aa5874

So, why do you assume that there was a real character called Paul in the first century that wrote letters to churches all over the Roman Empire.?

Acts of the Apostles is just a story about fictitious characters after the asencion of Jesus and before the death of Nero.

The issue is not authorship, it is that the author of Acts wrote before the Pauline author.

Is that so hard to understand?

The Pauline writer appears to be correcting the author of Acts.

Look at Galatians 1.20 The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul went to Jerusalem from Damascus, Paul said, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went to Arabia and returned again to Damascus."

This implies that there was information that Paul went from Damascus to Jerusalem to see the apostles and Paul is tyring to correct or dispel that information.

In Acts, Saul/Paul went to Jerusalem from Damascus to see the apostles and he did see them due to the help of Barnabas. Paul says, "No", I only saw Peter and James the Lord's brother."

Of course they do help to establish that Acts was written before the Pauline letter, since it appears that the writer is responding to information found in Acts that was erroneous.

Two things are obvious with respect to Acts 9 and Galatians 1-2.
1. There are discrepancies.
2. One is likely to be written before the other.


Now, Paul is claimed to have written letters to churches all over the Roman Empire and the author of Acts was supposed to be an inseparable companion of Paul, the author of Acts even claimed to have travelled with Paul.

It is of no benefit to the author of Acts to have written a story about Paul that was erroneous after the Pauline writer had already explained the chronology of events in some detail. The people who knew the Pauline story or Paul himself would have corrected the author of Acts.

And that is exactly what appears to have happened. The Pauline writer read Acts of the Apostles and saw errors and corrected them or gave his own version of the Damascus -Jerusalem trips in his own letter.

Paul corrected Acts.

It is extremely beneficial to Paul to try to correct the author of Acts when the author made mistakes or strayed from the storyline.

Paul's storyline is that his gospel is not from man but by revelation.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul met with the disciples before he started preaching. The author of Acts strayed from Paul's story line.

Paul must correct the errors of Acts..

spamandham

I challenge you to locate a post indicating this as my position on the matter.

While I agree that Acts is not historical, it doesn't follow that every character mentioned is a fictional character. For example, Herod is mentioned.

"One day, aa5874 and spamandham went to Wendy's and miraculously reverted the hamburgers back into livings cows."

Congrats aa, you and I are both now fictional characters.

It's certainly not hard to understand. You just haven't made a good case for it.

It's possible this is a correction. It's also possible that there was such a contention already propagating at the time Paul lived (if there was a historical Paul), and he was aware of it. It's also possible it's a correction that was added later than the original writing. It's possible Galatians is a later writing loosely based on an earlier one. It's also possible that the Pauline author wrote that to emphasize Paul's autonomy from the Jerusalem authority, and the author of Acts had heard a different version of the story, or wished to spin a different version. All of these are possible, and none are substantially more plausible than the others (nor is this a complete list of all possibilities).

This is the problem I see with all this type of analysis...it's filled with rampant unjustifiable assumptions mostly based on hand waving arguments of parsimony. You're doing the exact same thing you blast everyone else for doing.

Ben C Smith

I was not exactly there when this happened, but a second cousin of mine told me that his best friend from the third grade had an aunt who was placing an order at the drive-through of another Wendy's three towns over when she overheard two employees talking about it, so I can completely vouch for the historicity of the story.

Ben.

aa5874

Well state your position on Paul.

It is my postion that the writer called Paul did not exist in the 1st century.



Now, where did I ever claim there was no character called Herod in antiquity?

This is my position--Jesus of the NT, the disciples and the apostles, including the Pauline writer are first century fiction characters..

This is absolute rubbish. This is really pathetic. You are not making any sense at all.



Just saying I did not make a good case is not good enough. You actually have to make your case, that is, produce written information or sources that can contradict my case, but you have nothing.

My case is solid.

The Pauline writer gave a detailed account of his travel from Damascus to Jerusalem covering a period of about 17 years. The writer called Paul claimed he went to Arabia then back to Damascus, three years later, he went to Jerusalem and saw only Peter and James the Lord's. Fourteen years later he went back to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus.

The author of Acts did not appear to know about this 17 year period, he wrote that after certain days Saul went to Jerusalem from Damascus and met the apostles and was in and out of Jerusalem with the apostles.


The Pauline writer appears to have been after Acts since he provided more details than the author of Acts.


But there is one common element in your possibilities and it is that what is found in Galatians 1-2 is more likely to be after what is found in Acts 9.


You are the one who makes assertions without presenting any facts.

You are agreeing with the possibilities and then still at the same time claiming they are unjustified.

Once you agree that it is possible Paul was correcting the author of Acts, then my conclusion is possible and not unjustifiable.

Now you are blasting yourself, your assertions are baseless.

Now look at your reply and see for yourself.


My position is possible. Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and wrote after Acts.

Your rantings and ravings may be unjustifiable.

spamandham

I am agnostic on the matter. There isn't enough quality information to make a determination, as there are reasonably equal arguments that arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions.

Nowhere, but you seem to say over and over things to the effect of "virgins don't give birth, therefor this is a fictional story and all the characters are fictional."

I accept this as plausible, but not sufficiently demonstrated.

At least one other poster seems to have understood it. :huh:

I do not need to counter your case if it is not compelling, I need only point out why it isn't compelling, which I did. Way too many people here draw hasty conclusions, and I'm trying hard not to be one of them.

Your case is very weak, but then again, so are all the other cases declared solid on the matter. There just isn't enough information for firm conclusions. That is my position on the matter, and it's easily demonstrated by well qualified scholars who come up with competing and mutually exclusive conclusions.

To draw your conclusion, you have to assume that if the Pauline corpus came first, that the writer of Acts would have:

1. Known about the Pauline writings
2. Been familiar enough with the writings to know to double check his work against them
3. That Acts is the final version of his text and not an unchecked draft
4. That the author of Acts did not have his own agenda in mind where he contradicted the Pauline corpus
5. That the Pauline corpus was not edited after it's original form for some agenda against Acts

...and probably several others I haven't listed. There is no justification for any of these assumptions, and without them, the case you're arguing falls apart.

We can not make any conclusion about the sequence of the writings without starting with unfounded unsupportable assumptions.

That's common to some, but not to all of the equally likely scenarios.

What's unjustified, is the degree of certainty you express.

Oh pulleeeze.

aa5874

Your agnoticism has no bearing whatsoever on my position. There is enough information in the NT and church writings to show that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are first century fiction characters.

It is completely untrue that I have stated "virgins don't give birth" therefore this this is a fictional story and all the characters are fictional".

You have never pointed out any post where I made such statement, yet you continue to make these mis-leading and erroneous assertions.

I always have to repeat my position when people like you make this false claims. I have presented a multiplicity of facts presented by the NT and church writings to show the Church actually presented a mythical character to the world called Jesus Christ. And from the myth Jesus grew many more myths called the diciples and Paul.

Now, if you are agnostic, what will ever suffice?

That's too many already.

I think what you wrote was extremely illogical and totally non-sensical.

You cannot even try to counter my case. And you have already stated it was possible that Paul corrected Acts.

That is my position, Paul corrected Acts. You cannot show that it is very unlikely or near impossible for Paul to have corrected Acts.

You have no case at all to counter your own findings that it is possible that Paul corrected Acts.

Remember that you have already said that it was possible that Paul corrected Acts.

My case is strong.

You must say that it was impossible or hardly unlikely that Paul corrected Acts for me to have a weak case.

You said the opposite. Look again at your reply.


Your list contains nothing of real substance, there is no writing of antiquity that pass your criteria. Your 5 listed propositions are worthless.

No-one can tell really who wrote every word of Josephus, Philo, Irenaeus or Eusebius but it is accepted until there is proof of forgery.

Do you not understand that Acts of the Apostles is regarded as sacred scripture? You think Acts was just found somewhere lying in a rubbish heap?

Acts of the Apostles contains the history of Saul/Paul and unless you can find or prove that it was unchecked, and he would not have known about the Pauline writings even when written before Acts, then you are engaged in futility.

We have Acts of the Apostles, it contains a multiplicity of fiction, including the conversion of Paul and the author did not appear to be aware of the Pauline chronology with respect to Damascus, Jerusalem and the apostles. And Paul appears to be correcting Acts.

Please do not include me in your "we". You may make conclusions using unfounded unsupportable assumptions, I do not.


What is a degree of certainty? Agnostics know?

Now, you are agnostic. Why do you think that your position is correct when you don't know enough about Paul?

Perhaps some-one out there knows enough to declare that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and wrote after Acts.

You don't know.

And if you don't know nobody else will ever?

kcdad

Does your position allow for his existence some other place and time or is this a perfect irrefutable negative?

Did they exist in some other century?

well... not so much

aa5874

Of course some-one wrote those so-called letters but the author's name was probably not Paul and it has already been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul.

The Roman Church presented Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters as authentic and genuine, but today it has been deduced that this is so far from the truth.

And it will be realised that the Roman Church is the primary benefactor of the erroneous information supplied in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

For example, it was reported by the Roman Church that Paul had acquaintances called Timothy, Titus and Philemon and wroter letters to them when Paul was alive, but now today it has been deduced that the Paul in Romans is not the Paul in the Pastorals.

What does this imply?

The Roman Church provided mis-leading information to make it appear that there was an actual Paul.

Now, it can be deduced that if Paul actually lived then he did not see the Pastorals and neither did Timothy, Titus and Philemon. These letters were probably written when they were all dead.

But who would try to claim Paul wrote letters when he did not or who would be the primary benefactors of this mis-leading information?

The Roman Church.

Now if the Church claimed Paul wrote the Pastorals when he did not, this would imply that there was really no Roman Church history, Paul and his acquaintances were just made up by the primary benefactors the Roman Church.

Justin Martyr did not write one single word about Paul or Saul.

But the Roman Church did.

It is obvious they made Paul and Luke, inseparable companions, with their Acts of the Apostles and their Pauline letters.


" Well.....not so much" is a non-response. You need to present your position. Put something on the boards so that I can try to understand why you have such a view.

If I just responded to "well...not so much" in the same manner the boards might as well be shut down.

You cannot win a debate or discussion by default or by just simply claiming that your opponent does not have a good case. You must put your position with the relevant sources on the boards.

"Well...not so much" is just the mere beginning, or is it where you begin and end?

spamandham

You're the only person here who seems to think you've established this. Suffice it to say I do not see that you have.

If I'm not the only one making this "false claim", then clearly the failure to properly communicate lies on your end.

...enough to reasonably rule out other straightforward possibilities.

I was hoping you understood the difference between possibility and certainty. Apparently, you do not.

No case is necessary. It need merely be logically possible, and not outrageous. Since obvious redactions have been found throughout ancient literature, these criteria are met.

Let's hope you never serve on a jury.

You have a weak case if alternative cases exist of a similar or higher degree of plausibility.



Enjoy your nonsense bud, you're the only one buying it.

Ancient texts are almost universally acknowledged in the scholarly realm to be approximations of the originals, rather than photocopies.

I see. So it's up to me to *disprove* your assumptions. Isn't that the same thing fundies do?

From what I've read of your tirades, I believe I'm at least as knowledgeable of the texts as are you.

kcdad

But I think you just implied there was... but not one Paul... many.
Possibly... but then again, after Paul died.

Followers of Paul, converts of Paul... friends of Paul.


That is a strange inference, not an implication.
Yes.