Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-08-2008, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE=TedM;5142679]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So this "Paul" had buddies called Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and wrote letters to them, but we have a major problem. Biblical scholars claim that this "Paul" who claimed his buddies are Timothy, Titus and Philemon is different to the "Paul" in Romans, who also had a buddy named Timothy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa, biblical scholars believe one of two things:

1. Paul authored all or virtually all of Romans. Therefore "Timothy" is the buddy of Paul.

2. Paul may have authored some or all of the Pastorals. This Timothy would have been the same as the Timothy Paul mentions in Romans.

2. Someone pretending to be Paul may have wroten of the Pastorals. "Timothy" would have been mentioned in the Pastorals because the writer believed the real Paul had a friend named Timothy.

Either way, scholars believe there was a real Paul, and a person pretending to be Paul did so because probably because his audience also believed there was a real Paul, with a friend named Timothy.

I still think "Paul" is fiction. Your statements are weak, fiction seems the best alternative.

Quote:

If "Paul", Timothy, Titus and Philemon were real people, they would have recognised the forgery, if they were living at the time when these letters were written. I will, therefore, consider "Paul" and his buddies as fiction until further information can be produced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Wrong conclusion. What you should conclude is that Paul and his buddies weren't around to point out the forgery, if it was indeed a forgery. Why you conclude that Paul and his buddies are fiction from this is beyond logic.

ted

I think you are wrong. Whoever wrote them must have been around and Timothy, Titus and Philemon should have read them, if they were real people. How did forged letters end up being cannonised? It seems to me these letters were written long after the (fictitious) events should have occurred, maybe 100 years later or so, or maybe the name "Paul" was added to the "memoirs of the apostles" some time after the writings of Justin Martyr.

If the author of Acts could have written about 15 chapters of fiction about "Paul" and Eusebius in "Church History" didn't realise it was fiction, he could have easily missed the forgeries of the epistles. I get the impression that "Paul" is just a name picked from the alphabet.

aa5874 · 02-08-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We can only speculate about who Paul was. But if he were a normal 1st or 2nd century guy, he had a mother, many siblings, and a lot of friends. "My own son in the faith" sounds like he has metaphorically adopted Timothy - nothing unusual about that.

The letters were not collected and distributed until sometime later, so it is hard to draw any conclusions about whether Timothy might have read the letter and raised an objection as to its accuracy.

The character of Paul in Acts is probably fictional, and may combine features of several different people - the Paul of the letters never hints that his name might be "Saul."

How do you know that the letters were not collected and distributed until sometime later? So who collected them and who distributed them and when?

Toto · 02-08-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...
How do you know that the letters were not collected and distributed until sometime later? So who collected them and who distributed them and when?

OK, let me rephrase that. We have no evidence of any individual letters of Paul. No one quotes from Paul until Marcion in the second century.

An old thread: how did the "church" come to collect all of the epistles?

Read The evolution of the Pauline Canon

JayW · 02-08-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

schilling.klaus
This is a fraudulent Roman Catholic interpolation.
It has no relevance for the question who was Paul,
a fictional character anyways.

Could you give me some of your sources. I would like to read it.

TedM · 02-08-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think you are wrong. Whoever wrote them must have been around and Timothy, Titus and Philemon should have read them, if they were real people. How did forged letters end up being cannonised? It seems to me these letters were written long after the (fictitious) events should have occurred, maybe 100 years later or so, or maybe the name "Paul" was added to the "memoirs of the apostles" some time after the writings of Justin Martyr.

If the author of Acts could have written about 15 chapters of fiction about "Paul" and Eusebius in "Church History" didn't realise it was fiction, he could have easily missed the forgeries of the epistles. I get the impression that "Paul" is just a name picked from the alphabet.

The bottom line is you think Paul was made up. This drives your interpretation of everything else.

How do you account for Justin, a contemporary of Marcion, not mentioning that he made up this character Paul--someone no one had ever heard of before? Obviously he would have done that had he felt that way, don't you think?

And how do you account for the word analysis which seems to place the "authentic" epistles in the 1st century?

And how do you account for the ridulous idea that Marcion would have Paul accepted (in his Galatians) by the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem after HIS Paul considered THEIR OT God in a way that would have been insulting to the typical Jew?

ted

Tigers! · 02-08-2008, 08:19 PM

Why do we need to know all those details about Paul anyway? Acts, the Lettters are not about Paul. Such details are not relevant.

Come to think of it AA5874, where are your personal details? How about some details of your self? Who are your parents? Do you have brothers and sisters? What school did you go to? Where/when were you born?
We need such information to assure ourselves that you are not a composite figure or a fabrication. We can't be too careful you know.

aa5874 · 02-09-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Why do we need to know all those details about Paul anyway? Acts, the Lettters are not about Paul. Such details are not relevant.

Come to think of it AA5874, where are your personal details? How about some details of your self? Who are your parents? Do you have brothers and sisters? What school did you go to? Where/when were you born?
We need such information to assure ourselves that you are not a composite figure or a fabrication. We can't be too careful you know.

But, why did "Paul" give details of other persons and never gave any about himself. "Paul" of Tarsus is like saying "Tigers" of Fayetteville.

If you read Romans 16, it would seem that "Paul's" identity is being hidden. "Paul" has asked the brethren to greet certain persons whom he named, yet he never mentioned his mother's name.

Romans 16

Quote:

I commend unto you Phebe our sister....Greet Aquila and Priscilla... Salute ...Epaenetus.....Greet Mary...Salute Andronicus, and Junia.....Greet Amplias, Salute Urbane...and Stachys...Salute Apelles.....Salute Herodian....Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa.....Salute Persis...Salute Rufus and his mother and mine......Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hemas, Patobas, Hermes....Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister and Olympias.....

And in Acts 23, the author calls Paul's sister's son, "young man" or "him" at all times never giiving the sister or her son any names.

Why didn't the authors write the name of his mother, his sister or her son? I think its because he really didn't have any real ones.

Tigers! · 02-09-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Why do we need to know all those details about Paul anyway? Acts, the Lettters are not about Paul. Such details are not relevant.

Come to think of it AA5874, where are your personal details? How about some details of your self? Who are your parents? Do you have brothers and sisters? What school did you go to? Where/when were you born?
We need such information to assure ourselves that you are not a composite figure or a fabrication. We can't be too careful you know.

But, why did "Paul" give details of other persons and never gave any about himself. "Paul" of Tarsus is like saying "Tigers" of Fayetteville.

Paul appears to be quite happy to give other people credit where it is due. He is willing that others should know of those who have helped him.
Also it's Tigers! from Australia. Now you don't have to worry about where I am from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If you read Romans 16, it would seem that "Paul's" identity is being hidden. "Paul" has asked the brethren to greet certain persons whom he named, yet he never mentioned his mother's name.

Romans 16

Quote:

I commend unto you Phebe our sister....Greet Aquila and Priscilla... Salute ...Epaenetus.....Greet Mary...Salute Andronicus, and Junia.....Greet Amplias, Salute Urbane...and Stachys...Salute Apelles.....Salute Herodian....Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa.....Salute Persis...Salute Rufus and his mother and mine......Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hemas, Patobas, Hermes....Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister and Olympias.....

If there had no reason to mention his mother's name why would he? By the way, what is your mother's name? Is it important that we know it? (You don't have to tell me, I won't get in a huff if I don't know)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And in Acts 23, the author calls Paul's sister's son, "young man" or "him" at all times never giiving the sister or her son any names.

Why didn't the authors write the name of his mother, his sister or her son? I think its because he really didn't have any real ones.

Do you have any real ones? Please tell us about them.

GakuseiDon · 02-09-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, why did "Paul" give details of other persons and never gave any about himself.

You get few details about anyone in those personal epistles, e.g. Jesus, Paul, the apostles, even the apologists. Details are the exception, not the rule. And that format can be seen in letters written over the next several hundred years. That's why it is so difficult to date those early letters. People just didn't write like that.

andrewcriddle · 02-09-2008, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who were 'Paul's" parents?

Romans 16.13

Quote:

Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Nothing at all about his parents.

His mother and mine is usually taken to mean that Rufus' mother had been so caring towards Paul that she could be regarded as his honorary mother, http://pnt.biblecommenter.com/romans/16.htm

Quote:

Paul had certainly met Rufus' mother elsewhere, for he not only greets her, but says she had been a mother to him.

Andrew Criddle

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

02-08-2008, 08:19 PM	#16
Tigers! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On the wing, waiting for a kick Posts: 2,558	Why do we need to know all those details about Paul anyway? Acts, the Lettters are not about Paul. Such details are not relevant. Come to think of it AA5874, where are your personal details? How about some details of your self? Who are your parents? Do you have brothers and sisters? What school did you go to? Where/when were you born? We need such information to assure ourselves that you are not a composite figure or a fabrication. We can't be too careful you know.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.