FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-03-2012, 08:42 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 27
Default Why do people think the Apostle Paul is historical?

Hello from a new member.
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.
I see many threads on this board discussing whether Jesus was historical or not, possibly owing to the fact that these new books have come out on that question.
What I am wondering about, though, is why Paul's historical existence does not seem to be questioned.
After all, just as in the case of Jesus, Paul is said to have performed miracles, and the NT sources for Paul, Acts and the letters, contradict each other in many ways as the Gospels do about Jesus. Acts does not even say a word about Paul writing any letters.
Quite a few letters that were traditionally ascribed to Paul are now considered to be inauthentic. But why is it accepted that Paul wrote any of them? Maybe one author forged the seven or so now supposed to be authentic and other people made up the rest of them.
Quite a few people insist that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, but in fact there is evidence, people may not think it is good evidence, but it exists in Suetonius and Tacitus and even Josephus probably said something about Jesus although it is hard to say what it was (and you needn't run through why you do not accept what those authors say about Christ, I am aware of those arguments).
But for Paul there is nothing, is there? outside the NT? Or for Peter either for that matter or any of the disciples? Why do people fixate on the historicity of Jesus and ignore the lack of evidence for the rest of the highly improbable tale?
I am genuinely curious to learn more on this subject from the highly knowledgeable members of this forum.
smeat75 is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 10:53 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Because he wrote letters
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 10:54 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

Let's set one thing aside. You note the absence of historical citations about Paul or any apostles. True. However, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are both mentioned by Josephus.
Yes, Paul himself is questioned here. Everything is questioned here. One even questions the dogma that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus during his lifetime. You have generalized too quickly. Welcome aboard.
Adam is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:21 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Because he wrote letters
What an illogical answer!!!

We have the Pastorals with the name Paul so it is just so absurd to suggest that letters with the name Paul were written by a character who persecuted the Christian Faith before the Fall of the Temple and that he was KNOWN as Paul.

The Pauline letters are WITHOUT corroboration in the Canon itself and by ALL non-apologetic sources.

Why, Why, Why do people here exhibit such illogical reasoning??

The Pauline letters are Questionable and cannot be verified at all.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul died under Nero and also claimed he was AWARE of gLuke.

gLuke is considered to have been written at least AFTER the Fall of the Temple and is NOT mentioned by name until near the end of the 2nd century.

The evidence suggest that ALL the books of the Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER the Short-Ending gMark.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:26 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Let's set one thing aside. You note the absence of historical citations about Paul or any apostles. True. However, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are both mentioned by Josephus.
Yes, Paul himself is questioned here. Everything is questioned here. One even questions the dogma that no eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus during his lifetime. You have generalized too quickly. Welcome aboard.
Your response is just rhetoric. In any event, you fail to realize that your very reponse BETRAYS the Fact that you have NO answer, NO credible evidence, Nothing to support that an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING named Paul wrote letters BEFORE c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are UNDER Scrutiny and the Abundance of evidence suggests that the Pauline writer could NOT have been known or was NOT likely known by the author of the Short-Ending gMark.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:29 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Because he wrote letters
And people write using pseudonyms all the time......:huh:

Sure, somebody wrote letters using the name of 'Paul' - but that does not establish historicity for 'Paul'.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:31 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smeat75 View Post
Hello from a new member.
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.
I see many threads on this board discussing whether Jesus was historical or not, possibly owing to the fact that these new books have come out on that question.
What I am wondering about, though, is why Paul's historical existence does not seem to be questioned.
After all, just as in the case of Jesus, Paul is said to have performed miracles, and the NT sources for Paul, Acts and the letters, contradict each other in many ways as the Gospels do about Jesus. Acts does not even say a word about Paul writing any letters.
Quite a few letters that were traditionally ascribed to Paul are now considered to be inauthentic. But why is it accepted that Paul wrote any of them? Maybe one author forged the seven or so now supposed to be authentic and other people made up the rest of them.
Quite a few people insist that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, but in fact there is evidence, people may not think it is good evidence, but it exists in Suetonius and Tacitus and even Josephus probably said something about Jesus although it is hard to say what it was (and you needn't run through why you do not accept what those authors say about Christ, I am aware of those arguments).
But for Paul there is nothing, is there? outside the NT? Or for Peter either for that matter or any of the disciples? Why do people fixate on the historicity of Jesus and ignore the lack of evidence for the rest of the highly improbable tale?
I am genuinely curious to learn more on this subject from the highly knowledgeable members of this forum.

Have a look at this thread. The chart is taken from the book by Richard Pervo.

Paul as Jesus Reboot

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311968

The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk)
maryhelena is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:33 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

The character of Paul that comes through the letters is all too human. (The character of Paul in Acts is also human, but a different human.)

Paul does not fit into any mythic paradigm. He doesn't come across as a god or a hero.

Somebody wrote those letters - either Paul or someone writing under his name. We might as well call that person Paul.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:34 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Someone wrote those letters. he's the apostle
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-03-2012, 11:50 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Someone wrote those letters. he's the apostle
:thumbs:

Indeed - but if we want to have a historical basis for early christian origins - we do need to name names, we do need to identify who did write those letters - looking for a writer using the pseudonym 'Paul' is not going to help a historical search.
maryhelena is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.