lpetrich

There's been a LOT more argumentation over what the "historical Jesus" was like than what Paul had been like; I wonder how much we can be confident of about Paul.

Jesus mythers might reasonably be asked that if they believe the New Testament on how Paul existed, then why don't they also believe the NT on jow Jesus Christ existed?

I think that a Jesus myther would say that Paul seems more like a real person than Jesus Christ does. He's presented as 100% human, without a miraculous or unusual origin, though he does work a few miracles. There are some discrepancies between Acts and some of the letters about Paul's activities, and the authorship of some of the letters attributed to Paul has been questioned, so telling fact from fiction about Paul may be rather difficult.

People admired as great heroes and saints and prophets often become the victim of mythmaking, and one can suspect that for Paul as well as for Jesus Christ.

Clivedurdle

Yup, Paul might be made up - possibly by Marcion, but the main point is that we are looking at two very different characters.

Jesus is primarily mythological! Classic hero type, godman, pre-existing with god for all eternity, parachuted in to Galilee for a couple of years to do the Flash Gordon Saviour of the Universe trick.

Even the catholics see historicism as a heresy! Why is it so difficult to take the viewpoint of one of the major parts of xianity at face value?

Fully god fully man by definition is a mythological figure because there are no gods!

I really do not understand why anyone goes with a historicist grain in the pearl conjecture when it is all explainable by myth - far more powerfully because myth hits the psychological buttons!

Malachi151

We have some "letters". Someone wrote them. Whoever wrote them "is Paul", even if he never went by the name of Paul. "Paul" is the author of the letters in question.

Now, we also know that some other letters have been wrongly attributed to Paul, either mistakenly or on purpose, and we also know that the people who wrote ABOUT Paul do not match the descriptions of Paul that we get from "his" letters or from each other in all cases. Was Paul in Rome? Yes, No? Depends on who you read.... etc.

However, the real existance of a "Paul", and the reality of "his" evangelism DOES HELP to EXPLAIN real historical facts, such as the early spread of Christianity in the Greek speaking world, certianly the real existance of Paul helps to explain historical data, whereas teh real existance of "Jesus" does not help explain historical data, in fact the real existance of contradicts the historical data.

Doug Shaver

I don't believe Paul existed because it says so in the New Testament. I believe he existed because somebody had to have written those letters, and we might as well call him by the name he himself used.

aa5874

The Bible is fiction. Any similarities to known persons living or dead, are co-incidental.

It has already been shown that no contemporary historian knows 'Saul/Paul'. 'Saul/Paul' was a theological figure, his fabrication was exclusively for the NT.

Saul/Paul's conversion was miraculous, therefore it is improbable. All statements linked to this improbabilty bring Saul/Paul's character into question and it is likely to be fictitious.

ModernHeretic

The statement I heard is that Paul was based on Appolonius of Tyana, who was called 'Pol', and was also educated in Tarsus. Don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible enough.

jakejonesiv

Paul was a figment of the imagination of second century heretics like Marcion, later turned into a Saint by the church of Rome.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

No. Appolonius is very different enough from Paulos.

You've got a lot of work to show if you think this is true. How do you account for the "authentic" v. "pseudo" epistles? Did Marcion change his writing styles too to throw off modernists from his trail? This is getting to almost mountainman extremity.

mountainman

What is the historicity of Huey and Louey Duck?
Same story, different characters.
Did Josephus mention "the tribe of christians"?
NO. There is little or no historicity in fictions.




Pete Brown

mountainman

There is a list of striking similarities. The relationship between
Paul and Apollonius cannot be idly dismissed. Neither can the
far more important doctrinal relationship between Eusebius of
Caesarea and Apollonius of Tyana, outlined by Eusebius himself.

Besides, if you use Carrier's criteria for historicity, Apollonius
has a number of totally independent sources attesting to the
list of books (and letters) he purportedly wrote, in the first century.
This includes Eusebius himself. So the situation is not as straightfoward
as you seem to suggest.



Hey dont overlook the fact that I am simply repeating
arguments made by people such as Edwin Johnson ...


"[the fourth century was]
the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

...[and]...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."


--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater:
A Study of Christian Origins"



Pete Brown