Spincracker

He's credited for more NT writings than anyone else, and while we don't know about the Damascus deal, it seem we have enough collective evidence to verify his part in the movement.

The Admiral

I wonder if they requested separate checks.

The Admiral

Spincracker

LOL!!:grin: Parties over 8 are mandatory 15% gratuity added...

Toto

Paul is not mentioned in any contemporary histories or any non-Christian literature.

Spincracker

Why would this be necessary for his existence to be verified? Especially considering the absence of literacy among 98% of the populace.

Toto

On "received from the Lord" Apocryphal ApparitionsInterpolations in the Pauline Letters by William O Walker

Toto

Sorry if I'm a bit scattered, I'm doing two things at once and replying out of order.

Obviously it doesn't prove anything definitively - but if there is any background to the story of Paul in Acts, which I doubt, Paul was very active and associated with a lot of literate, wealthy, important people, and should have made some impression on someone. Paul is claimed to be Jewish, and the Jews valued literacy.

Not many people doubt the existence of Paul, but many doubt that he wrote everything with his name on it in the NT. And it is impossible to fix him in history. Aretas was never the ruler of Damascus when Paul could have been there, so that story appears to be not historical.

To Admiral: No, Paul is not mentioned, but Robert Eisenman hypothesized that Paul could be identified with a hot-headed character named Saul described in Josephus. I am doubtful, and I don't think Eisenman convinced any of his fellow academics.

Spincracker

Thanks for the links and this is cool cause it shows Paul's existence while also showing how social movements can work.

Walker takes us through a good system concerning rithym, syntax, style, etc and while that is good, it's not all that solid. I.e. I can write something today, then write something next week, and it will literally appear to be coming from two different people. The discrepencies in historical events can be explained a number of ways, mainly by rumor, since oral is how info was passed.

I'm not arguing the Bible is perfect in wording as it was 2000 years ago...I'm just a Skeptic...and I've seen how one can take some of Paul's passages, read them once, remove a few lines, then read the passage again and have it flow much more smoothly. I don't doubt some emendings occurred, my question is why? That is what is not usually answered simply by showing what passages are questionable.

Toto

I'm not sure how you got anything like that out of those links. Robert Price tends towards skepticism about Paul.

We're not talking about discrepancies in historical events - I'm not sure where that cam from. We're talking about literary analysis of language patterns, which are harder to fake than you might think. And this was a literary tradition, not a rumor mill.

Why do you think? Marcion claimed Paul as his main apostle. The orthodox church of the time wanted Paul to be orthodox. The orthodox claimed that Marcion deleted things from Paul's letters and other scripture, and Marcion claimed that the orthodox added things - both in the service of proving that their particular theology was correct. One major issue of the time was the nature of Jesus - was he a real person or a god who only took the form of a person?

And both were probably right. Both sides fiddled with the letters.

Why do you call yourself a Skeptic with a capital S?

Spincracker

I understand Price does, but for the reason of a center needing to exist is why I think it speaks to his existence. IOW, if we can create a Pauline literacy barometer...then...even if the person's name was not "Paul" a person did write/say those things.



It was one thing in the link.



I assumed it was over power, but I am curious of the details because well...I'm not really all that sane.

I try to practice being skeptic of even my own ideas, and push them just as hard as the ideas I disagree with. In my first year of school a professor told me to give an argument its strongest possible interpretation, then if it can be debunked, then something has been accomplished. I then thought of, what's good for the goose...is good for the goose.:grin: