aa5874

The authors of the NT invented prophecy, they invented a star, the magis, the angels, the killing of the innocent, the temptation by the devil, the transfiguration, the words of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the trial of Jesus, the crucifixion, the death, the 3-hr darkness, the resurrection and then the ascension. They invented the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the Peter and Paul.

They invented Jesus, but they didn't invent Paul. This is a joke! Paul was one of their greatest invention.

There is no corroborated evidence anywhere that Paul was a real person and somewhat delusional. Where did you find such information? It appears to be bogus. You make claims about evidence for Paul, yet you just cannot provide one single non-apologetic credible source. And you can't. Never.

spamandham

You say there is no corroborated evidence, but there is. We have the writings attributed to Paul, and we have Tertullian talking about Paul as discussed in this thread. In addition to that, Origen (via Eusebius of course) refers to Paul, as does Polycarp (The Letter to the Philippians), Marcion (via Tertullian), Valentinus, Valentinius' disciple Ptolomy, Valentinus' disciple Marcus, as does Ireneus.

I don't generally consider apologetic sources as historically worthless nor subsequently declare everyone mentioned in them to be fictional.

How on earth do you consider that a reasonable standard!?

http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml

Ben C Smith

Nitpick. Origen refers to Paul even apart from Eusebius (see Against Celsus, On First Things, and so forth). That passage in Eusebius is often used to summarize Origen and his views on the canon because Eusebius took the trouble to look up which sources Origen considered authoritative.

Ben.

aa5874

I repeat, you make claims about evidence for Paul, yet you CANNOT provide one single NON-APOLOGETIC credible source. You can't. NEVER.

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure about the anyone who knew him bit.

On standard (not necessarily correct) datings; Paul died shortly after 60 CE and Acts was written shortly before 100 CE. Elderly people who had known Paul when they were young would still have been around.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

On what basis do you simply dismiss everything written by an 'apologetic source' as fiction? There is no rigor or thought whatsoever in your approach.

aa5874

Something strange is going on here.

My KJV Bible states as follows, concerning the Acts of the Apostles Now if Acts is considered to be written at around 100 CE, instead of 61 CE, who wrote Acts, the same Luke? And if it was still Luke, why didn't he write about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul?

The author wrote about the death of Stephen and James the brother of John, why didn't he write about the deaths of Peter and Paul, the main characters of Acts, when he lived up to 40 years after their assumed martyrdom? The author forgot?

Paul is unknown, he is fiction.

spamandham

...most secular historians don't consider the datings in the KJV to be even worth the ink they're printed with. I don't see much reason to date Luke or Acts even as early as 100 CE.

...because they weren't martyred? You've got to stop assuming that every writer was familiar with writings and traditions that came later.

I would argue that Paul's death is not mentioned, because Paul is a syncretic character within Acts - an attempt to merge the Pauline sect into the fold of Catholic beliefs. What's important to the author of Acts in regards to Paul, are the Pauline epistles, not the life and death of Paul. The author need only write enough about Paul to make the claim that Paul was actually part of the Catholic story all along.

You see this as evidence that Paul is fiction. I see it as evidence of a pre-existing Pauline tradition at the time of the writing of Acts. Both will explain the facts as we know them, but yours is more complicated.

You have provided no motive for why someone would invent Paul, a character whose theology is completely out of whack with the Gospels, and then argue that Marcion had it all wrong. It's counter productive and makes no sense at all. The Gospels are a nice tidy bit of propoganda without the mess created by inserting Paul. It takes mental gymnastics to reconcile Paul with the Gospels.

All you do is repeat ad nauseum that Paul is fictional because we only know of him through apologetic sources, as if the word 'apologetic' meant 'everything written here is fiction. Any similarity to any real person living or dead is purely coincidental.'

Amaleq13

Bingo!

aa5874

What support do you have for your argument? How can you use fiction to confirm the historicity of Paul?

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen,and Eusebius appear to have never realized that the Paul in Acts was fiction. These Church fathers appear not to know that there were at least two different persons writing epistles under the name of Paul. There are no known documented objection to Acts or the epistles being canonised with fiction and unknown characters posing as Paul. Philo, Josephus and even Justin Martyr never mentioned Paul in their extant writings.

It is clear the Church fathers cannot account for Paul.

Your argument is just faith-based, you seem not to care that the evidence even from APOLOGETIC sources are either complete fiction or erroneous.

Your support for Paul is baseless and without external or internal support.

When Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen or Eusebius write about "Paul", which "Paul" are they writing about, the fiction or the one they can't identify?