I agree with that. He was a Roman citizen and tasked by the Sanhedrin with the destruction of the early movement. But, are you sure Paul aka Saul of Taurus real name was Philo? I know of a Philo who was a jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt.
Personally I doubt St. Paul ever existed. It was just something they made up. He isn't mentioned by any ancient Roman historian, just as Titus Flavius Josephus (real name Joseph ben Matityahu), Pliny, Suetonius or Tacitus.
I don't deny this, someone had to create us. And we didn't come from monkeys. Darwin believed that the fossil record is incomplete due to the lack of discovery of intermediate forms, which he considered necessary for his theory of evolution. He maintained that if evolution were true, countless intermediary fossils demonstrating gradual transitions between species should be found. We found NONE.
And Jesus did exist, historians are reasonably confident of that. Two billion people believe Jesus is God, not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. However, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in 1st century Palestine. But he never claimed to be God. Today's Jesus is a religious icon that only proves the power of the empire. How the Elites can manipulate the narrative in order to brainwash people. And the made up character of Paul/Saul of Taurus is just another proof of that.
By his logic a lot of historical figures don't exist
And you're correct here. History is not something we can observe. That's why historical science deals with past events that were not directly observed, and observational science is true science and can be trusted, whereas historical science is, at best, weak and highly unreliable.
Historians use observation and analysis of historical data to make logical conclusions based on the clues left behind by past events. They also use comparison with realistic experiences and they use repeatable uncontrolled experiments. Historiography is the study of historical writing. It involves critically examining sources, selecting specific details from authentic materials, and synthesizing them into a narrative that withstands critical analysis.
I agree with that. He was a Roman citizen and tasked by the Sanhedrin with the destruction of the early movement. But, are you sure Paul aka Saul of Taurus real name was Philo? I know of a Philo who was a jewish philosopher from Alexandria, Egypt.
Personally I doubt St. Paul ever existed. It was just something they made up. He isn't mentioned by any ancient Roman historian, just as Titus Flavius Josephus (real name Joseph ben Matityahu), Pliny, Suetonius or Tacitus.
But God exists and we have all sorts of evidence from many avenues to defend the fact He exists.
I don't deny this, someone had to create us. And we didn't come from monkeys. Darwin believed that the fossil record is incomplete due to the lack of discovery of intermediate forms, which he considered necessary for his theory of evolution. He maintained that if evolution were true, countless intermediary fossils demonstrating gradual transitions between species should be found. We found NONE.
And Jesus did exist, historians are reasonably confident of that. Two billion people believe Jesus is God, not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. However, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in 1st century Palestine. But he never claimed to be God. Today's Jesus is a religious icon that only proves the power of the empire. How the Elites can manipulate the narrative in order to brainwash people. And the made up character of Paul/Saul of Taurus is just another proof of that.
Saint Paul doesn't exist. He is an OC self insert made by Philo.
Note that Philo is active around the same time as Paul.
Hey. Debunk my ideas.
Thanks. We're on the same page here.
By his logic a lot of historical figures don't exist. Example, we'd have to deny Napoleon.
And you're correct here. History is not something we can observe. That's why historical science deals with past events that were not directly observed, and observational science is true science and can be trusted, whereas historical science is, at best, weak and highly unreliable.
Historians use observation and analysis of historical data to make logical conclusions based on the clues left behind by past events. They also use comparison with realistic experiences and they use repeatable uncontrolled experiments. Historiography is the study of historical writing. It involves critically examining sources, selecting specific details from authentic materials, and synthesizing them into a narrative that withstands critical analysis.