TedM

Defaulting to fiction is IMO not the reasonable approach. Agnosticism is. You and others here fall into the category of 'creative skeptics' who find parallels in things but don't seem to appropriately recognize (IMO) that that parallels (such as those you posted re Jesus and Paul) exist all the time in actual life because humans behave in often-predictable patterns, and do not have to be explained as being 'stories'.

maryhelena

Ted, bottom line in all of this is that the story, the account, that we have in the NT cannot be historically verified. That's it - the story, the account in the NT cannot be historically verified.

Now, you can come up with reasons why you think the story, the account, is plausible. Others will reason differently. Check-mate! But that is not where we want to be is it? We want to move forward. And that is the test for our different approaches - where do they take us? The status-quo is sterile - and has been for many a year. It has not been able to deliver a rational account of christian origins - as the growing number of 'creative skeptics' demonstrate.

'Paul' is the last man standing. If 'Paul' goes, if 'Paul' is no more historical than the gospel JC - then the whole NT origin story, account, of early christianity goes with him. Back to the drawing board. And that requires that there are 'creative skeptics' willing and able to take up the challenge and face the unknown regarding christian origins.

Sure, lots of theories out there - and the more the merrier. Creative juices need to be flowing free - not mocked or denigrated by those unable to grasp the moment and rise to the NT challenge our generation is facing.

Splarnst

Fictionary?

EDIT: Ah, already noted.

TedM

Where exactly has the story-telling approach taken us? It strikes me as highly subjective and therefore subject to endless debate.


Your view of the current landscape appears to be colored by your participation on ultra-skeptical boards such as the. The historical Jesus is the one still standing, and Paul's historicity is rarely questioned by the mainstream scholars..

maryhelena

It's on the move, Ted, on the move...

Sterile - going no-where.

No way, Ted, no way. I've been an ahistoricist for nearly 30 years - long before I went online...

Toto

"clonies"??? cronies? :huh:

aa5874 is a unique character. But you might have noticed that a lot of the regulars have him on ignore. He comes up with some good insights or information, and then almost immediately makes some egregious non sequitur argument. Many have tried to reason with him and have given up.

I think you will find that most informed people here think that there was someone who wrote the Pauline letters, that his name might have been Paul or perhaps not, that we can't tell when the letters were written, and it is quite possible that there were original letters written in the first century that contain massive later edits. It is also possible that they were all written in the second century as an exercise in theology. With so little hard information, there is no reason to be dogmatic about it, or claim that anyone who reaches a different result from you is a crazy ass conspiracy theorist.

This forum had its heyday, but internet time marches on. Your favorite quality posters have moved on to set up their own blogs, or have had to cut back on internet posting for economic reasons, or have found other hobbies. Spewing insults about hyperskeptics is not going to turn the clocks back.

Iskander

Well, well. As it happens Ted is not a quality poster. He is a peddler of prophecies and a crusader for eyewitness theories.


As to the glories of the past, the fact is that Tomas de Aquinas is dead and turns down resurrection

TedM

While 'clonies' didn't sound right at first, I kept it because it is an appropriate word, even if made-up.

One of my weaknesses is thinking that people like aa will respond to reason, and then wasting time to prove it out..The purpose of this thread is not to repeat that mistake, but to just collect some of the positives for Paul's existence. I read a book about Paul a few years back and the author made a number of points that showed the likelihood that Paul was quite familiar with 1st century customs and places he mentions in his works.

Massive edits seems unlikely given the lack of references to Jesus' teachings, actions, and miracles. As Doherty has pointed out, there are many instances where such references might be expected. I would add that the expectation goes up dramatically if the work was interpolated by orthodox, gospel-believing scribes.


Such forgery would not be an 'exercise' in anything except how to write a forged theological letter.


Yes there is. Anyone who reaches a different result does so by an unusual way of thinking. I don't mind the idea of exploring theories, but when one concludes that a massive conspiracy existed IMO one had better come up with some pretty solid evidence in order to be taken seriously. The real insult is when one tries to push theories with so little evidence down the throats of others.


It might be worth a try.

outhouse

Probably not a good idea with the insults, as you stated.


Most of us know there is no real debate in scholarships about the man or undisputed epistles deemed to be originals.

Chili

It is much better if he remains the enigmatic Paul, and nobody is forced to believe, or is even asked to believe what all he wrote.

I may be a bit naive in this, but I always thought that the Catholics wrote the thing as their manual to kind of brain-wash Catholics with on Sunday so they have something to ponder on their own until they go back for more. Kind of like the dedications on the rosaries they do until those ten are done. The only difference here is that now the tales are taller so as to create more doubt to last at least a week. That would be my idea behind it, if those passges are meant to become soul searching events.

So as I understand it, what Paul wrote is 'noetic prose' wherein 'life itself' is meant to be the poetry that must explain the verse. Accordingly then, I would say: Don't blame Paul, but blame yourself for not living the life you should so it will make sense to you!

I should add here that in the writing style called "Poetry and Prose" it is our perception of the poetry that must explain the verse. Notice the difference here between 'reading' and 'perceiving', and so now, the prose must be challenged by the poetry that we 'see' with lyric vision on our own, and so actually must persecute the very poem we read.

Anyway, that is the idea behind "prior to us by nature" and posterior in the verse we read.