aa5874

That is exactly what I find so disturbing. How was it possible for presumptions about Paul to have been allowed in the "big academic world"?

A close examination of statements in Acts of the Apostles clearly show that the Jesus cult was started and developed WITHOUT Paul and the Pauline letters.

In fact, Paul attempted to destroy the early Jesus cult in Acts. See Acts 7-9

Pauline writers admitted that they were Persecutors of the Church. See 1Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1.

After Paul was converted by a bright light he wrote NO letters to Churches in Acts up to c 62 CE when he arrived in Rome and it was pointed that it was the Jerusalem Church that gave Paul letters to deliver. See Acts 15

It is extremely clear in Acts that neither Jesus or Paul initiated the Jesus cult.

Up to c 62 CE the Pauline letters were not needed for the development of the Jesus cult-- it was the letters from the Jerusalem Church. See Acts 15

Duvduv

It should simply be referred to as NEO-CHRISTIANITY or SECULAR CHRISTIANITY. Of course most people wouldn't even know what this refers to unless they know of academics who like to rely on the writings of church writers.

aa5874

But why don't they rely on Acts? Isn't Acts a Church writing?

Based on Acts, all the Pauline writings are forgeries if it is claimed that Saul/Paul wrote them before c 62 CE

The Church writing called Acts specifically claimed it was the Jerusalem Church who wrote letters to Churches. --Not Paul.

Duvduv

Someone must be able to explain why writings attributed to the ancient apologists and historians carry more credibility than writings attributed to Paul. Surely the standard should be the same. A Justin or an Irenaeus or Tertullian offers no greater authenticity than that of a Paul.

aa5874

This is like asking why in court trials the defendant's statement is not automatically accepted as truth even when he swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it is known that so-called witnesses may not be truthful.

The fact is that the dates of composition of the Pauline letters are being questioned so what other apologetics claimed about the Pauline letters must be taken into account.

Acts of the Apostles is a most significant "witness of antiquity". He wrote about the activities of Saul/Paul but never wrote of one activity--writing letters to Churches by Paul.

The Activity of writing letters to Churches was specifically attributed to the Jerusalem Church. See Acts 15.

Effectively, whether or not Acts of the Apostles is a source of fiction it does NOT at all support the presumption that the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.

Acts of the Apostles supports the argument that all the Pauline letters are forgeries.

Amazingly, all the supposed early Apologetics that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters are in a far worse condition than the Pauline letters.

Bingo the Clown-O

Hey Jake,

Thanks for a great thread. I actually learned something. :notworthy:

- Bingo

Duvduv

My point was simple: people reject the idea that letters were written in the 1st century by someone named Paul but accept the authenticity of books said to have been written by other people in the second or third century.
An Irenaeus or a Justin is no more real than a Paul, and this should be admitted. It's just funny to hear people say "Justin said this-or-that" or "Irenaeus said this-or-that," but do not say the same thing in relation to "Paul." There is no more actual evidence for an Irenaeus or Justin than there is for a Paul.

jakejonesiv

By what evidence do we know the following existed, and why is that evidence stronger than the existence of Christians?

Hillel the Elder
Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai
R. Yochanan
Rabbi Akiv
Rabban Gamliel the Second
Rabbi Meir
Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai

Duvduv

Jake, it's a good question. Ironically, even the greatest enemies of traditional rabbinic Judaism never questioned the actual existence of the leaders of their "enemies." One does not find this in literature of the Samaritans, Christians, Muslims, Karaites or even Reform Judaism of the 19th century.

Ezra the Scribe was the enemy of Samaritans. According to Daniel Al Qamisi the Karaite, Shimon ben Shetach was their enemy who "invented" rabbinic Judaism, though other Karaites disagreed with this and blamed later Tannas.
Christians condemned Jewish refusal to acknowledge Jesus, and the author or Acts added Rabban Gamliel the Elder as a supporter. But they did not question the existence of the rabbinical leaders.

Even the greatest leaders of 19th century Reform Judaism, Abraham Geiger, Samuel Holdheim, David Leeser, et al never claimed the Talmudic rabbis never existed.

But if you want, you don't have to stop at the list of names you presented.

I have a book called Seder Hadorot which contains a detailed section about all the Tannas and Amoras of the Talmud and Midrashim. The list under letter Alef/A includes around 350 names, B/Bet around 150 names, and S/SH around 200 names.

jakejonesiv

The Marcionite canon was made of an Apostolikon and an Evangelion. But this does not mean the Apostle (i.e the epistles) and the Gospel (a substratum of Luke) were held in equal esteem. The Marcionite gospel was explicable only in terms of the Marcionite Recension of the epistles. It was only Paul who knew the truth, and that by revelation. Thus, the gospel was subordinate to Paul.

The center piece of Marcion's gospel was Luke 6.43. ""A good tree doesn't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree doesn't produce good fruit." This was taken to mean the two gods and the two covenants. AM 1.2.1. Marcion found that Isaiah 45:7 (“I am He that creates evil”) declares that the god of the "Old Testament" (i.e. the Creator) was the author of evil, and by analogy, the God of Jesus was one of a simple and pure benevolence.

Jake Jones IV