St. Paul

that is if the acts are trustworthy and you ignore that they even contradict what Paul said about himself

cute conspiracy theory

So, I've seen this one guy (at least I think it's one guy) on Veeky Forums talking about how Paul's claim to be a Pharisee is dubious and that his grasp of contemporary Jewish theology is very weak. Is this just someone bullshitting, or is there something to back it up? Does anyone have any reading recommendations on the subject?

"Acts" is confirmed pseupigraphica. Stick with the Pauline epistles that are actually accepted as legitimate.

Paul was a based j00 and the kikes hate him so he was definitely beloved by God.

>"Acts" is confirmed pseupigraphica
and you use that word again yet you havent provided any scholarly citation

I guess Luke is pseupigraphica too since every biblical scholar alive agrees it shares the same author as Acts

Not that guy, but do you know anything about biblical scholarship (academic scholarship, not apologetics)? Those are the standard academic positions on those works. And yes, Luke is psuedepigrapha, as are the rest of the gospels. None of them were written by the traditionally-ascribed authors, and no one seriously argues that they were.

This person covered the most salient points while I was gone, please bone up on your biblical criticism. The gospels are anonymously written; they lack any claims of authorship or even statements that the authors bore witness to the events in question. The names of disciples tacked onto them are 2nd c. additions, and claims that these attributed authors are accurate are not taken seriously in academia even by Christian scholars.

Seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles are almost universally regarded as actually having been written by Paul, while other epistles like Ephesians, Titus, etc were written by other authors.

Do you have JSTOR access?

Don't forget how several of them, especially Mark and John, make glaring errors about local culture, language, and politics that would be very, very odd for a native 1st century Judean to make.

>guy believes so much in the cause that is fine with getting crucified for his beliefs
>people still doubt his faith

A stroll through a lunatic asylum will show you that faith proves nothing.

Whatever Paul's reasons for getting on board the Christian religion most of the traditional claims about him, including those in Actss are almost certainly false or altered to show him in a better light.

There are no glaring errors, only your misunderstanding of the text.

>b-but they call Aramaic words Hebrew!

Hebrew and Aramaic are so similar that many lexicons include them both in the same volume and it isn't surprising that the Gospel authors conflated the two since they were writing to a foreign audience.

>b-b-but their geography is bad!

No it isn't, you just misunderstand the text. Here is a more in depth explanation:

answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/geo-errors1.htm

>most of the traditional claims about him, including those in Actss are almost certainly false or altered to show him in a better light.

That's Christian apologetics. Try posting some actual academic biblical scholarship.

>implying christian apologetics arent biblical

Paul was legit, dang. Intellectuals b liek, nu uh, we know stuff.

Paul b liek, 'knowledge puffs a man up and love edifies'

Show Paul sum luv. Be edified, believe all things endure all things, so what if you *think* you know it all, it wont help a dang thing if you know not love.

Haterz guna hate.

>"uh-oh it da joos"

They aren't academic. That's the whole point. They're starting from the position of trying to defend their interpretation of the text from any critical assessment rather than engaging in scholarly criticism (which doesn't mean what you think it means, look it up)

that's about as academic as a mormon pamphlet

Fuck off Ahmed.

Just because someone has a bias doesn't mean they can't be academic. Frankly everyone is biased and like everyone else you prefer academics who reinforce your biases.

He grossly distorted the message of Jesus and founded a religion in Jesus' name on the basis of his distortions, that's pretty god-damned heretical, but since he didn't claim divine revelation (beyond God telling him to become Christian), he's not a prophet and so can't be a false prophet.

Without Paul, Christianity remains a tiny Jewish sect that would certainly be long extinct by now. Paul is the one who re-invented a failed Messiah into a Greek-style Cosmic savior deity, for better or worse Christianity IS the religion Paul created, it has precious little to do with the actual teachings of Jesus.

Christian apologetics were the literal cause of the beginning of Western academia.

>it's a "Pauline theology doesn't agree with Jesus' teachings" episode

According to Paul, the Apostles liked him and agreed with him. According to every other source, they hated him and anathematized him.

This guy talks about it: >Paul claims to be a scholar of Judaism
>he couldn't read Hebrew and studied translations of what few Jewish texts he actually knew about

>I guess Luke is pseupigraphica too

Yes, obviously. Luke didn't write the gospel of Luke, because he was long dead by the time it was written.

You dumb cunt.

>Just because someone has a bias doesn't mean they can't be academic.

It's one thing to have a bias, but when your bias fully informs your "academia", then you're not a scholar, your just an apologist.

It doesn't. In b4 you pathetically try to cite gospels at me: Paul's letters came BEFORE the gospels, they agree with Paul's theology, NOT with that of Jesus.

Says you as a result of your biases.

The Gospels are the primary sources we have about Jesus and His teachings, if you don't believe them how do you know what Jesus' theology was?

למה אתה כועס

ITT: buttblasted evangelicals who don't understand the difference between academic studies and apologetics

...

>lol guise my 19th century german liberal highar criticism is so grate guise what if jesus wasn't god but what if he was also the gay but also bangd mary magdalene he was just like us lol but totally not god

stop samefagging

A Christian who won't use arguments or citations and resorts to ad-hominems.
What else is new.

>do you know anything about biblical scholarship
Yes, i actually have a degree in religious studies unlike 99% of people ITT

conjecture
pure conjecture

*tips*
This whole thread is full of fedoras that want to believe they are right rather than know what is right which at this point is impossible unless someone digs up a manuscript in lebanon or turkey.

John is the best Gospel. Prove me wrong.

PRO-TIP: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot.

> 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

>39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

>“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did.

John confirmed for best Gospel.

ok guys, he has a meme degree. guess that overturns his apparent lack of basic knowledge on the subject and we're wrong.

...

pic related is itself an instance of pure human conjecture

prove me wrong

Not the guy you quoted, but he's not wrong. I minored in religious studies (at a Christian school nonetheless) and mostly took classes in early church history and second temple Judaism. That user clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and seriously lacks knowledge about scholarship of the period and academic consensus regarding authorship of the New Testament. People in this thread keep posting memes about Jews and heresies, but nothing negative about Paul (or the authorship of Biblical texts) that has been posted is outside of mainstream academia. If you're not familiar with that, re unwilling to do the research, or just want to shitpost about Jews, that's not our problem.

He isn't wrong though, everything we believe about history is conjecture.

He as in

>a meme degree
>hahaha i dont accept your scholastic accreditation because i dont want to be revealed as an ignoramus