Amaleq13

I think your mistake is assuming that "good news" only refers to one thing. If you read the rest of Galatians, the "good news" to which Paul is referring is the "good news" for Christ-believing gentiles (ie circumcision & food laws do not apply). That is what he claims he learned from the risen Christ and that is what he preached to the Galatians and that is what he presented to the Jerusalem group for approval and that is what at least some Jewish Christians continued to oppose.

The "good news" Paul learned from others is about the fact and significance of the death and resurrection of Christ. The teaching of that "good news" is also, presumably, what Paul persecuted prior to converting.

This is not just implied but explicitly stated in 1 Cor 15.

dog-on

Thus you are left with the writings of a grifter or, of a less-then-gifted interpolator.

...and why do we assume that these guys were anything more than con-men? I believe that more recent and verifiable history tends to show that individuals of this ilk, (J. Smith, Jehovah Witness guy :Cheeky: , L. Ron, Moon, etc, ), where, perhaps, less than kosher.

What happens to the discourse, if indeed, we "tee-it-up" in the following manner:

About 2 thousand years ago, a con-man, later to become known as Paul, invented a deity known as Christ Jesus.

Vivisector

I'm curious as to your thoughts on what, exactly, was the signficance of Jesus's death and resurrection to those whom Paul persecuted? What was being spread that caused Paul to react by persecuting the believers?

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

I think this might be a stonger hypothesis if there were evidence that Paul profited from the con in any of the usual ways (money and/or sex, e.g.). I can't recall any such evidence; are you aware of any?

Personally, I'd put Paul in the same category as Marshall Applewhite, which is to say, misguided but sincere (based on what I know/recall of Applewhite).

Cheers,

V.

dog-on

Since I have no clue as to who Paul actually was, I can't really comment one way or another.

He does make it a point to mention that believers should take care of the preachers. The first "televangelist", of course minus the tele...

dog-on

7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

Vivisector

True enough - all we have is what we think he wrote, and that's been of such a nature as to create about two millenia of debate on who he was.

He does indeed, and then he goes on to say that he didn't personally (at least in the case of the Corinthians) take advantage of the flock's obligation to provide for the shepherd.

I just don't see anything in his letters to indicate he really benefitted from the con in the way you'd expect to see a guy running a con benefit. It's not to say he didn't, just that I can't find it.

Cheers,

V.

JoeWallack

JW:
My criteria here "Personal nature of evidence" =

Information which refers to Jesus.

Condition = Must be Possible.

Quality Factors:

1) Jesus is Primary subject.

2) Evidence is unique to Jesus.

Not coincidently this is exactly the category of evidence HJs normally use to supposedly demonstrate HJ as we've seen that Paul does not Pass any other Category of evidence that I have. Now for Philemon:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Philemon_1

[Nothing]



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

dog-on

I suppose, one would need to have an understanding of 1st or 2nd century economics to determine whether or not the grift would have been viewed as a worthwhile/profitable endeavor.

Or simply the power over people such an activity resulted in...

aa5874

And, I don't expect a con-man to say or write, " I am going to con you. Read my epistles".

The author of Acts wrote a history of Saul/Paul which appears to be problematic and erroneous. The dating of the Pauline Epistles and the events surrounding Saul/Paul seem to rely on these erroneous accounts. So, it is possible that Saul/Paul is the con from the author of Acts.