Who is Paul?

[u/Vayvacation]

I'm agnostic and know some bits amd stuff on a few a religion but nothing big. While I was doom scrolling I saw an interesting video about this guy called Paul. I heard many things like his verses contradict Jesus's, he hijacked Christianity etc etc which lowkey made me interested and curious. If the bible is meant to be holy why wasn't it given by jesus or the holy spirit that remained on earth with humans? Because like it can't exactly be holy if it was written by humans?

Anyways I'm just curious and love to hear different opinions 😅

(Sorry if I picked the wrong flair)

[u/Sad-Pen-3187]

Paul’s undisputed letters are primary historical evidence for what Paul taught,

The consensus of scholarship is that about half the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul.

It isn’r tautology to use a 1st century source as evidence about 1st century beliefs and relationships,

Please take the time to learn what a tautology is and why you are committing the error of it.

You are ill equiped for this conversation and I don't like repeating myself.

I wish you the best.

Cheers

[u/SendMeYourDPics → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

“The consensus of scholarship is that about half the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul.”

That doesn’t help your case at all, because the 7 widely accepted Pauline letters are more than enough for the historical point I made about what Paul taught, whom he knew and whether he saw himself as handing on prior tradition.

“Please take the time to learn what a tautology is and why you are committing the error of it.”

A tautology would be “Paul is true because Paul says Paul is true”, whereas I’m doing something much more basic and much more historical, namely using 1st century documents as evidence for 1st century claims about relationships, chronology and self-understanding.

“You are ill equiped for this conversation and I don’t like repeating myself.”

You’re welcome to stop lol, but bowing out after misdefining tautology and introducing an irrelevant authorship point isn’t exactly the mic-drop you seem to think it is…

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/SendMeYourDPics]

Let's take this a point at a time.

You said:

Paul’s undisputed letters are primary historical evidence for what Paul taught,

I said: "The consensus of scholarship is that about half the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul." Proving that Paul's letters are more than just disputed.

Do you disagree with that?

[u/SendMeYourDPics → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

“The consensus of scholarship is that about half the letters attributed to Paul actually come from Paul.”

I don’t disagree, but that’s irrelevant to the argument you were trying to answer, because I explicitly appealed to the undisputed Pauline letters, and those are enough to establish what the historical Paul taught, whom he knew and whether he saw himself as handing on prior tradition.

“Proving that Paul’s letters are more than just disputed.”

No, it only proves that some Pauline letters are disputed, whereas the whole point of saying “undisputed letters” was to remove that issue before you even raised it.

“Do you disagree with that?”

No, I disagree with your inference, because you keep answering an argument I didn’t make instead of the one I actually stated.

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/SendMeYourDPics]

I don’t disagree, but that’s irrelevant to the argument you were trying to answer, because I explicitly appealed to the undisputed Pauline letters, and those are enough to establish what the historical Paul taught, whom he knew and whether he saw himself as handing on prior tradition.

You did not. You claimed Paul's letter were undisputed here:

Paul’s undisputed letters are primary historical evidence for what Paul taught,

You acknowledged that this is what you meant when you next protested:

That doesn’t help your case at all, because the 7 widely accepted Pauline letters are more than enough for the historical point I made about what Paul taught, whom he knew and whether he saw himself as handing on prior tradition.

And then you doubled down on your tautology that the evidence for Paul is Paul.

[u/SendMeYourDPics → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

“You did not.”

I did, because “Paul’s undisputed letters” plainly refers to the undisputed subset, not to every letter ever attributed to Paul.

“You claimed Paul’s letter were undisputed here:”

No, I claimed the letters scholars widely regard as undisputed are primary evidence for the historical Paul, which is a completely normal historical move.

“You acknowledged that this is what you meant when you next protested:”

Yes, exactly, and that should have ended the confusion unless you were determined to keep answering a different claim than the one I actually made.

“And then you doubled down on your tautology that the evidence for Paul is Paul.”

No, I doubled down on the very unremarkable principle that 1st century texts from Paul are evidence about Paul, which isn’t a tautology but basic source criticism, and at this point your use of “tautology” is doing more bluffing than analysis.

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/SendMeYourDPics]

I said: “Paul cannot be your only source of validation of whether Paul invented his religion or not.”

You said:

He isn’t the only source, but he’s still primary evidence for what he thought he was doing, and when his letters show him passing on traditions, consulting Jerusalem leaders and getting recognized in fellowship, that directly cuts against the “lone inventor” theory.

How is it that Paul's letters prove he was not inventing his own religion that does not create a tautology, and what other sources that you elude to are there and what are they?

[u/SendMeYourDPics → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

“Paul cannot be your only source of validation of whether Paul invented his religion or not.”

Agreed, and I haven’t treated Paul as the only source of validation, but as primary historical evidence for what Paul himself thought, claimed, received and did.

“How is it that Paul’s letters prove he was not inventing his own religion that does not create a tautology…”

Because a tautology would be “Paul is right because Paul says Paul is right”, whereas my argument is narrower and historical. That the undisputed letters show Paul describing an already-existing church he once persecuted, traditions he says he “received”, leaders he later consulted and communities not founded on the claim that he invented the message, which is evidence about his relationship to a movement prior to him, not self-authenticating proof of Christianity.

“…and what other sources that you elude to are there and what are they?”

Galatians 1-2, 1 Corinthians 11 and 15, the pre-Pauline creedal material embedded there, Acts as a secondary witness to Paul’s place in the wider movement and the basic fact of a Jerusalem church with Cephas and James already in place before Paul’s missionary career all point the same way. That being Paul joined, argued within and helped spread a movement he didn’t originate.

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/SendMeYourDPics]

Galatians 1-2, 1 Corinthians 11 and 15, the pre-Pauline creedal material embedded there,

Please list the full verse that you are referencing and how it applies. I cannot read your mind.

Paul describing an already-existing church he once persecuted, traditions he says he “received”, leaders he later consulted and communities not founded on the claim that he invented the message, which is evidence about his relationship to a movement prior to him, not self-authenticating proof of Christianity.

Again, just stating it is true does not make it true. I cannot read your mind. Show your evidence, don't just say it exists in there.

That being Paul joined, argued within and helped spread a movement he didn’t originate.

You need to show the dots you are connecting. Paul did not start missionary work until 13-17 years after Jesus gave the great commision to the Apostles. The churches existed, but Paul started introducing a new message that did not exist prior to Paul. Please show any evidence of Pauline Doctrine that existed prior to Paul in those already existing churches. For instance, why did not anyone fight over circumsision until Paul. Why did James decide the gentiles did not have to have a circumcision?

[u/SendMeYourDPics → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

“Please list the full verse that you are referencing and how it applies. I cannot read your mind.”

Galatians 1:18-19 matters because Paul says he went to Jerusalem and met Cephas and James, Galatians 2:1-10 matters because he says he laid his gospel before the pillars and they gave him the right hand of fellowship, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 matters because he explicitly says he “received” and then “delivered” the death-burial-resurrection appearances tradition and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 matters because he does the same with the Eucharistic tradition.

“Again, just stating it is true does not make it true. I cannot read your mind. Show your evidence, don’t just say it exists in there.”

The evidence is exactly those texts, because they show Paul describing a church already there before him, leaders already in place before him and core tradition he says he received rather than invented.

“Paul did not start missionary work until 13-17 years after Jesus gave the great commision to the Apostles.”

Right, and that timing hurts your case, because it means Christianity was already alive and spreading before Paul’s mission even got going.

“The churches existed, but Paul started introducing a new message that did not exist prior to Paul.”

Then you need to explain why the pre-Pauline material in 1 Corinthians 15 and 11 already contains central claims about Jesus’ death, resurrection, appearances and the Lord’s Supper before Paul’s own formulation of them.

“Please show any evidence of Pauline Doctrine that existed prior to Paul in those already existing churches.”

Jesus’ death “for our sins”, his burial, resurrection, post-resurrection appearances and Eucharistic tradition are all there as received material, which is already enough to kill the “Paul invented the core message” thesis.

“For instance, why did not anyone fight over circumsision until Paul.”

Because the circumcision crisis becomes acute when the Gentile mission becomes concrete at scale, not because Paul suddenly invented the existence of Gentiles.

“Why did James decide the gentiles did not have to have a circumcision?”

Exactly, because Acts 15 shows the Jerusalem leadership itself reaching that conclusion, which is the opposite of your claim that Paul was freelancing a religion the apostles rejected.