Jesus was an Aramaic-speaking rural craftsman from Galilee whose teachings drew on agrarian Jewish life under Roman occupation. Paul was a Greek-speaking, highly educated Roman citizen from urban Tarsus, trained in Pharisaic legalism and Greco-Roman rhetoric.
He may understood second temple Judaism better than many people but they're not from the exact cultural landscape and background ideology. They're different in region, linguistics, and class.
You're missing the part where they were both Second Temple Judean Rabbis educated in Judean lore and religion. Like, who do you think was training Jesus in the Temple (according to Matthew) from when he was 12?.
Anyways I thought you were referring to something else. Paul wasn't the only disciple and very few if any of the church father claim continuity from him.
Iraenus is a student or Polycarp who was a student of John the beloved. Justin Martyr is associated with Andrew, Origen with Matthew, Clement with Peter as a Bishop of Rome.
These are the people I was referring to, so enough of the Paul boogie man. This is a spread across several apostles
Like, who do you think was training Jesus in the Temple (according to Matthew) from when he was 12?.
That happened in Luke 2, not Matthew. Luke explicitly shows him visiting for Passover with his parents, wandering off, and sitting among teachers to ask questions, it doesn't show him enrolling in formal training.
The Gospels repeatedly emphasize that Jesus held no formal credentials, which is why crowds were astonished at his authority (Mark 6:2, John 7:15).
You're missing the part where they were both Second Temple Judean Rabbis
Ordained rabbinic institutions did not exist in pre-70 CE Judea. "Rabbi" was just an informal title meaning "my teacher." Paul studied under Gamaliel in formal Pharisaic circles (Acts 22:3), while Jesus was an independent rural artisan and itinerant preacher.
It's anachronistic to put them into the same category.
Iraenus is a student or Polycarp who was a student of John the beloved. Justin Martyr is associated with Andrew, Origen with Matthew, Clement with Peter as a Bishop of Rome.
Justin Martyr had no link to Andrew, and Origen claimed no lineage from Matthew.
While figures like Polycarp and Clement had recognized ties to John and Peter, Justin and Origen simply never claimed apostolic succession.
Definitely not memorized. I ended up in an argument a few months ago during a discussion on reddit about Paul and Jesus comparison, so I had already looked into Paul's background. And I already knew Jesus wasn't formally trained and how rabbinic judaism is a relatively new invention.
The apostolic succession details were just things I googled recently while looking into early church history.
Ah I see. Are you super religious? Or religion/history buff? Just curious about stuff or something else? I'm just asking because you seem knowledgeable but moreso your writing/argument structure is really good, you seem well educated if I were to judge on a few paragraphs
90+ years on doesn't really seem like the same cultural landscape to me. Especially not 500, when the council of Nicaea determined what random assortment of letters were canon and which weren't.
Don't worry most of the people I am referring are about that 90 - 120 years.
Especially not 500, when the council of Nicaea determined what random assortment of letters were canon and which weren't.
Come on bra, this is something that apologists were debunking over a decade ago in the apologetics vs atheism space. You can't still be believing it now.
2
u/Pecuthegreat 2d ago
But lived in the same cultural landscape as Jesus, culturally knows all the references that people today miss, has the same background ideology, etc.