Me nuh know bout all a dat. What we can say is that given what was written about the man by various sources, it seems reasonable to conclude that he did exist.
The letters of Apostle Paul are a good starting point. If we take them as what they were, just letters to his followers, it is clear that he felt like he had something to prove as a legitimate a church leader because he had never met Jesus in person the way Peter and the surviving disciples had. That's probably why he came up with the whole "I saw Jesus face to face on the road to Damascus" story.
Point being, we do not have to believe the doctrine of the New Testament books to treat them as historical documents. There is much value in them.
The letters of Apostle Paul are a good starting point. If we take them as what they were, just letters to his followers, it is clear that he felt like he had something to prove as a legitimate a church leader because he had never met Jesus in person the way Peter and the surviving disciples had. That's probably why he came up with the whole "I saw Jesus face to face on the road to Damascus" story.
Point being, we do not have to believe the doctrine of the New Testament books to treat them as historical documents. There is much value in them.
Comment