maryhelena

What's that saying:
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

Moses was considered historical for a very long time - and perhaps still is for some people. Modern day research, archaeology etc, brings new insights - so Moses gets short shift to mythology, tradition or pseudo-history. So, with JC - the historical assumption is being challenged and that challenge is more out in the open, via internet, than ever before. 'Paul' is yet to be challenged to the same degree. To my thinking, that challenge would be a logical consequence of an ahistorical gospel JC. And like that gospel JC, the NT 'Paul' figure is more likely than not to be a composite figure. A figure made up of two traditions in early christian history, pre-70 c.e. and post 70 c.e. Two traditions fused together to create a 'Paul' figure as a follow on to the gospel JC storyboard time frame.

And if, as I am thinking, that 'Paul', like JC, is a composite figure - then the issue of 'Paul' being a pseudonym does not arise, ie 'Paul', like JC, does not equal such and such a historical figure. 'Paul' is a created figure, a pseudo-historical figure, as much as is the gospel JC.

Duvduv

I follow your point. But then it really sounds so out of place for the mainstream to talk about Paul when they know perfectly well that there is no more evidence for his objective existence that there is for Jesus, Peter or any of the rest. A major element of inconsistency I dare say.

Duvduv

Why would you say it is any likelier than the belief that Moses wrote down the Torah? There is no empirical evidence either way, and there are plenty of good reasons to claim that there was no Paul, and that the name was a pen name for "The Small One," the Farmers Almanac, or for multiple authors like Franklin W. Dixon, who wrote the Hardy Boys series but who was actually several different people.

Toto

How likely is it that Moses wrote a sacred document describing his own death that can be dated to some centuries later?

What are those good reasons?

The Paul of the epistles, like the Saul/Paul of Acts, is not inherently improbable, like Jesus. He was not born of a virgin, did not walk on water or perform supernatural miracles, and did not rise from the dead.

Somebody wrote the epistles, perhaps several people. Committed religious scholars are sure that it was someone like Paul. I think if you examine the few nonreligious scholars in this area, you will find that they are not overconfident about the state of the evidence.

You've made the point that you don't think Paul existed. Why do you keep posting the same question?

If Paul didn't exist, it is highly likely that there was still some early evangelist who preached something like the theology in the letters and played some similar role in the development of Christianity, whether in the first or second century.

Duvduv

I agree with you, but that's different than saying there was a Paul who did what the epistles say he did especially if they are all fictitious even if based on stories of preachers or whatever. There's no sense acting as if he existed and thereby creating a fictitious world around "him."

maryhelena

I think you hit the nail on the head here - "creating a fictitious world". That's the problem with a historical 'Paul' - the fictitious world of early christian history that has been created around 'him'. Yes, obviously, early christian history had it's adherents and writers. We have the manuscript evidence that somebody, or some people, wrote the JC and 'Paul' storyboards. But its a very big jump from characters in a story to figures in history. Creating believable characters in a storyline is probably a much easier task than creating the extraordinary ones - less imagination required

aa5874

The existence of a 1st century Paul before c 68 CE MUST be PRESUMED because there is ZERO, zero corroborative non-apologetic source for such a character.

It is just UTTER nonsense that a Fabricated character, an invented piece of fiction, should be assumed to be history because we have letters under the name of Paul.

The sources that mentioned Paul in the NT Canon [Acts and 2 Peter] have been discredited by Scholars and even by the Church in respect of 2 Peter.

We have an abundance of non-apologetic and apologetic sources that show the Pauline writings are NOT compatible with antiquity.

If it can be claimed Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar using the Pauline writings then it should be far less difficult to show that the letters of Paul were NOT composed in the 1st century using the ABUNDANCE of evidence in antiquity.

The Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew can easily show that ALL the letters under the name of Paul were UNKNOWN to the earliest Gospel authors.

outhouse

not completely

More for HJ

there is no dispute some epistles were written by paul

aa5874

Why are Scholars Terrified to deal with the Pauline problem? It is most remarkable that so-called Historians and Scholars who have searched "diligently" for the historical Jesus now are willing and extremely happy to close their eyes and minds to the inquiry into an historical Paul.

It seems to me that Paul MUST be PRESUMED to be authentic or else Scholarship will be Exposed as a disaster.

It is inexcusable that the forgeries called the Pauline letters are allowed to be masqueraded as genuine when the Church itself cannot even say when Paul lived.

The Church claimed Paul was executed under NERO c 66 CE but was ALSO aware of gLuke written long after the Fall of the Temple.

It is NOT a secret any more that Paul is a fraud.

aa5874

You claim is FALSE. There is ZERO corroborative evidence for the Pauline writings to make them undisputable.

The Pauline writings are forgeries and were NOT written BEFORE the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew.