outhouse

Exactly




What they fail to understand is the real history involved. There is historicity to a early movement that started with John the baptist and progressed foward before paul in the mid first century.

What is ignored completely, is that there were many competing versions of the movement all through the first century due to the roman infection into the Israelites government.

Jews hated romans with a passion, and the fact romans had infected their religion had most of the poor people extremely ticked off and dissatisfied with the state of their religion.




Perfect!!

and the mythers have to ignore these facts, because they cant fight them at all.

To many details that could have not been created at a later date are within these early epistles. There are times you cannot fabricate history you didnt know.

EarlDoherty

Please note, OH, if you haven't, that I am a myther myself. I just happen to conclude an authentic core of Pauline material datable roughly to the mid-1st century.

Earl Doherty

Grog

To maryhelena:

In your chart you identify King Aretas as Aretas III. Why not Aretas IV which is the ID traditionally given and the one that fits the traditional dating of Paul?

Personally, I think this particular passage stands out like a sore thumb, but I'm not trying to make an interpolation argument here at all. Just an observation.

outhouse

I understand Earl. Your work is valuable and applaud you.

I kept it into context as you have.


I should have clarified paul mythers. sorry for the confusion.

maryhelena

There is no historical evidence that Aretas IV ruled Damascus at the usual time slot used to date 'Paul'.

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=aretas

Aretas and Damascus split from Paul absolutely aware of Gospels

Grog

Paul references "scriptures" or "writings." What writings is he referencing?

aa5874

Such a conclusion cannot be substantiated at all.

Once the authenticity of the Pauline writings is challenged then there is NO credible source outside the Pauline writings anywhere to support your conclusion.

1. No author of the NT Canon claimed Paul wrote letters to churches.

2. The Pauline writers did NOT state any date when they wrote the supposed letters to churches.

3. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was dead under Nero but was still ALIVE after gLuke was written.

4. The earliest rerefence to gLuke was supposedly by Irenaeus near the end on the 2nd century.

5. The Pauline writings could NOT be Canonised if it was Heretical and was already known and circulated as Heresy.

There is NO heavenly Jesus" in non-apologetic sources before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE..

Grog

Ok. Very interesting reading and you've convinced me that Aretas IV did not rule Damascus. So that leaves:

a) this references Aretas III and places Paul further back than traditionally thought (I don't have a particular problem with that)

b) the passage in 2 Cor 11 is an interpolation attempting to pin Paul to the time period of Aretas IV, but makes a mistake in confusing Aretas III and Aretas IV

c) same mistake as above, but the entire thing is fraudulent.

There are probably many other options I have overlooked. I have to admit, I had always taken the Aretas IV reference for granted, but suspected it was inauthentic.

Interesting point here that I have to look into more. I read quite a bit of that thread though.

maryhelena

Grog - I'm not dating 'Paul'.........I'm dating a story-line and placing that story-line, re 2 Cor. back to historical events around 63 b.c. 'Paul' is part of the NT pseudo-history. And, in that story-line re Aretas and Damascus, 'Paul' is nothing but a marker, a place marker. X marks the spot! That's all.

Toto

The Runaway Paul by Lawrence Welborn used to be available for free on the web.

Also by Welborn: Paul, the Fool of Christ: A Study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk)

His thesis is that Paul was "playing the fool" - acting out a character in a Roman mime play - and that this section is a bit of theatrics, or stand up comedy. There seems to be no good reason to take this part of Paul's letter as any sort of reference to a real event. King Aretas could have been a character in a popular play, or a nickname for some church official, or some other popular reference that is lost to us now.