Bingo the Clown-O

What are Doherty’s thoughts on the historical Saint Paul of Tarsus?

How does he respond to people like aa5874 who argue that ‘Paul’ appears to a complete fabrication?

I see that Doherty is a member here. Perhaps he’d like to chime in.

judge

This might be of some help.

Sifting a historical Paul from a nonhistorical Jesus: Doherty’s position

sotto voce

Any bright person with access to the OT and to the lore of the gospels should be able to present the whole of the content of the letters attributed to Paul (apart from personal matters, of course).

EarlDoherty

The link quoted by judge is a good short summary of my general views on the authenticity of a Paul and some of the writings attributed to him.

It will have to stand. Quite frankly, to indulge in ranting about one of my pet peeves, I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to respond personally to anyone who calls himself "Bingo the Clown." You all probably know that if I had my way, real names would have to be used on any discussion board.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

Hi Earl,

I have read that link (thanks everyone involved) and have an additional question. Are your general views on the authenticity of Jesus reliant upon, or independent of, your views on the authenticity of Paul. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me that your views on the authenticity of Jesus (via Paul) are not necessarily reliant upon the hypothesis that Paul was either authentic or inauthentic.

Certainly the views that Paul was historical or not may generate different chronologies for Paul, and indirectly, for Jesus. But I am not asking about the chronology here. I am asking about the authenticity issue, on the basis that these two issues may be separately addressed.


Best wishes



Pete

maryhelena

I think 'Paul' is the last hurdle, so to speak, that the ahistoricists/mythicists must tackle...I think 'Paul', like JC, is a composite figure; two historical figures, living at different time periods, whose activities/traditions have been fused into the 'Paul' we now have in the NT. An early and a late 'Paul' - with a considerable time gap between them. An early, pre-70 c.e. 'Paul', and a later, post-70 c.e. 'Paul.

So, Earl is correct to maintain an early 'Paul' figure. But to stop there is to take Acts as history - which it is not. gLuke, it's writer, did not write until after Antiquities, around 95 c.e. (unless he was in contact with Josephus...) Christian history post-70 c.e. has been backdated to assimilate with the pre-70 c.e. christian history.

'Paul', like JC before him, is a composite figure - reflecting the activities of two historical 'Paul' type figures involved with the developments of early christianity. The NT 'Paul' is not an historical figure.

Below are links to two posts, from a rather long thread, that highlight the two voices that can be discerned in 1 Cor.15.


The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....45#post6908445

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....89#post6908689

Bingo the Clown-O

Hi Earl,

Please keep in mind that I am not asking for a personal response. I’m looking for a public response where clowns like me can discover your rebuttals to allegations of the type made by clowns like aa5874.

But now I see that there aren’t any.

Thanks for making that clear.

Sincerely,

Bingo the Clown-O

Bingo the Clown-O

Hey Earl,

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Pauline letters were fiction inspired by the Paul/ Saul character in Acts? - That they are elaborations on Acts; and that the author writing as ‘Paul’ was simply developing and fleshing-out that character?

Just curious.

Duvduv

I don't understand why the reference to any resurrection in Corinthians need refer to a resurrection in a physical body on Earth. If the Christ was said to have appeared to Paul as he did to all the others, and Paul never saw an earthly Christ, then it could just as easily stand to reason that the author wasn't referring to an earthly resurrection but to a rebirth in the spiritual realm.
If the author were referring to some witnesses who saw a physically resurrected Jesus akin to the gospels, then why wouldn't the author of Corinthians say a single word about that event?
And why would such people be asleep? They would have known what they saw in a physical form.
Unless the vision of a resurrected being in the spiritual realm was subjective as a mental experience.
In any case resurrection need not mean into the earthly realm. Verses 42 to 49 don't suggested an earthly resurrection .....verse 44 stands out.

Bingo the Clown-O

Earl,

Being a clown has its benefits. If you say something that you later regret, you can simply discard the old clown moniker and come back as a new clown with a clean slate.

But if you use your professional name then you can get locked in, and might end up spending the rest of your career defending a stale position that you no longer adhere to.

Right?