road.
After Jesus died, he traveled to Rome to spread the word, where he was beheaded. I believe that’s also where Peter died by inverted crucifixion.
At least that’s the biblical canon.
This is a level of stupidity and confident wrongness that I haven’t seen in some time. I would say this is a ChatGPT disaster but even ChatGPT isn’t this stupid. The incident on the road to Damascus was a description of a vision after Jesus’s death. Neither Acts, nor any of the gospels mention Paul in the ascension story, and none of Paul’s letters mention him knowing Jesus during his earthly life, witnessing the crucifixion, or the ascension.
Read Acts and tell me where Paul is before Chapter 8.
https://www.bible.com/bible/2016/ACT.1.NRSV
What about a search in the Bible for “Saul?” Hmmm nothing in Acts or the Gospels before Acts 8? Fascinating.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NRSVUE&quicksearch=saul&startnumber=1&resultspp=250
What about a search for “Paul?”
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=paul&resultspp=250&version=NRSVUE
I mean, ultimately you’re both basically arguing over Star Wars about whether Han shot first or second. Its several non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story to push an agenda of control.
No, it’s more like arguing whether Han Solo was in the prequels or not. Easily verifiable to anyone who isn’t mentally challenged
You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn’t mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn’t exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn’t say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.
I know, it’s like they don’t know the lore?
I my experience, Christians don’t know their own Bible and rarely, if ever, crack it open without someone telling them to, usually during a service.
Nah, for real. He was also king of the jews. He was also called Al.
I always thought the timeline was really confusing. That was the narrative we were taught in church. He persecuted early followers.
“According to the Acts, Paul lived as a Pharisee and participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, possibly Hellenised diaspora Jews converted to Christianity,[12] in the area of Jerusalem, before his conversion.[note 1]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle