An excerpt from Nietzsche's Daybreak:
http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/daybreak/aphorism-68-quote_e9a11aafb.html
He seemed to be the first to make this claim, and many modern scholars argue for it as well. Is there any truth behind it?
The biggest piece of evidence that supports the Nietzsche excerpt, to me, is that it was Paul who claimed that the bread and wine was Jesus' actual flesh and blood, not Jesus himself.
http://jamestabor.com/2013/12/15/eat-my-body-drink-my-blood-did-jesus-really-say-this/
This is something I've felt from a lot of Conservative Christians for a while now, and it seems kind of messed up to me. Like they always quote Paul and talk about how great they think he is more so than they ever talk about the other apostles or even Jesus sometimes. I'm guessing it's because his letters have verses that are the easiest for them to use for their narratives? I don't know. Is this just me or does anyone else get this from some conservative Christians too?
How quickly did christianity spread in the Jewish world after jesus's death?
If he really did appear to 500 witnesses, i would imagine that it would be pretty easy to convince the jews living in that area of what happened, since they had 500 peope serving as attestation do the claims being made by the apostles.
Edit: so many here are claiming the 500 witnesses might not have existed and that this was probably added in later on. That seems like a plausible explanation. However, even then, wouldnt the jews at the time want to verify these claims of ressurection by the apostles? Wouldnt they have written down or documented their claims while they were alive?
I've been reading "The Religion of the Apostles" by Fr Stephen De Young and it makes the claim that its incorrect to say that he converted to Christianity during the events of the book of Acts, as both 2nd Temple Judaism and Christianity were the same thing at this point, was thinking of posting this on the biblical scholar sub but this had more history in the topic so thought it would've been more relevant. So the question is essentially: how similar was Christianity and Judaism around the time of the events of Paul's vision of Christ in approx 35AD, and would it make sense to say he converted?
My question may be a bit vague, so let me rephrase it:
Is there any indication at all of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus being a literary device or motif already existing in his cultural context? I'm trying to find some sort of explanation besides the usual divine or psychological ones for the account of his radical conversion to Christianity. What is the general consensus of biblical academia on Paul's conversion narrative?
It is certainly a stirring story with incredible implications, regardless of whether or not it is true; which makes me want to find out more about it.
> To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
- NRSV
This seems to imply, to me, that Paul wasn’t born Jewish but rather converted.
Paul says apostles, prophets, teachers etc. had been appointed for the church hierarchy, with apostles at the top. Why did early Christians follow a bishop-priest-deacon scheme instead?
