stephan huller

No we don't. i like angry birds. i don't know who the developers were

Doug Shaver

It has been. Several times.

The fact that unbelievable stories are told about someone does not constitute evidence against their existence. Even in Jesus' case, no sane skeptic uses the argument, "The gospels say he walked on water, therefore he did not exist."

Acts was written in the second century, almost certainly as a work of fiction. As a source of information about Christian origins, I think it's about as relevant as Gone with the Wind would be for someone studying the Civil War.

Furthermore, when sources are contradictory, it means only that they can't all be right, not that they're all probably wrong.

The ones deemed authentic had to have written by somebody, and he called himself Paul. Maybe that wasn't his real name, but it's the only one we have, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why he would have pretended to be someone who didn't exist.

That is correct.

I don't agree. We have letters written by someone calling himself Paul. We don't have any document, aside from one that everyone knows to be a forgery, written by anyone calling himself Jesus.

The documents exist. Just because the church put them into a canon doesn't mean squat, either for or against whatever they might be worth as historical sources.

I accept Paul's historicity, and I don't think I'm ignoring any lack of evidence. The improbability of Jesus' existence does not entail the improbability of anybody else's existence.

Sheshbazzar

While it might be a convenience for conversations sake, if we do so, it is at a considerable risk of blithely attributing things to any real Paul that may have existed, that he never actually wrote, and thus we have accepted a false 'Paul' with teachings that the real Paul may never have endorsed.
One to be honest, needs to be critically cognizant of the integrity and credibility of 'the Apostle 'Paul's' various alleged writings.
Or are we to indiscriminately swallow them all hook, line, and sinker, in effect becoming 'Christians" ourselves? A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

tanya

I do.

Mark 1:1 (Byzantine version only) "...son of god".
That suffices for me. As Dr. Doug is a logician, one may conclude that I am insane.

In my view, no sane person, skeptic or not, accepts the proposition that the omniscient, omnipotent YHWH required progeny. Greek mythology injects this idea that the Gods behave just like the humans. The Gospels are Greek mythology. The Greek gods required children. Monotheists do not.

We don't need to argue about whether or not the fiction writer named "Paul", lived or not. Mark 1:1 nails it. Case closed. Christianity is a Greek myth, story set in Palestine under Roman Occupation, describing events that preceded the first Jewish-Roman war, composed well after the third Jewish Roman war concluded, and the new diaspora had begun.

sotto voce

The reason that gospels, letters and Acts are put in the same volume is precisely because they do not contradict each other. Or the Old Testament. Every NT author embedded his whole work (bar the two short letters of John) in the Old Testament, and quoted it as proof, for those who accepted the OT as the touchstone of truth.

Why would it? Letters are highly significant to historians, but in an age when oral lore was prime, they were less so. Acts does mention Paul's 'job' as apostle to the Gentiles. Acts does mention Paul's visits to several of the cities where churches were evidently founded.

The reason that Paul wrote letters is very likely because the Gentiles that he had to deal with were neither, like diaspora Jews, 'house-trained' in their moral habits, nor were they as familiar with OT content as Peter's Jews.

And quite a few aren't. And even the people who consider some inauthentic are not uncontroverted.

Why does it matter? Nobody knows who wrote the letter to Hebrews, but it's not a letter that can be ignored, by anyone. It's arguably the most sublime work ever written, and nobody knows who wrote it.

Maybe they did. Means, yes. Opportunity, of course. Motive?

Why would a crook forge a letter that insists on moral perfection? How can a crook forge a letter that insists on moral perfection?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There were wannabe Christians who aped Paul's style, and in a comical fashion. Letters of 'Clement' and 'Ignatius' are good for a giggle.

Paul mentions Peter. Peter mentions Paul, and kindly says that his letters are canonical.

Of course, this may all be made up. By Constantine. Or Luther. Or Billy Graham.

Because it's not the fashion. The fashion is to say that Christianity was actually invented by Paul. But you done well.

Scotsguy44

1. Why would you rely on the Byzantine text (note: that it suits the position you adopt doesn't count as a good reason).
2. Does it logically and necessarily follow that because X requires Y and Z does not require Y but has Y that Z is of the same nature as X?

Thanks
Matt

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Excellent point.

We can trace three different Pauls, all of whom seem to be derived from three different Jewish folk tales.

There is virgin-maker Paul. In "Acts of Paul and Thecla," he is the priest who is so persuasive that he seduces virgins into dedicating themselves to
God.

There is traitor Saul-Paul. He persecuted the Jews and one day the Lord appeared to him in the desert and struck him blind.

There is Super Apostle Paul, the man who delivers the gospel of the Jews to non-Jews.

All of these Jewish folk tales got a Christian make-over, apparently before the writing of the Gospels in the Mid-Late Second century.

That the three folk tales became one and someone wrote letters as the main character of the folk tales is not extraordinary.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Solo

But it does establish historicity for 'somebody' using the name 'Paul', no ?

Best,
Jiri

mountainman

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO SENECA, WITH SENECA'S TO PAUL

The consensus of opinion about this letter exchange between "Paul" and Seneca is that it's a 4th century forgery. The possibility that the canonical Pauline epistles are themselves a 4th century forgery is not neglible.


The short answer is that they have been taught, instructed, lectured and educated to think that.

There are exceptions to this blind faith and dogmatic belief. Herman Detering for example thinks they are all forgeries.

sotto voce

Oh, it is. Negligible, too.