spamandham

{emphasis mine}

Care to explain the 'almost'?

Tertullian refers to Marcion's version of Paul in Against Marcion, but also quotes extensively from Pauline epistles in De Corona, as well as in The Prescription Against Heretics and other works. Was that part of the fraud as well?

Why would he? Note that Tertullian does not mention that either in his own apology to Rome, nor does he mention Paul in that apology. Good writers write for their audience, not for themselves.

The epistles attributed to Paul are not simply a recap of Acts of the Apostles, and are actually less fantastic than Acts (they're downright ordinary actually, assuming they were written by someone who was religiously delusional). The proper conclusion then is the reverse of what you claim. As a general trend, stories get embelished as they are retold, not the other way around.

More precisely, it's illogical to think that IMplausibilities reflect reality. I'm not claiming my model IS reality, I'm claiming it better fits the evidence. I lean toward a historical Paul, but could be persuaded otherwise.

Point of clarity.
You propose Acts was written in the 2nd century. Can you narrow that down? Also, when were the epistles attributed to Paul written relative to that?

mountainman

Not quite yet.


There are a set of acts called The "Leucian Acts" as follows. As I understand it, they are called this because they are (IMO falsely) attributed to the authorship of this Leucius.

The Acts of John
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Andrew
The Acts of Thomas

The books of Leucius (without specifying the number) were identified also by the entry all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made in the Decretum Gelasianum of 491 CE.

So then, as far as I understand this, although you may postulate that the various Acts as we have them circulated separately from one another for a very long time, we have evidence in the sources, that a specific set of these were written by this Leutius, variously in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd centuries, but not the fourth.

From the WIKI entry on this "author" is this:
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

aa5874

I do not know if what you claim is true, maybe it is not true.
However, you are the one who claimed Polycarp, 1 Clement, Marcion and Ignatuis did not use Acts. Don't you read your own post?

Now IF what you say is true, which of the fourteen Pauls did Polycarp, Marcion, 1Clement and Ignatius refer to, and in which century did that Paul live?





You must be joking. I MUST READ ABOUT CLEMENT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF HIS HISTORICITY. Your methodology is a disaster, it is total nonsense and illogical. Your reasonning is incredible.

aa5874

I claim "Paul" is fiction. You say no. You have fourteen Pauls to chose from and to give me the century which they lived. You can that do that. It's easy.

I don't know one single thing "Paul", except he is fiction.

Ben C Smith

If you do not even know whether or not Polycarp and company refer to Acts, you are not equipped to argue that Acts is evidence that Paul is fiction.

Yes, I can read those unanswered questions very clearly.

I am working on post #3068 on this forum. Which of the 3068 Bens are you addressing?

You did not read enough about Paul to even know whether Clement referred to Acts or not before making your determination. You did not read enough about Paul to even know whether Marcion (Marcion!) referred to Paul before making your determination. You did not read enough about Paul to even know that the earliest Clement who refers to Paul, the one dated to before Justin Martyr, is Clement of Rome, not Clement of Alexandria, before making your determination. Why then must you read about Clement of Alexandria before making your determination?

The irony of this accusation on your lips will escape no one who has read two sentences from you.

Ben.

aa5874

You have fourteen Pauls to chose, you are equipped. In what century did they live?


Again it is illogcal to assume Paul existed because you think I do not know about Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Marcion, Polycarp, or Ignatius.

You cannot show that any Paul existed at any time in history, as described in the NT. NEVER.

I know nothing of Jesus, his disciples and Paul, except they are fiction. That's all I know. And I have read a lot about them.

Ben C Smith

Yeesh.

Ben C Smith

Have I achieved sainthood yet?

Ben C Smith

Or do I have to die first?

Årçhai

According to Dr. Gary Habermas, one of the leading NT resurrection scholars, there are generally 6-8 Biblical books which are attributed to Paul by liberal, conservative, atheistic and moderate Theologians, including the Jesus Seminar, which are agreed to have been written between 51-55 A.D.

If you want to believe that Paul, at least, is a work of fiction. Then I've got a China teapot orbiting the sun that I've got to find.