aa5874

The Pauline writer did NOT ever claim he was first to preach the Faith.

It is people with THEIR IMAGINARY evidence who PRESUME the Pauline writings were composed before the Jesus story was written.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul claimed Jesus DIED for OUR Sins, was buried and was RAISED from the dead on the Third Day.

The earliest gMark did NOT even make such claims.

The earliest Jesus story did NOT state Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the THIRD day.

It is MOST remarkable that it is those with IMAGINARY evidence who DICTATE what happened in the past.

The tables have turned. Imaginary evidence is now REJECTED.

The Pauline writings , P 46, have been dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century and that is EXPECTED when Jesus, the Apostles and Paul did NOT exist before c 70 CE.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul were NOT 1st century characters based on 100% of the DATED Texts.

It is the DATED sources that DICTATE the past NOT imaginary evidence.

outhouse

150 -250

pretty close lol but thats only a 95% accuracy rate

aa5874

But, isn't that quite remarkable??? The supposed churches survived without any letters and then all of a sudden letters APPEAR from Nowhere with the very same problems of today.

Where did they find these letters--in the garbage--under someone's bed--in the ceiling of the church????

We cannot use imaginary evidence. There were no Jesus cult churches before c 70 based on the dated evidence

Duvduv

If there were some direct connection between Acts and the epistles there would certainly be room enough for "Paul" to mention at least once that his name had been Saul, and suddenly became Paul. The epistles talking about persecuting "God's Church" with one would expect to see mention of the name Saul are:

1 Corinthians 15:9
Galatians 1:13
1 Timothy 1:13
Philippians 3:6

And of course if the author of Acts had known these epistles he might have explained how Paul himself never mentions the name Saul in any epistle. But then again, if the story of Saul in Acts is a separate story from the story of Paul in Acts, and the two were merged, then it merely begs the question as to how Saul was the persecutor in Acts but in these epistles it was Paul.

And even if the authors of the epistles and Acts did not know of each other, it would still suggest that in both cases there was some "tradition" of somebody important named Paul, though they did not share all the same information.

outhouse

Paul wanted so bad to be a real apostle, he would have never used his roman name.

he wanted desperately to be a jew of jew's and mimic the real apostles, that is all the reason we need to know why he would never use saul.

Duvduv

I don't think this has anything to do with what was written by whomever. His original born name was Saul and is absent from all the references to his early years.

Of course both the authors of the epistles and of Acts forgot to explain how it was possible for "Paul" to have been a student of Gamliel in Jerusalem (according to Acts) or somewhere else (according to the epistles) of the Pharisee rabbis without hearing about this guy named Jesus who was about the same age as himself.

And then again, the epistles never disclose WHERE he was persecuting Christians.

Toto

Saul is not a Roman name. It is thoroughly Jewish and probably refers back to King Saul.

Paul did not change his name, according to Acts. His name was always Saul, but he was also known as Paul.

The Roman equivalent would be Silvanus. The Aramaic would he Silas

outhouse

again

when one wants to be a real apostle, he would not go around giving details how he hunted down the sect he now represents

outhouse

your actually correct and wrong


your right but! it is common for roman/greek tradition to use ones first name and place of birth, hence "Saul of Tarsus"


as to where jewish names were often your given name, then linked to your father.


back then names were seen as having meaning, something about the inner working of a person.



paul was just the romanization of his name to be more appealing to gentiles he preached to.

Duvduv

But Toto, this doesn't explain anything that I was discussing. For all I know or care he could have called himself Paul and Wilbur. All I am trying to point out is that in several epistles where the author briefly mentions persecuting the Christians somewhere (known only in those epistles as the Church of God, whatever that really means), he makes no mention of his name as Saul. Or for that matter what he thought about the the Christians and exactly WHY they were being persecuted in the first place by the Sanhedrin headed in those days by Rabban Gamliel, the teacher of Saul in Acts.

If anyoneh had checked the Talmud and anything to do with that period, nothing connecting R. Gamliel to anything like this is even mentioned. Of course we don't even know WHERE "Paul" was persecuting Christians in the epistle stories or even WHY except by a weak inference that it had something to do with the Pharisees who he was loyal to, though there is no mention of the priesthood. By inference one would say that it was occurring in Jerusalem, but the lack of information suggests Pharisee rabbinic centers elsewhere.