aa5874

Where is it claimed that your "genuine Paul" was on earth while "he" was writing "his" Epistles?

As I have told you before your methodology is most absurd. You isolate the Pauline writings, probably the writings with the most forgeries under a single name in the NT Canon, andTRUST them as your central source while ignoring or ridiculing other books in the NT.

You must know or have realised that it is not necessary for the Pauline writers to say that Jesus had apostles on earth once it is reasonably established that the NT Canon is about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who had 12 apostles while he was supposedly on earth during the time of Tiberius.

A book written by multiple authors do not have repeat every detail from each author.

Any ambiguity in the Pauline writings about Jesus or his apostles can be easily resolved by making use of the other books in the NT Canon, after all the books of the NT Canon must compliment each other, they were not written in a VACUUM.

The Epistles that bear the name of PAUL mentioned the name JESUS CHRIST over 160 times with very little details, but there is enough to satisfy any reader that he referred to the Jesus Christ found in the other books of the NT Canon.

1. In the Gospels the father of Jesus was God.

In the Pauline Epistles the father of Jesus was God.

2. In the Gospels, Jesus was born of a woman.

[b]In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus was born of a woman.

3. In the Gospels, there was an apostle called Peter.

In the Pauline Epistles, there was an apostle called Peter.

4. In the Gospels, Jesus was betrayed in the night after he supped.

[b]In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus was betrayed in the night after he supped.

5. In the Gospels, Jesus was crucified.

In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus was crucified.

6. In the Gospels, Jesus died and was raised on the third day.

[b]In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus died and was raised on the third day.

7. In the Gospels, Jesus ascended to heaven.

In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus ascended to heaven.

8. In the Gospels, Jesus' SECOND COMING was expected.

In the Pauline Epistles, Jesus' SECOND COMING was expected.

Now, according to the Gospels, those things happened on earth.

Now, Please tell where did those things happen in the Pauline writings?

A. HEAVEN

B. EARTH.

Please answer the question, your ability to deduce and reason, or your "IQ", is at stake.

Loomis

no formie coherent :frown:

spamandham

A literary creation is an extension of the author. Paul of Tarsus might never have existed and yet still appear as if he did, as long as an author used the same character repeatedly. We see this in poorly thought out story lines that become popular and result in sequels all the time. Though the characters are fictional, within a sequel they will often cover for inconsistencies in the original story.


I don't think those who are arguing that Paul is a literary creation are also arguing that Christianity is a literary creation. As long as Paul-ish Christianity existed, I would not expect to see an author explaining the well known to his audeince.

There's no way of knowing that I can think of, but consider that it is estimated that roughly 99% of all ancient texts are lost (a real statistic promoted here often by Roger Pierce).

If the author and his intended audience are from Paul-ish sects, that's all that is required. Of course, one such Paul-ish sect would be the sect of a historical Paul, but we also know Marcion revered Paul, so it is reasonable to conclude his sect was also Paul-ish.

gurugeorge

Yadda yadda yadda ...

So I take it you can't find anywhere in the "genuine Paul" writings where it's claimed that Jesus had apostles while on Earth?

I take it you can't find anywhere in the "genuine Paul" writings where it's clear that the "Peter" mentioned was the apostle of a living entity, who he knew personally, who was called "Jesus"?

rizdek

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. Are you saying we don't have it from someone else. Dunno. We have it from a letter supposedly written by Paul. In Romans Paul goes on and on about how he tried to do good, but is still a slave to sin.

Romans 5:10-20

He's not advocating 'wanting' to sin, but still acts as though he can't help himself and more or less justifies that weakness by alluding to some "inner sin" that is not really him. Suggesting that he is exonerated because it isn't him doing it. This might be what he's trying to refute. He might have heard that when folks read that letter, they said, "well if the great apostle Paul can't even help himself, why should I be ashamed at a little sinning...or even a lot of sinning that, of course, I can't help either."

Whether he was real or imaginary, whoever was writing thought they had to back pedal on the "sinning after conversion" mess that was made in Romans. So can't see how this chain of thought impacts the "mythical/real Paul" issue at all.

Solo

E.R.Dodds, one of the great modern scholars of antiquity wrote in his influential book The Greeks and The Irrational (or via: amazon.co.uk) : Paul believed he was chosen by God, set apart from other men before he was born (Gal 1:15-16) and that God revealed to Paul (actually, "in" Paul) his Son with the mission to preach the gospel, and endowed him with a secret knowledge hidden for ages. This sort of paranoid ideation ('the world revolves around me') was no doubt perceived as 'folly' or 'madness' in the rational Hellenic antiquity, given Paul's social station.

Paul's case is complicated because he was acutely aware that he was perceived as unsound (Gal 4:13-14). If he says to Galatians, "you did not scorn me or despise me" because of my condition, he implies that others did. He knows what he says sounds like confabulation or "lies" to most people. So, he admits and toys "ex hypothesis" with the idea and says in effect: "Look, even if I am wicked but serve a just God, and if I lie in my preaching in the service of a truthful God, am I a sinner (in doing what I am doing) ?"

Jiri

aa5874

Your claim appears to be false.

In the first place, it is not even clear who "James" was in the Pauline writings.

The name James is first introduced in 1 Cor. 15.7 but there is no details about James.

No other book of the NT Canon made any specific claims that "James" saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead and before the apostles saw the resurrected one.

According to the Jesus story in the Gospels there were TWO apostles called James at the time Jesus was raised from the dead, James the Son Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus.

The James in 1 Cor. 15.7 is ambiguous.

Next, for the first time, in Galatians 1.19, a character called James the Lord's brother is introduced as an apostle and again NO other source in the NT Canon established that a brother of the Lord was an apostle.

The lists of the apostles in the Gospels do not make mention of a brother of the Lord called James.

James the Lord's brother will now make three and possibly four characters with the name James in the NT Canon.

James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 is ambiguous.

Next in Galatians 2.9, a character called James can be found, and this James is in the company of Cephas and John and in the Gospels a character called James is also found many times with Peter/Cephas and John.

But the Jameswho was usually in the company of Peter/Cephas and John was NOT the Lord's brother, he was James the son of Zebedee, the very brother of John. See Mark 1.29 and Mark 5.37

So far, in the Pauline writings there are possibly three different persons called James. Virtually every time James is mentioned in the Episitles, the character changes.

1. James the unknown--1 Cor. 15-7

2. James the Lord's brother--Gal. 1.19

3. James, the son of Zebedee--Gal. 2.9

But, there is one more time that a character called James is mentioned in [/b]Galatians 2.12.[/b]

Again, this James is not properly introduced, it is NOT known if this James was the Lord's brother, James the Son of Zebedee, James the unknown, James the son of Alphaeus or yet another James.

We are now up to possible FIVE characters called James in the Pauline writings.

But, the Pauline writer has a problem with veracity.

In Galatians 1.19, the Pauline writer claimed he met JAMES the Lord's brother but PAPIAS claimed that the apostle James was the son of an aunt of the Lord Jesus. See the "FRAGMENTS" of Papias.

This is the revised names of James in the Pauline writings


1. James the unknown--1 Cor. 15-7

2. James the ambiguous--Gal. 1.19

3. James, the POSSIBLE son of Zebedee--Gal. 2.9

4. James the undetermined--Gal. 2.12.

It is clear that the Pauline writings are ambiguous in relation to "James".

But, you may not realise that the writings under the name Paul mentioned Jesus or Christ over 370 times and only mentioned the "kingdom" 14 times.

In some Epistles with the name Paul, the word "kingdom" is not even mentioned or discussed, but Jesus or Christ was mentioned on average at least 26 times per Epistle.

It must be reasonable to assume that Paul's gospel is fundamentally and overwhelmingly about Jesus Christ just based on the figures alone.

Doug Shaver

Is there a consensus within the psychiatric community that only crazy people think God talks to them? Or is their opinion on the subject even relevant?

darstec

Consensus and psychiatric community is an oxymoron. But talking to god or devils has been responsible for committing a few people in real life. I've known a few people who spent some time in a mental hospital diagnosed with neurotic paranoia for effectively claiming they talked with god and or the devil. There were of course other elements of their behavior evident, but talking to spirits was part of it.

andrewcriddle

The Hearing_Voices_Movement may be relevant here (although I don't find the Wiki article I've linked to entirely satisfactory.)

One should probably distinguish between the idea that people with belief X are by definition mentally ill, (which appears to be a philosophical and/or definitional argument), and the empirical claim that belief X is found much more frequently among people who on other grounds are considered mentally ill than it is in the general population.

Andrew Criddle