LegionOnomaMoi

Unfortunately, your definition of "historical corrobarative source" precludes just about any source we have. You defended the historicity of Augustus with Plutarch, who attributes mythical qualities to him. Same with Augustus. In fact, we don't have any contemporary corroborative source for Josephus. But since you apply a double standard, this doesn't present a problem for you.

You can't read these sources in the languages they were writeen

You aren't familiar with scholarship concerning textual criticism

You aren't familiar with ancient historical scholarship in general

You aren't famililar with academic analyses of ancient genres

But why let reason or facts stand in your way?

aa5874

Please, stop wasting my time and provide YOUR CREDIBLE HISTORICAL SOURCES for PAUL.

1............................................

Just fill in the Blank space. WE NEED CREDIBLE EVIDENCE NOT PRESUMPTIONS for Paul.

You have NOTHING and will NOT fill in the Blank Space

sotto voce

Expressed doubts of the existence of Paul are of exaggerated importance. It may be that there is an element of chasing the wind, here. For one thing, those who in reality decide the contents of the Bible (and it's not any particular organisation) do not regard knowledge of authorship of any of its 66 books as necessary. What makes a work scripture is not authorship, but content. If Paul, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel or any other supposed author had written a work that was not considered inspired, it would not be accepted, notwithstanding reputation.

Now the author of the canonical books attributed to Paul made personal comments. Obviously, the most important of these is the author's role as an apostle, one who writes eternal scripture (which explains why copies were made). But these personal comments, being personal, are never of prime theological value. This is because this author almost invariably bases his argument on agreed scripture, what is now known as the Old Testament, along with the lore of the canonical gospels (and it matters not at all whether they were written before or after those letters were written, because oral transmission was sufficient). Likewise, all of the other letter writers of the NT source their teaching, more or less explicitly, to the OT and the gospels.

Which brings us to another highly significant point. Were the OT and the gospels all that was left to this generation, it would be not just possible, it would be inevitable that the teachings of the NT would arise from them. What Paul wrote was not some scheme devised of his own imagination, but the meaning of the whole physical revelation that began when Abram migrated from Ur, and was completed at the ascension of Jesus, as believed. His role was to give voice to the realisation of all of the original, Jewish church, who finally understood their inheritance (as did the Sanhedrin, though without the same appreciation). It is just as one would expect of a trained Pharisee with a Romano-Greek upbringing explaining the revelation of a messiah, a christ, to Romano-Greeks. But that does not mean that powerful contemporaries like Barnabas, Apollos and Silas did not do exactly the same, orally, as was the contemporary norm; or, that scholars today cannot do likewise.

So, neither is date of authorship of much importance. (Having said that, there is no good reason to doubt that the whole NT, bar Revelation, was complete within forty years or so of the resurrection, as supposed.)

So what we have from the works attrib. Paul that is distinctive is autobiography, not theology; but one suspects that it is precisely that autobiography that convinces readers, and powerfully convinces them, that Paul really did exist. And yet, it does not really matter if he did not exist. The church would reconstruct the same necessary theology and required praxis of the letters of the NT, were they not already provided.

outhouse

false

based on ignornace of the methods used for modern scholarships.


There is a abundance of material that backs paul's historicity from his unattested letters.




good question

what you may not know about this time period that is very critical is that there was not that much value placed on literature. Most people couldnt read or write. Oral tradition was king and used much more even with the literate.

These new churches you speak of are not what you think today. not in any sense. These are private homes in large cities as paul targeted the largest cities when selling his leather's. These churches were nothing more then gatherings around DINNER TABLES not large fancy buildings.

If you dont put the cultural anthropology into play here, "you will" miss the boat.


While some of pauls letter survived many did not, these surviving letters were parts of private collections long before they were copied and spread thoughout the area.


paul ONLY relied on oral transmission he recieved before he took it upon himself to spread the movements message. Paul delivered his WHOLE LIFE nothing but oral tradition. what he wrote was a small part of his real teachings to the people as a apostle.

Paul was in opposition to the real movement, and these early REAL apostles would have hated him. I believe there was no connection to him and the real ones,and paul wrote that in to make himself more credible as paul wanted to be a real one.


had the real apostles been literate, we would have much more going on and much more historicty then what we have. But they were doomed for two reasons

#1 they were illiterate
#2 the movement was taken from them by paul who spread it to the gentiles, taking it away from the jews

outhouse

you cannot fill in blank spaces for the completely ignorant, those uneducated minds have no credibility at all, nor the capacity to learn.



Legion has the education and a IQ that makes certain people here seem like subspecies to homo sapiens.



I think its obvious, where the knoweledge lies, and doesnt exist. :constern01:

sotto voce

Is it a disgrace or a privilege to be ignored, then left to a footnote to replies to others? I'll take it as the latter. Maybe I'm a prophet, or something.

Particularly as that giveaway word 'clearly' occurs so soon. Whatever next? 'Embellished'?

Yes, I'm definitely a prophet.

Is there a list available of textual additions and embellishments?

Presumably you mean 'known'. That goes for a great many characters accepted as historic. So what everyone until now has taken as corroboration of 'central' characters is now used to invalidate them.

They are considered historical for the very reason that they relate to a real geographic place with known contemporary details, as well as the complete inability of powerful vested interests, with reason to to deny their existence, to actually do so.

MrMacSon

Geography is a given to any writer - fictional or non-fictional, or those writing a combination.

Vested interests are paramount to cults, sects, and religion.
.

aa5874

What resurrection are you talking about?? This is the 21st century--we no longer accept resurrections as historical events.

Again, you have NOT provided a single credible corroborative source for any Pauline writer.

You MUST understand that I have QUESTIONED the credibility and veracity of the Pauline writers so your Presumptions about the Pauline writers are wholly useless unless you provide credible corroborative sources of antiquity to support you.

It is IMPERATIVE that we know when the Pauline writers lived and when they wrote the so-called letters to the Churches.

The author of Acts is claimed by Apologetic sources to have been a close companion of the Pauline writer yet the author did NOT say that Paul wrote any letters to churches.

It was the COMPLETE opposite. In Acts 15.23-30, Paul and his companions hand delivered letters from the Jerusalem Church but there is nothing at all where Paul wrote any letters.

MrMacSon

There is very good reason to doubt that - what the Catholic Encylopedia says

Further sub-headings on that web-page include

• "The period of discussion" (A.D. 220-367)
• "The period of fixation" (A.D. 367-405)

LegionOnomaMoi

My point, however, is that applying your "scrutiny" to all historical sources would result in a very different picture. For example:


What corroboration do we have that Josephus wrote anything?

We know that Josephus' writings were altered, and whereas with Paul we have very, very, early papyri, our Josephus manuscripts are dated many centuries later.

Using this logic, Seneca is also subject to suspicion. How do we know Seneca existed?

Including the fact that he lived? So do we also determine that Eurpides never lived? And Josephus? And countless others who are only known through what they wrote? How about Antiphon?