dog-on

I do not think that Paul was mentally ill.

However, I do think the way in which his writings have come to be portrayed and the context into which they were squeezed is the result of later dellusion.

bacht

I agree that these aspects lend more credibility to the letters. But isn't it possible that the theological points Paul discusses were in fact 2nd C issues rather than pre-70 ones? There is the idea that the epistles are addressing gnostics teachings, tracking a middle path between ascetism and libertinism (as Jesus and his followers distinguish themselves from John the Baptist's stricter lifestyle in the gospels)

aa5874

What you wrote is just absurd, illogical and contradictory.

You cannot now make any arguments for your "genuine Paul" since you have an UNEXAMINED TRUST for one author who appears to have been accused of Lying in his own writings.

You refer to a character as "genuine Paul" and that character refers to himself as an apostle.

You certainly have NOT shown that your "genuine Paul" was an apostle, that he really did exist in the first century and that he wrote any letters at all.

You seem to be satisfied that it has been established that there was an apostle called PAUL in the NT Canon, yet refuse to accept that it was established there was an apostle Peter in the very NT Canon.

You are playing a game.

You cannot attempt to tell me anything about your "genuine Paul" unless you abide by the same conditions you are trying to impose upon the character called "apostle Peter".

And, again, you have avoided the other LIE by "your genuine Paul". He claimed he persecuted Jesus believers, but there were no Jesus believers.

The Jesus character did not exist before the Fall of the Temple.

Your "genuine Paul" was a LIAR.

Now, I will demonstrate that it can be established that your "genuine Paul" was most likely a fraud.

There is only one Epistle outside of the Pauline Epistle where the name PAUL is found.

The name Paul can be found in 2 Peter 3.15.

2 Peter has been deemed to be a forgery by apologetic sources. See Church History 3.3.1.

The name SAUL/PAUL can be found in Acts.

In Acts, the blinding bright light conversion of SAUL/PAUL is fiction and repeated 3 times. See Acts 9.

Now, in the very Pauline writings the name Paul is associated with forgeries.

1. Paul is mentioned in a forged Epistle, 2 Peter.

2. Paul's conversion is fiction in Acts.

3. The name Paul is associated with forgeries in writings under the name Paul in Epistles.

4. No writer in the NT Canon external of the Pauline Epistles wrote about Paul as an apostle.

It is most likely that your "genuine Paul" was a LIAR and a fraud.

gurugeorge

But I do abide by the same conditions - in the Pauline writings, Paul is no more evidently an "apostle" (in the same sense as in Acts) than the Peter he talks about.

That is to say, the "Paul" writing is internally consistent in speaking of both <whoever the "voice" of the writings is> and Cephas/Peter as "apostles" (i.e. messengers) of (what looks like) a revised idea about what the Messiah was, and not "apostles" in the sense of disciples of an entity whom we both have reason to suspect didn't exist (which is the kind of "apostle" evident in Acts).

aa5874

Again, you do not abide by the same conditions. The existence or non-existence of Jesus cannot alter the meaning of "apostle" where it is claimed Jesus, while on earth, had apostles and one was called Peter.

You have not even began to demonstrate that your "genuine Pauline" is internally consistent.

You have already claimed that you can ONLY SPECULATE.

It is clear that you are playing a game.

You are changing your arguments in "chameleon-style".

The word "messenger" was not used to described the apostles of Jesus in the NT Canon. No character in the NT Canon is called Peter the messenger.

It cannot be shown that the Pauline writer was writing about a messenger and not an apostle called Peter.

The Pauline writer in Galatians 1.15-20 appears to be trying to resolve another report about his travels to Jerusalem where the author of ACTS claimed that Saul/Paul after his blinding bright light conversion and preaching in Damascus went to Jerusalem and did meet with the Apostles of Jesus.

See Acts 9.

It is just absurd to read Galatians 1.15-20 in isolation when Acts 9 must also be taken into consideration to determine the veracity or plausibility of the events.

The author of Acts claimed that Barnabus introduced Saul/Paul to the apostles.

The Pauline writer claimed he only met the apostle Peter and the Lord's brother.

And after reading Acts 9, it must be clear that "apostles" mean apostles of Jesus and that Peter was one of the apostles that your "geniune Paul" claimed he met.

And, in the end, both the author of Acts and your "genuine Paul" are liars since there were no apostles, or no messengers of Jesus before the Fall of the Temple.

And you still have no answer for the LIE when your "genuine Paul" wrote that he persecuted non-existing Jesus believers.

Your "genuine Paul" was not mad, just a genuine LIAR.

TimBowe

I think it's clear that he was mentally ill.

aa5874

Where is it clear that he was mentally ill?

A Pauline writer appears to have admitted that he lied.

Ro 3:7 - It was the veracity of Pauline writer that was questioned not his mental state.

gurugeorge

Where is it claimed in the "genuine Paul" writings that Jesus had apostles while on earth?

gurugeorge

The truth may be not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose

I'm really looking forward to Robert Price's book on Paul coming out soon - The Amazing Colossal Apostle (what great titles he thinks up for his books! ). So far as I can gather, it's basically going to go deeply into the question of the strange similarities between the stories about Simon Magus, Paul and Marcion, amongst other things (e.g. Marcion and his donation according to one of the Fathers, whose name I can't remember atm, Simon Magus and his donation in the Pseudo-Clementines, and Paul and his donation in Galatians/Romans (?)).

aa should be slightly pleased though, I gather Price doesn't think much of the Pauline epistles at all, and thinks they're late, and probably reflect Marcion more than the earliest Christianity, especially Galatians (though there might be some early stuff in there and in some of the other letters).

Petergdi

1) If they are actual letters addressing problems on the ground, they are written at a time when there are people known as "apostles" visiting churches. This is always seen as a past age in second century documents. There has been some discussion here of the meaning of "apostle." It literally means "emissary" but clearly has a special sense which is not defined anywhere in the NT. My best guess is that it applies to those people who had carried the "good news" message to an area where it had not been heard before.

2) It is clear that James in Jerusalem, and messengers sent by him had more natural authority with many of Paul's converts than Paul himself. It would be very hard to place this anywhere but before the wars. It is also clear that there is no such central authority later on for quite some time.

I think the really important thing to remember when reading works which assume a lot of insider information as Paul's epistles do is to pay very close attention to the assumptions you are making and not to latch on too tightly to any of them. There is a very great risk that once you assume you have some piece figured out that you will bend the other pieces to fit. If you notice that you are bending pieces to fit, it is a good bet that one you assume correct is wrong.

Don't assume that Paul's gospel is about Jesus rather than about the Kindgom.
Don't assume that the language of high christology means what you think it does,

Peter.