Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 01-28-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

I stand corrected.

Although I am not sure how his claim to be Jewish here comports with his claim in 1 Corinthians 9:20 that he has pretended to be Jewish ("became as a Jew") in order to better preach to the Jews. Maybe 1Cr 9:20 is referring to this claim that he makes in Phl 3:4-6.

That's assuming that both passages are authentic, and not later interpolations, of course.

Does anyone have any more info on this?

Also - in Phl 3:6, when he says that he "diokon ton ekklosias" (excuse my poor transliteration), is "ekklosias" here referring to the Christian church? Or is it being used in the more general sense of an "assembly".

In other words, is Paul saying (to paraphrase) "Zealous? Sure I was, I used to harangue the assemblies with my zealousness" or is he saying "Zealous? Sure I was, I used to persecute Christians"? The first seems more in context with the surrounding verses to me, but the second is obviously favoured by Christians as it makes a better persecuter-turned-convert story (this can be seen by the addition of the word "harshly" in Goldenroad's translation, which is not in the Greek but makes Paul sound like more of an anti-Christian before his "conversion").

Can our Greek experts shed any light on this? Is either a better translation than the other?

Did anyone notice these questions of mine? The thread moved quickly on to Newton Cat and TonyN's claims, and I think they might have been missed...

goldenroad · 01-28-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Now try looking at I Corinthians 14, 34-36 (a startlingly mysogynist statement). These verses are interpolations. The continuation from verse 33 is verse 37. It becomes obvious when you read it through a few times. Also, verse 36 is a "challenging" response to verses 34-35 ... possibly by a woman.

Hmmm...Biased speculation if I've ever seen any.

DramaQ · 01-29-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Cat

Who ... was ... Paul?

Perhaps history knows him by a different name?

Hermann Detering argues that the Pauline letters were fabricated (or reworked and expanded on) by Simon Magus.

(If true, and if “Mark” was aware of this, could the Simon who “takes up the cross” in his story have been intended as a reference to Simon Magus aka "Paul"?)

aa5874 · 01-29-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Cat

So ... there was Paul (who I perceive to be a very altruistic man) ... and someone rather similar to people like Joseph Smith, and other recent cult founders.

The book of Acts, in my opinion, has placed the historicity of Saul/Paul in jeopardy. Once Jesus the Christ cannot be confirmed to have been a real person, living and preaching in the 1st century, then anyone who have claimed to have seen or heard him, whether from heaven or on earth is likely to be fictitious.

Gregg · 01-29-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The book of Acts, in my opinion, has placed the historicity of Saul/Paul in jeopardy. Once Jesus the Christ cannot be confirmed to have been a real person, living and preaching in the 1st century, then anyone who have claimed to have seen or heard him, whether from heaven or on earth is likely to be fictitious.

I don't follow your logic. Somebody wrote those letters. There's no good reason to believe they are fakes. There's no good reason to believe the letters considered genuine weren't written by a guy named Paulos. If they were forged after 180 or so, they would have been filled with material from the gospels and Acts.

Now, the Paul of Acts is probably largely a fictional character loosely based on the real thing.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.