What is the SCHOLARLY evidence for Paul as a member of the Sanhedrin?
482089
Paul (when he was called Saul) was the son of a religious leader (I always thought he was a Pharisee, perhaps I was wrong). Anyway, he studied law to become a religious leader, this is recorded in the Bible, although I cannot remember exactly where it was located.
300048
Pictures of St Paul (Catholic Faith)\nhttp://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stp12001.htm\n\nSpritus Glodius (Used by some churches as a symbol representing St Paul)\n\nSWORD OF THE SPIRIT\n\nEphesians 6:17 "Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." [NIV]\n\nAND\n\nHebrews 4:12 "The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." [NIV]\n\nIt's the one offensive weapon that God gives us. Let us make good use of God's Word, his Sword of the Spirit!\n\nAddtional Info:\n\nPaul, while not one of the twelve, was chosen as the Apostle to the Gentiles and writer of the great Epistles. The open book on his shield signifies the Word of God, and the words SPIRITUS GLADIUS mean Sword of the Spirit. In Ephesians 6:17 Paul writes, "The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."
136992
In Matthew 27:15-26 it states that the Jewish leaders among the crowd persuaded the crowd to call for Jesus's crucifixion instead of Barabas's.\n\nAn interesting theory that I've read is that some believed that Barabas was the messiah that the Jews had been watching for to deliver them from the rule of the Romans. I've not read anything to give that concrete validity, but it's an interesting theory.
1081462
I don't believe that Paul wrote "the word of God."\n\nHowever many do.  Certainly  St Irenius did when he put the Bible together.  Certainly the Catholic Council or Rome did when they included it in the official cannon.
5182
A historical/anthropological answer might go along the lines of:\n\nHomosexuality was rife in Greek and Roman societies as it was in many other pagan societies. The early Judeans opposed Greek and Roman oppression and occupation and responded by targeting the fabric of their society by making Laws or interpreting laws (e.g. idol worship became blasphemous, homosexuality became an abomination and women were not to be treated as slaves - tho the Bible records periods when this was not the case - and some traditions continued to view women as second class citizens).\n\nThen came the Christian era.\n\nThis semi-monotheistic faith saw the bible as a pic-n-mix. One minute the Law dictated to Moses at Mount Sinai is what makes you a sinner and you dont need the Law anyway cos belief in Jesus is all that is required, the next your actions and behaviour are all important when certain things offend Paul (e.g. women and homosexuals).\n\nIf it werent for Pauline Christianity, Christianity today would either follow the Law more closely like Judaism (and thus still be a sect of Judaism) or it would have only two rules (love God and your neighbour) and no Law.\n\nThe reason for this schism is the dilemma that faced Paul. On the one hand, Paul sought to form a new religion (after his attempts to 'convert' Jews were unsuccessful) but also needed the "old" one for legitimacy (it was the one God of Israel that gave the Law at Mount Sinai, how could Paul - a mere mortal - cancel the Law of God given to man at Mount Sinai? Interestingly in the original Greek texts, one way Paul got around this was to express that he was the reincarnation of Jesus and therefore also the son of God).\n\nIf you want to read more on whether it was Jesus or Paul who invented Christianity, see the links below.\n\nFinally, I'd like to say that whatever people believe about your sexuality, it is just their belief. You should stick two fingers up to them and get on with your life. There's a reason you were created the way you were - it's just a shame these religions can't appreciate that. However, that is their limit, not yours.
83911
WWJD? He was 100% Torah-observant as He walked the earth; He kept the Sabbath holy, He celebrated the Feasts of the Lord, He ate only clean food, He wore tzitzit.... Yeshua the Messiah was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, taught as a Jew; His original followers were Jews. To claim that they were not Jews or Jewish is ludicrous! Even Paul was a Law-abiding Pharisee. The Bereans checked what Paul taught with the OT - the OT was the standard Paul had to meet.\n\nWhat is not Jewish in Christianity are the heresies which Emperor Constantine formalized for the Roman Empire and which his puppet Pope, Sylvester, claimed the authority & power to change God's Law and rubber-stamped the apostasy into canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, when the Reformers tried to break away from the vain traditions of men, they were not successful; they failed by maintaining Sunday Sabbath, Easter Sunday, Christmas - things which the Bereans would not have accepted, things which Paul would not have accepted, things which the original disciples & apostles would not have accepted. Who thinks that God would ever accept those traditions?! (Hint: God has NEVER tolerated any paganism mixed in with His worship. Paganism is an abhorrent abomination to God.)\n\nYou cannot server two masters.... You can follow the path of Yeshua the Messiah, The Way, the Truth & the Life. Or, you can follow the path of a pagan emperor (until his death bed baptism - for whatever good that did, only God knows) and the traditions of Popes (& Reformers, et al).
407559
At one time Paul too had a closed mind. He confessed: “Formerly I was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man. Nevertheless, I was shown mercy, because I was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith.” (1 Timothy 1:13) However, he accepted the truth about Jesus Christ and cast off his prejudices.\n\nSaul enters the Bible record among those killing Stephen. “After throwing [Stephen] outside the city, they began casting stones at him. And the witnesses laid down their outer garments at the feet of a young man called Saul.” “Saul, for his part, was approving of the murder of him.” (Acts 7:58; 8:1) \nSaul’s being born a Roman meant that one of his male ancestors had acquired the privilege of citizenship. How? There are several possibilities. Apart from inheriting citizenship, it could be accorded to individuals or groups either for particular merits, for mere political expediency, or as a reward for some signal service to the State. A slave able to buy his freedom from a Roman, or one emancipated by a Roman citizen, would become a Roman himself.  How citizenship entered Saul’s family remains a mystery.\nSaul, or Paul, made honest provision for himself and supported his missionary activities by making tents. (Acts 18:2, 3; 20:34) The trade of tentmaker was typical of his native city, Tarsus. It is likely that Saul learned the tentmaking trade from his father in youth.\n\nSaul’s knowledge of languages—especially his mastery of Greek, the common tongue of the Roman Empire—also proved invaluable in his missionary work.  Analysts of his writings say that his Greek is excellent. His vocabulary is not classical or literary but, rather, reflects that of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that he often quoted or paraphrased. On this evidence, various scholars assume that Saul received at least a good elementary education in Greek, probably in a Jewish school.   Saul’s education thus suggests that he came from a prominent family.\nHe was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, a well-known and highly esteemed teacher of the Pharisaic tradition. (Acts 22:3; 23:6) Those studies, comparable to a university education today, threw open the door of opportunity for achieving prominence in Judaism.  Though educated, Paul did not try to impress others with his speech,  nor did he seek to please men.   He did not insist on doing what he had the right to do, but adapted himself to the people to whom he preached, exercising care so as not to stumble others.\n\nTARSUS:  The principal city and capital of the Roman province of Cilicia; birthplace of the apostle Paul. \n\nA great fire ravaged Rome in 64 C.E., destroying about a fourth of the city. The rumor circulated that Nero was responsible and, according to Roman historian Tacitus, Nero tried to protect himself by placing the blame on the Christians.  Christians were tortured, put to death in large numbers, some even being burned alive in public. This appears to have marked the start of a great wave of persecution, not from religious opposers, but from political sources bent on exterminating the Christian congregation.\n\nLikely Paul, who evidently was freed after two years of imprisonment in Rome (c. 59-61 C.E.), now experienced his second imprisonment (c. 65 C.E.). It is generally held that he thereafter was put to death at Nero’s order
277172
It's not a weird notion.  There is no evidence of a lot of things that transpired during the times of Christ.   Sure the Bible talks about it and is the ONLY accepted history of that time.   I'm inclined to think that the apostles did run with their interpretation of Christ's teachings.   I'm not so sure it was to create an alternate Jewish religion, but an alternate politically correct on of the time.   Jesus didn't come to Earth to have people worship him as God.  That was furthest from his teachings.  His teachings were to show people the way to the Father through his teachings.  Even the perverstion of "The only way to heaven is through Christ."   It simply means that to get to heaven is to be like Christ and follow his teachings.   It does not mean to worship him as God.   Never has, never did, never will.
1081825
Allowing that one does not accept the prophecy from the Old Testament as proof, many of his time refer to his actual existence.  Among these are Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Lucian and Hadrian.\nIn all fairness, none of these knew the historical Jesus.  In addition, none of the writers of the 4 gospels directly knew Jesus either.  Paul, however, relates the story of how Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus three times in the Book of Acts.  Despite several of these sources, in addition to the Babylonian Talmud, providing reasonable evidence to Jesus' existence, there is no intellectual exercise which will provide this, IMHO, nor do I think it should.  Each is only heuristic, rather than definitive, in its essence.\nNeither will the issue of faith alone provide any proof, as much as some would have it so; faith, by itself proves nothing except that one believes.  One may have faith alone in all sorts of absurdities.\n\nThe difficulty comes when we undeniably understand that we have both a material and spiritual component as human beings.  If we didn't, however, then this whole discussion would just be neurons bumping into one another and would be meaningless.\nThe spiritual component is very difficult to explain in any sense of materialism.  Philosophy treats any ventures into the realm of the spiritual as fantasy, at least that which cannot be verified.\nHowever, if faith in Jesus Christ created a real bond, then this bond would have to be created not only by the believer, but the respondent.  The respondent, in addition, would have to prove that he was God. The difficulty comes as to whether this is possible. How does one verify that God exists?\nBriefly, the Bible teaches us that each one of us who comes to Him must love Him because he loved us first.  In 2 Timothy 3:7, we read about those who seek to learn but never come to the truth.  Paul teaches us that we must love God if we want to know him. (Also see Ephesians 3:17; Philippians 1:9; Colossians 2:2; and also 1 John 2:5.) If we want knowledge without love, it isn’t enough.  We first see Him "as through a glass darkly"(1 Corinthians 13:12) but through our trials and efforts for Him, we come to see more clearly.  \nI suggest that the truth of Jesus lies not in any intellectual sense but in a personal relationship which must be individual: you can't believe because someone else believes and you can't discover it because someone else knows.  Intellectual truth leads to skepticism and denial.  While it is good to be skeptical of things, even Jesus' existence and association with the resurrection mysteries you cite, the real proof comes in the consistency of God's promise.  Be forewarned: new believers usually suffer persecutions.  In fact, persecutions are promised to all believers (2 Timothy 3:12.)  Not everyone wants you to believe in the truth of Jesus Christ.
549053
YES!!! Finally someone that agrees with me!\n\nALso note in Hebrews how Paul keep changing his "VISION OF CHRIST" story! 3 TIMES!\nIf Jesus appered to me in a vision, I DEFNITLY remember.\n\nALSO note his obsession which finding salvation through the "BLOOD OF CHRIST". Why is he so interested in SACRIFICE?\n\nOh and Jesus said become as children (humble, trusting, submitting to the Lord) in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (See Matthew 18:3.) There is no mention here of Him (christ) dying and ressurecting as basis for salvation.\n\nIf i am not mistaken he also say that "THE BLOOD/SACRIFICE of Jesus smelt good to GOD!\n\nPaul liked to profess that he is a Jew yet he INSULTED Jews at every hook and turn!\n\nThe dude had issues!!!
187367
1.\nCover may not depict edition offered for sale\n:}\n\n John G. Gager was a Christian author\nThrough an exhaustive analysis of Paul's letters to the Galatians and the Romans, Gager provides illuminating answers to the key questions: Did Paul repudiate the Law of Moses? Did he believe that Jews had been rejected by God and replaced as His chosen people by Gentiles? And did he expect to find salvation through Jesus?
845011
That was another thing that Paul added towards Christianity.
1185523
Luke, the physician, is credited to have written it. He also wrote the Gospel of Luke and most or all of the Epistles [Letters] ascribed to Saul/Paul.
1181903
There were quite a few Jewish sects in that part of the world around that time. Many of them were messianic sects, such as the Essenes - some of which had turned from traditional Judaism. In this period in history it was not uncommon to hear tales that this person or that person was the promised Messiah. Christianity was a sect that became firmly established by going cosmopolitan - after Paul promoted it in Italy and Greece and blended it with their mythology of virgin birth, the hierarchy of deities, and a fiery Hades place of punishment, etc., none of which had any connection to Jesus's religion (Judaism).
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
512161
From Wikpedia\nNicodemus (Greek: Νικόδημος) was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, who, according to the Gospel of John, showed favor to Jesus. He appears three times in the Gospel: the first is when he visits Jesus one night to listen to his teachings (3:1-21); the second is when he states the law concerning the arrest of Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles (7:45-51); and the last follows the Crucifixion, when he assists Joseph of Arimathea in preparing the corpse of Jesus for burial (19:39-42).\n\n \nSaint Stephen Mourned by Saints Gamaliel and Nicodemus, follower of Carlo Saraceni, c. 1615, Museum of Fine Arts, BostonThe discussion with Jesus is the source of several common expressions of contemporary Christianity, specifically, the descriptive phrase born again used to describe the experience of believing in Jesus as Saviour, and John 3:16, a commonly quoted verse used to describe God's plan of salvation.\n\nAn apocryphal work exists, called the Gospel of Nicodemus, which recounts the harrowing of Hell.\n\nThough there is no clear source of information about this Nicodemus outside the Gospel of John, the Jewish Encyclopedia and many Biblical historians have theorised that he is identical to Nicodemus ben Gurion, mentioned in the Talmud as a wealthy and popular holy man reputed to have had miraculous powers.\n\nChristian tradition asserts that Nicodemus was martyred sometime in the first century. Nicodemus is venerated as a Saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Roman Catholics celebrate his memorial on August 3rd. The Orthodox celebrate him either on the Sunday of the Myrhbearing Women (a variable date; the third Sunday of Pascha), or on August 2nd, the date when tradition states that his relics were found along with those of the Apostle Stephen, and Gamaliel, another member of the Sanhedrin who, according to a (now generally rejected) Christian tradition, converted to Christianity.
100292
Even for the books we do know for sure who wrote it, such as some of the letters of Paul, you still have to ask this question.  Just knowing who wrote it does not mean that you automatically know if it is true teaching.\nAnd if you don't know who wrote it, this does not mean it is not true teaching.  Knowing the name of a human author really has little bearing on whether their writing is true.\n\nYou have to look at the content.  Is it accurate with what we know from other accurate sources?  Is it self-contradictory?  Does it contain false prophecy?  Does it contain questionable moral teachings?  You just have to examine it with these types of questions in mind.