Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Horatio Parker · 12-14-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

It is much better if he remains the enigmatic Paul, and nobody is forced to believe, or is even asked to believe what all he wrote.

It seems a trivial question whether or not the author was named Paul.

IIUC, the real (historical) question is if the character Paul in Acts is the same as the Epistles author.

I can't see either position by itself indicating mental illness.

andrewcriddle · 12-15-2012, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I don't know what the Marcionites thought about Paul, and Acts, so can't comment on your question.

But in a section dealing with those who reject Acts Irenaeus notes that some deny the existence of Paul. The paradox of Tertullian's reference to the Marcionite conception of the apostle writing the gospel is also worth noting. The apostle we call 'Paul' is said to have written the original gospel but - at the same name - it is not 'according to Paul.' Go figure.

If this is in Against Heresies Book 3 then I think the references to those who deny Paul was an apostle, means those who held that Paul was a charlatan and not a true apostle. I don't think they were suggesting that Paul never existed.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 12-15-2012, 06:56 AM

Ted, it seems strange that you'd start a thread like this yet not know about Marcionites, etc. If you want to argue against a case, 'tis well to become familiar with it.

Vorkosigan

sotto voce · 12-15-2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

First it was 'Jesus never existed'. Along with this came 'the disciples -- except maybe a few -- never existed'. Now, incredibly, some are claiming that Paul himself never existed.

Paul himself.

Paul himself?

So is papism about to confess that every one of its dogmas of soul destruction are to be abolished, in favour of Paul's teaching?

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....From the ahistoricist/mythicist position - that JC is an ahistorical gospel figure - then - what Acts has done with the above parallels with Paul - indicates that Paul, like JC, is a figurative, ahistorical figure. Acts, with these parallels, is giving the Pauline epistles, read literally, a slap-down. It is Acts, not the Pauline epistles, that is the 'true' history of christian origins. Acts, with it's pseudo-history is the 'true' story - it is the 'true' ahistorical story of christian origins. The real history? For that one needs to get outside the New Testament and consider Jewish history of the relevant time period.

Again, this is a FACT. The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters to Churches.

Again, this is a FACT--- The author of Acts claimed it was Paul and his group that DELIVERED Letters from the Jerusalem Church to other Churches.

The author of Acts, although supposedly writing about the post-persecution activities and teachings of Paul, did NOT write about the Revealed Gospel of Salvation by the Resurrection.

In Acts, the Pauline teachings MATCH those of Jesus in the Long gMark, that is, Salvation through BAPTISM.

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 09:02 AM

We can easily see that the Pauline writings had NO influence at all on the early Jesus story writers.

If only all writings under the name of Paul were removed from the Canon we would have NO idea of the teachings of Paul in the NT.

We would have NO knowledge at all of the Pauline Revealed Gospel----Salvation and Remmission of Sins by the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

On the other hand, even if we remove the short gMark from the Canon, we would still have virtually 100% of the Jesus story in the Long Mark and gMatthew and parts in gLuke.

This is a clear indication that the Pauline writings were unknown when the Synoptics were composed.

The 1st century Pauline character was indeed fictionary.

TedM · 12-15-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I don't know what the Marcionites thought about Paul, and Acts, so can't comment on your question.

But in a section dealing with those who reject Acts Irenaeus notes that some deny the existence of Paul. The paradox of Tertullian's reference to the Marcionite conception of the apostle writing the gospel is also worth noting. The apostle we call 'Paul' is said to have written the original gospel but - at the same name - it is not 'according to Paul.' Go figure.

If this is in Against Heresies Book 3 then I think the references to those who deny Paul was an apostle, means those who held that Paul was a charlatan and not a true apostle. I don't think they were suggesting that Paul never existed.

Andrew Criddle

Yes, I'm still waiting for a quotation from Stephan Huller on this one..

TedM · 12-15-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Ted, it seems strange that you'd start a thread like this yet not know about Marcionites, etc. If you want to argue against a case, 'tis well to become familiar with it.

Vorkosigan

The thread is requesting arguments from others. Not a forum for me to argue against a case.

Toto · 12-15-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Ted, it seems strange that you'd start a thread like this yet not know about Marcionites, etc. If you want to argue against a case, 'tis well to become familiar with it.

Vorkosigan

The thread is requesting arguments from others. Not a forum for me to argue against a case.

You are so sure that the possibility that Paul never existed is crackpot lunacy that you think you can just start a thread without either defining the question or understanding the case or the evidence?

TedM · 12-15-2012, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are so sure that the possibility that Paul never existed is crackpot lunacy

yes

Quote:

that you think you can just start a thread without either defining the question

This was in the OP, or did you miss it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by the OP

I'd like input here from the more reasonable thinking individuals: What are the TOP arguments against this fictional Paul hypothesis?

Do I really need to define what it means to say Paul was 'fictional', Toto?

Quote:

or understanding the case or the evidence?

I understand it as well as most, but no it certainly is not necessary for me to have answers in order to ask for them. In fact that really wouldn't make much sense, would it Toto?

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

12-15-2012, 06:56 AM	#33
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Ted, it seems strange that you'd start a thread like this yet not know about Marcionites, etc. If you want to argue against a case, 'tis well to become familiar with it. Vorkosigan

12-15-2012, 09:02 AM	#36
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	We can easily see that the Pauline writings had NO influence at all on the early Jesus story writers. If only all writings under the name of Paul were removed from the Canon we would have NO idea of the teachings of Paul in the NT. We would have NO knowledge at all of the Pauline Revealed Gospel----Salvation and Remmission of Sins by the Resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. On the other hand, even if we remove the short gMark from the Canon, we would still have virtually 100% of the Jesus story in the Long Mark and gMatthew and parts in gLuke. This is a clear indication that the Pauline writings were unknown when the Synoptics were composed. The 1st century Pauline character was indeed fictionary.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.