Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-23-2013, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The writer of Acts makes many references to events of the epistles, but reshapes them to his or her own theological preferences. This indicates that the letters of Paul were well known and needed to be countered or subverted, and that Paul needed to be tamed and brought into conformity with the non-Pauline faction of the church (sometimes called the "proto-orthodox.")

We have been over this issue many times before. Christian apologists try to use the correspondences between the letters and Acts to show that there was some underlying independent source of information for both, but this does not fly.

The author of Acts makes ZERO mention of the Pauline Corpus and so could NOT have reshaped them.

The author of Acts specifically claimed that it was those of the Jerusalem Church who wrote Epistles and gave them to Saul/Paul and his group.

The author of Acts of the Apostles knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus from the supposed time of Saul/Paul blinding light experience to his arrival in Rome.

The Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed to Saul/Paul.

No character called Saul/Paul has ever been identified by non-apologetic sources and even up to the 2nd century apologetic writers for the Jesus cult did not acknowledge Saul/Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Gospel and the Pauline Churches.

And further, cult writers claimed Paul was alive AFTER gLuke and AFTER Revelation were composed. gLuke and Revelation may have been composed in the 2nd century or later.

MrMacSon · 09-23-2013, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

... If there was no authentic Paul who would decide what was "Paulinist" teaching and what was not? How would the church and the heretics determine which teachings were Paul's and which were not?

These questions do not address much - especially as it is likely that people who, decades or generations later, used the works not knowing on what basis or in what context they had been written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The answer is that the authentic core presents a set of ideas and a style of discourse which appear to be unique.

That bare assertion is not an appropriate answer.

This could answer the the first questions above

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The style was later imitated in the pseudo-Paulines, Pastorals and interpolations in the core which were to align the original Paul's teaching to the developing theology and the canon of the church.

as does this

Quote:

.... But it seems that most of the Christian strands soon adopted a tactic to acknowledge only the early apostolic revelations and testimonies as genuine, and therefore, some of the later creativity was done in the name of the founding figures. Since the new faith has evolved largely around Paul's teachings, it is not surprising that most of the forged material bore his name.

or, this commentary -

Quote:

Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles -The "undisputed" epistles

"The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter.[1][2] However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[12] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...ed.22_epistles

Toto · 09-23-2013, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The writer of Acts makes many references to events of the epistles, but reshapes them to his or her own theological preferences. This indicates that the letters of Paul were well known and needed to be countered or subverted, ...

Yes, while true it is a commonly claimed 'explanation' that the writer of Acts 'reshapes (Paul) to his or her own theological preferences.' It is a premise that is without proof.

What kind of proof would be possible, other than literary analysis?

Quote:

I'd posit based on the evidence, that it was the forged 'Pauline Epistles' that subverted, reshaped, and 'updated' the original teachings and ministry of Paul to bring conformity with latter evolved orthodox views.
It is much easier to add to and supplement known and accepted information than to counter it. The argument favors expansion of the Pauline character and teachings via means of forged 'Pauline Epistles' rather than a diminishment of Paul and established Pauline writings via the writing of Acts. ...And that is what has been found. forged 'Pauline Epistles' identified one after another.

Does this indicate I believe or accept the account as given in Acts? By no means, only that I am persuaded the fiction of Acts preceded the additional fictions called the 'Epistles of Paul', with none of it being any factual accounting or history.

I suspect (along with others here) that Marcion had an early version of the Pauline epistles (whether he wrote them or not.) The anti-Marcioinite faction edited the letters to oppose Marcionite doctrines, and also promulgated the Book of Acts to counter Marcion and keep his main authority, Paul, subordinated to the apostles who were claimed to know Jesus.

I agree that probably none of this reflects any actual history.

aa5874 · 09-23-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I suspect (along with others here) that Marcion had an early version of the Pauline epistles (whether he wrote them or not.) The anti-Marcioinite faction edited the letters to oppose Marcionite doctrines, and also promulgated the Book of Acts to counter Marcion and keep his main authority, Paul, subordinated to the apostles who were claimed to know Jesus.

I agree that probably none of this reflects any actual history.

It is completely unacceptable to use admitted speculation to support an argument.

The abundance of evidence show that Marcion did not use the Pauline Epistles. We do not have to speculate.

In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed that Jesus Christ was the Maker and the Son of God.

Marcion preached NO such thing.

The Pauline Corpus is an Anti-Marcionite compilation invented AFTER c 180 CE.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies 7

Quote:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

Ephraim's Against Marcion 3

Quote:

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

Quote:

...And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

Sheshbazzar · 09-23-2013, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I agree that probably none of this reflects any actual history

Then a literary propaganda playing out of the power struggle between competing philosophies for religious authority and ascendancy.
One which would require no actual 'Jesus', 'Apostles', or 'Paul', only imaginative writers and a credulous audience.

aa5874 · 09-23-2013, 07:45 PM

There is simply no evidence at all that Roman citizens were converting to a Jesus cult started by a Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus before c 70 CE.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Jesus was born of the seed of David.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that there would be No salvation or remission of sins if Jesus the Messianic ruler was NOT resurrected.

In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed that the Laws of the Jews were useless for Salvation because of Jesus the Messianic ruler even before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

There is no record of Jesus the Messianic ruler and Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews [a Pharisee] in the 1st century.

Virtually everything we read about Paul is FAKE or cannot be corroborated.

The very first writer, Irenaeus, to mention the Pauline Corpus also claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius. See "Against Heresies 2.22

This means that the Pauline Corpus is not an historical account.

The claim that Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected BEFORE the reign of Claudius must be fake if Jesus was crucified AFTER c 48 CE.

Solo · 09-24-2013, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

... If there was no authentic Paul who would decide what was "Paulinist" teaching and what was not? How would the church and the heretics determine which teachings were Paul's and which were not?

These questions do not address much - especially as it is likely that people who, decades or generations later, used the works not knowing on what basis or in what context they had been written.

And you are accusing me of "bare assertions" ?

Jiri

Solo · 09-24-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul has presented himself as someone who was specifically chosen by God to proclaim his son.

The writer of Acts professes to relate details of Paul's ministry. Yet the writer of Acts shows no awareness at all of any such Pauline writings, nor ever cites any of Paul's peculiar beliefs, claims, or 'Epistles'.
The only writings the writer of Acts ever connects with Paul are those that Paul received from the elders of the Jerusalem church, and as a courier passed on. The accounts of Paul in Acts, and those in the 'Pauline Epistles' do not jibe. This strongly suggest that at the time of the writing of Acts, there were no such 'Pauline Epistles' known, all being latter produced forgeries.

I don't think that follows. The writer of Acts had a specific reason to suppress the mention of Paul's letters. They were an important testimony to Paul's independence from Jerusalem and his own authority that did not derive from the church. It is interesting that the two mentions of letters in the Acts sent out by the brethern from Jerusalem (15:23, 21:25), contain specific insrtuctions and rulings such as Paul routinely made in his epistles .

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 09-24-2013, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't think that follows. The writer of Acts had a specific reason to suppress the mention of Paul's letters. They were an important testimony to Paul's independence from Jerusalem and his own authority that did not derive from the church. It is interesting that the two mentions of letters in the Acts sent out by the brethern from Jerusalem (15:23, 21:25), contain specific insrtuctions and rulings such as Paul routinely made in his epistles .

Best,
Jiri

There is no reason why the author of Acts would suppress the mention of the Pauline Corpus except that it was unknown to the author.

The author of Acts did show the independence of Saul/Paul--the supposed blinding light conversion of Saul/Paul was directly related to the resurrected Jesus and was NOT dependent on the Jerusalem church.

The evidence against early Pauline Corpus is secure.

There are multiple Jesus cult writers that place Paul AFTER gLuke and Multiple Jesus cult writers that show virtually NO influence by the Pauline Corpus and Gospel or did not know the authors of or when the Pauline Corpus was really composed.

This is a partial list.

1. gMatthew
2. gMark
3. gLuke
4. gJohn
5. Acts of the Apostles
6. Hebrews
7. The Epistle of James
8. The 1st Epistle of Peter
9. The Epistles of John
10. The Epistle of Jude
11. Revelation
12. Aristides
13. Justin Martyr
14. Theophilus of Antioch
15. Athenagoras of Athens
16. Minucius Felix
17. Arnobius
18. The Muratorian Canon
19. Celsus in "Against Celsus"
20. Irenaeus
21. Tertullian
22. Clement of Alexandria
23. Origen
24. Eusebius
25. Jerome
26. The Paul/Seneca letters

The Pauline Corpus is a Late forgery and falsely attributed compilation, after c 180 CE, which is not historically accurate.

The Pauline Corpus only makes sense AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Peter Kirby · 09-24-2013, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no reason why the author of Acts would suppress the mention of the Pauline Corpus except that it was unknown to the author.

This is nonsense. Have you no imagination? Maybe he was paid 100 talents by somebody not to talk about it. Serious hypothesis? No, but it doesn't matter. The point is that saying that there is no other possible explanation repeatedly doesn't make it so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2013, 07:45 PM	#36
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	There is simply no evidence at all that Roman citizens were converting to a Jesus cult started by a Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus before c 70 CE. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Jesus was born of the seed of David. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that there would be No salvation or remission of sins if Jesus the Messianic ruler was NOT resurrected. In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed that the Laws of the Jews were useless for Salvation because of Jesus the Messianic ruler even before the Fall of the Jewish Temple. There is no record of Jesus the Messianic ruler and Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews [a Pharisee] in the 1st century. Virtually everything we read about Paul is FAKE or cannot be corroborated. The very first writer, Irenaeus, to mention the Pauline Corpus also claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius. See "Against Heresies 2.22 This means that the Pauline Corpus is not an historical account. The claim that Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected BEFORE the reign of Claudius must be fake if Jesus was crucified AFTER c 48 CE.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.