jgoodguy

If I understand the referenced show correctly, the Jewish Christians wrote of Paul persecuting them as a slander against the Paul who was seen as the advocate of Gentile Christianity. The slander was incorporated into Acts as a literal interpretation and imaged as against Gentile Christianity. Later the Pauline epistles were interpolated to agree with Acts.

Price also seems to think that Paul is mythical more or less.

Toto

I think Price thinks that the Pauline letters are not authentic. But that doesn't make Paul mythical, necessarily.

jgoodguy

Once, the epistles are eliminated and Acts is discredited, what is left as evidence of a 'Paul'? I suppose that if letters are written as if authored by him, then there must be a 'Paul' with sufficient tradition to be an authority otherwise why bother. The same with Acts, there just has to be a historical figure if someone is writing about that person.

aa5874

It is mindboggling to see how a simple matter is made so complex.

We have Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings and they were either written at the time suggested by the authors or later.

The author of Acts claimed he traveled all over the Empire with Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple but there is NO external historical corroborative source for Paul/Saul or the author of Acts and some Christian writers cannot ACCOUNT for Saul/Paul, the Epistles, that he preached any where or started Churches.

The evidence from antiquity SUGGESTS that ALL the NT CANON is LATER than Church writers want us to BELIEVE and they were written by UNKNOWN sources or sources whose identity were DELIBERATELY masked.

It cannot be CO-INCIDENCE that the Church writers KNEW the HERETICS and IDENTIFIED their Heresies but was WRONG about every BOOK of their own Canon.

The Pattern of DECEPTION is CLEAR. The Jesus story is LATER than than the Church writers want us to believe.

ALL dates of the Jesus story and activities of the Apostles and Paul, before the Fall of the Temple c70 CE are DELIBERATELY ERRONEOUS as found in the NT Canon.

discordant

He believes that Paul was Simon Magus.

jgoodguy

I think the idea was that 'Paul' was a gnostic and 'Simon Magus' was a literary creation to oppose 'Paul' from the orthodox view point. I am of the impression that both names are literary creations. It is high on my reading list to look at evidence of a mythical Paul.

aa5874

There is no such thing as a "mythical Paul". ALL we have are writings attributed to a character called "Paul" and was deliberately dated EARLIER than they should have to give the notion that the Jesus story was KNOWN and that there were the Jesus cult of Christians before the Fall of the Temple.

Who ever wrote the Pauline letters was AWARE of the gLuke based on ACTUAL written evidence from the Church itself.

It was NOT Heretics who PLACED "Paul" AFTER gLuke. It was the Church and this is EXTREMELY Significant.

See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.24.6.

It must be understood that the Pauline writer may have been a persecutor of the Jesus cult when he ACTUALLY lived but the Jesus cult was persecuted up to the 4th century.