Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 02-22-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

not completely

More for HJ

there is no dispute some epistles were written by paul

You claim is FALSE. There is ZERO corroborative evidence for the Pauline writings to make them undisputable.

The Pauline writings are forgeries and were NOT written BEFORE the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew.

My claim stands until a "real" scholarship states differently.

Do you have one??

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

not completely

More for HJ

there is no dispute some epistles were written by paul

You claim is FALSE. There is ZERO corroborative evidence for the Pauline writings to make them undisputable.

The Pauline writings are forgeries and were NOT written BEFORE the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew.

My claim stands until a "real" scholarship states differently.

Do you have one??

Scholarship has ZERO, NIL evidence for early Paul. You STAND with Chinese Whispers and Rumors and Presumptions.

Not even the authors of Acts and Paul claimed he wrote letters to churches before c 70 CE.

outhouse · 02-22-2012, 03:08 PM

but DO YOU have a valid scholarship that states paul doesnt exist.???

Toto · 02-22-2012, 03:37 PM

The scholarly case for the Pauling epistles being total forgeries is a minority position at present.

You can read about it here.

It is useless to ask aa5874 about secondary sources.

Duvduv · 02-22-2012, 03:38 PM

Outhouse, how do you prove a negative?
What what difference does it make. There is no evidence that someone named Paul actually existed. The name Paulus could simply be a pen name of "The Small One" like Mark Twain or like Poor Richard's Almanac, or Franklin W. Dixon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

but DO YOU have a valid scholarship that states paul doesnt exist.???

outhouse · 02-22-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The scholarly case for the Pauling epistles being total forgeries is a minority position at present.

You can read about it here.

It is useless to ask aa5874 about secondary sources.

Thanks for the link

I read the jist of it.

makes a very poor case based on poor reasearch, and not a real scholarship.

opinion VS scholarship

mountainman · 02-22-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset23.htm#Brian

Quote:

Is Paul a Fictitious Person?

There are quite a number of radical scholars today who consider it possible that the Paul of the epistles never existed, at least as those epistles (and the later Acts) portray him, that the letters are second century products pseudonymously attributed to a shadowy earlier figure, or simply to a construct representing the issues of the time and retrojected back into the first century.

I find it difficult to go this far, though I would not say it is impossible. I have not found any of the cases presented thus far, going back to the Dutch Radical School of the 19th century, entirely convincing. Without going into detail here (since this is a subject that would require a book in itself), I feel that some of the problems raised about the Pauline letters can be better explained by recourse to the no-historical-Jesus position.

I find that the arguments for later authorship are often shaky, similar to those I have dealt with in relation to the radical mid or late second century redating of 1 Clement and Ignatius (see my Supplementary Article No. 12 on the Apostolic Fathers).

However, my mind is open and I'm hoping that one of today's more radical scholars will offer a thorough study of the question that covers all the bases, as it is certainly an intriguing one. If strong doubts could be cast on the existence of Paul, we would have to completely recast our picture of earliest Christianity, perhaps even more so than in the context of a non-historical Jesus.

There are those who suggest that the Christian movement itself did not begin until the second century, and essentially not until the latter part of that century. These ultra-radical positions, I feel, founder on too many problems and inconsistencies, but, as I said, I try to keep an open mind.

(my bolding)

Thanks maryhelena, and for your bolding.

Earl's thoughts on Paul appear quite open.

And quite influential.

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

but DO YOU have a valid scholarship that states paul doesnt exist.???

You question is absurd and totally without logics!!! It is EVIDENCE from antiquity that resolves the existence or non-existence of Paul Not opinion.

It is UNHEARD of that opinion trumps evidence.

There is ZERO corroborative non-apologetic evidence from antiquity that Paul did exist before c 68 CE.

aa5874 · 02-22-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The scholarly case for the Pauling epistles being total forgeries is a minority position at present.

You can read about it here.

It is useless to ask aa5874 about secondary sources.

The claim that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar is a minority position.

The claim that the earth is NOT flat was at one time a minority position.

The claim that the earth revolves around the sun was a minority position.

It can be shown that the Majority position can be completely erroneous and baseless.

Please don't tell me about minority. Atheism is a minority position.

I don't play the numbers game.

Sheshbazzar · 02-22-2012, 06:23 PM

Two things. If the information aa5874 has been repeatedly informing us of here is provably correct, it doesn't matter what 'scholarship' or any consensus of 'scholarly opinion' holds. 'Scholarship' (the good ol boys club) has been found to be in error about many things, many times before.

Real scholarship is that which is concerned with the determining the facts, and is beholding to nothing but the facts.
If 'scholars' have been overlooking or ignoring facts, then their 'scholarship' and fancy Titles, Certificates, and Diplomas aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

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

02-22-2012, 03:08 PM	#233
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	but DO YOU have a valid scholarship that states paul doesnt exist.???

02-22-2012, 03:37 PM	#234
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The scholarly case for the Pauling epistles being total forgeries is a minority position at present. You can read about it here. It is useless to ask aa5874 about secondary sources.

02-22-2012, 06:23 PM	#240
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Two things. If the information aa5874 has been repeatedly informing us of here is provably correct, it doesn't matter what 'scholarship' or any consensus of 'scholarly opinion' holds. 'Scholarship' (the good ol boys club) has been found to be in error about many things, many times before. Real scholarship is that which is concerned with the determining the facts, and is beholding to nothing but the facts. If 'scholars' have been overlooking or ignoring facts, then their 'scholarship' and fancy Titles, Certificates, and Diplomas aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.