schilling.klaus

Detering is the uttermost logically consequent researcher of the Pauline epistles since several decades.

Klaus Schilling

arnoldo

Archaeological evidence absolutely proves the existence of the historicity of Pauline churches.

Toto

Where? This would be a stunning refutation of minuteman's hypothesis, and we could all save a lot of time.

Huon

What archeological evidence ? If your point is that there existed churches, or christian tombs, at some time in these towns, and that these churches were ascribed by a tradition to Paul, this is not an "archeological evidence" for Paul, it is a tradition, possibly true, possibly embellished.

Toto

The earliest archeological evidence of a church is Dura-Europa, or one from a similar period recently found in Isreal - several centuries after Paul.

Pauline Christians did not have church buildings. They met in people's houses.

aa5874

In what century did these meetings take place? If Acts is regarded as fiction, and it is not certain how many persons wrote the "Pauline" Epistles, then I would not venture to make any claim about "Pauline Christians."

Toto

OK - historians assume that early Christians met in houses because there are no archeological remains of churches. It remains that arnoldo is wrong when he claims that there is archeological proof of Pauline churches.

Doug Shaver

Are we to take your word for that, or can you cite a source? I assume you read it someplace. Can you remember where?

arnoldo

This source claims that the letters of Paul were written between 40- 50 AD.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

andrewcriddle

The earliest piece of archaeological evidence may be the apparent discovery under St Peter's Basilica of a monument dating from c 160 CE which is thought to be the trophy or memorial of Peter and Paul mentioned by Gaius/Caius writing c 200 CE. http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Necro...5.htm#memorial


Andrew Criddle