Chili

That is because it speaks on behalf of truth by way of allegory.

Paul was a persecutor of Christians because they were part the world he was running away from to find the truth and therefore felt both hunter and hunted . . . much like Jonah who was running away from God and while asleep on paid fare in the bottom of a ship and there guilty for the turmil aroun him when he was swallowd by the whale. Paul here was struck down from the high horse that he was riding while at rest outside the city of contempt where he did not belong to find salvation . . . much like Siddharta who found enlightenment while at rest under a bodhi tree along the Ganges after he left his kingdom.

The theme is universal, it is just the words that are diffented but even the plot is the same. That indulgences are part of the plot only means that they work and here knocked Paul of a horse that was higher than most. I would say: good catch, nice story.

spamandham

There's a tendency to think the authors were writing for us. They weren't. They were writing for their own times, and the writing reflects assumptions based on that.

There's another tendency to view any given book in the Bible as something someone sat down and wrote. That's also generally incorrect. Any given book in the Bible as we see it today is generally the result of multiple anonymous authors and editors over a long period of time.

aa5874

I hope you will apply this analysis to the "Pauline Epistles".

With your generalisation it is very easy to understand now, why I think "Paul" is a multitude of persons.

Is it possible that the "Church" wrote the "Pauline Epistles"?

Chili

. . . Peter-and-Paul were the first Pope if that means anything.

Minimalist

And Damascus was part of the Decapolis which still more or less reported to the Roman governor of Syria even though the 10 members of the Decapolis had a measure of independence.

Rich Oliver

Yes a lot of Acts is fantasy. The author had to deal with the strange fact that Paul showed little deference to Jesus' supposed disciples and no interest in finding out about Jesus from them. So he tried to make Paul subordinate to the Jerusalem Church and used various devices. Of course the most obvious explanation for Paul's behaviour is that the Gospel Jesus was a later myth of which Paul knew nothing.

aa5874

There are more than one obvious explanation, one of which is fiction.

The canonisation of Acts, described by you as fantasy, is a clear indication that the main characters of the NT were indeed "fantastic".

According to Acts, Saul/Paul was aware of the followers of Jesus before his fantastic conversion. It is hardly likely that "Paul" could have received anything from Jesus, it is more likely he heard about Jesus from people like Stephen who was stone to death.

I would imagine that perhaps the first question from "Saul/Paul" to those being singled out for persecution was "Do you believe in Jesus and that he was raised from the dead."

And perhaps if you affirm, you may end up like Stephen, dead.

Acts 9.1-2, Based on Acts, "Saul/Paul" must have heard about Jesus from those he persecuted, his revelations appear to be bogus.

spamandham

I've never disagreed with you on that. Our disagreement has been over whether or not there is a historical root to the character we call Paul. I tend to think yes, and that he was Simon Magus, and you tend to say he is pure fiction.

aa5874

Well, if you think "Paul" was Simon Magus then I would not consider that to be "an historical root".

Based on the information about Simon Magus from early christian writers, Simon Magus' "historical root" shows no parallel to "Paul", perhaps Simon Magus was Jesus, both were believed to be Gods and believed to have miraculous powers.

spamandham

I think you would be interested in Detering's analysis of this. He makes a fairly solid argument (well, as solid as they get in regards to origins of Christianity) for the Simon Magus/Paul connection. An English translation is available free here.