Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-21-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

David Trobisch points out a few interesting facts in his book Paul's Letter Collection. He proposes that Paul edited the letters (1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Galatians) himself and distributed them as a single book as a polemic against the church's early opponents. The letters were always intended to be a read as a single anthology, says Trobisch. In the oldest editions of the Bible, gLuke is immediately followed by Paul's letters -- not Acts like our modern Bibles.

I personally believe there probably was a Paul, but he wasn't an ethnic Jew or an ex-Pharisee. But then when I ask why a person would lie about such things as being "from the tribe of Benjamin," advanced in rabbinical education, I'm back to believing that it's just as likely that the early church simply invented such a person. The ex-Pharisee who persecutes the church but sees the error of his ways in a blinding flash of light at Damascus is too convenient a figure for church polemics to have been a real person.

your talking about acts and acts only when youy describe the road to damascus

thats not how pauls states he got his revelation. so your wrong there.

the church wouldnt use a would be criminal who spends many years in jail as a leader.

paul as written by paul is pretty much a criminal, not a church creation.

Not only that paul living when he is said matches archeology and as a person trying to convert god fearers [romans wroshipping yahweh] his timing is perfect

DCHindley · 04-21-2012, 04:32 PM

Hmmm,

David Trobisch, in Paul's Letter Collection (or via: amazon.co.uk) pp 61-62, leaves it open as to whether it was Paul who edited for publication Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, or someone else. Also, I don't think that Paul would have published an edition of his own letters to make some sort of point. If anything, Trobish would think Paul "cleaned them up" for posterity.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

David Trobisch points out a few interesting facts in his book Paul's Letter Collection. He proposes that Paul edited the letters (1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Galatians) himself and distributed them as a single book as a polemic against the church's early opponents. The letters were always intended to be a read as a single anthology, says Trobisch. In the oldest editions of the Bible, gLuke is immediately followed by Paul's letters -- not Acts like our modern Bibles.

aa5874 · 04-21-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

....take into account we know there were more epistles that didnt survive.

how mant didnt survive??

Right now we are NOT dealing with imaginary evidence. If we allow you to imagine your own evidence then we will get nowhere on BC&H.

aa5874 · 04-21-2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...Not only that paul living when he is said matches archeology and as a person trying to convert god fearers [romans wroshipping yahweh] his timing is perfect

What??? Paul's living matches archaeology??? Please Identify the archaeology of Paul's living??

Duvduv · 04-21-2012, 07:08 PM

How do you know they weren't presented always as a set? No church writer ever wrote that any given epistle was ever distributed by itself by the community that received it; no writer ever claimed that the set of epistles was in dispute; they were always presented in other writings as a set, starting with old Irenaeus, whenever it was he wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Since there is no evidence that the epistles were every put out individually, one must assume they were developed as a set. Of course if the set was completely produced by once central supervising authority one would not expect to see any contradictions among them. However if it simply involved cut and paste and then subsequent interpolation, I guess it would be hard to know whether in fact there was greater uniformity among the original documents.

Again, there is never a presentation of the epistles where the unauthentic ones or disputed ones are not included. Thus, epistles containing different language and style were presented as a set (before the gospel stories emerged). I suppose one scenario could be where different writers without any contact with one another but who identified more or less with the same ideas were assigned to write texts, which would account for some contradictions.

If I may so bold as to make a comparison. Let's imagine a number of religious Jews were asked to write letters about some basic teachings of Judaism. The letters would be similar, but there might be differences in emphasis if let's say one was a Russian Lubavitcher, another was a Moroccan Sephardi, a third was a Hungarian chassid, and a fourth was a German Orthodox Jew.

they were never a set

written over decades.

take into account we know there were more epistles that didnt survive.

how mant didnt survive??

stephan huller · 04-21-2012, 07:33 PM

What language is duvduv's native tongue? I have noticed consistent errors like substituting 'unauthentic' or 'inauthentic.' Maybe it's a Canadian thing or the Queen's English.

outhouse · 04-21-2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know they weren't presented always as a set? No church writer ever wrote that any given epistle was ever distributed by itself by the community that received it; no writer ever claimed that the set of epistles was in dispute; they were always presented in other writings as a set, starting with old Irenaeus, whenever it was he wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

they were never a set

written over decades.

take into account we know there were more epistles that didnt survive.

how mant didnt survive??

they were sent out to different locations individually, the mail system was quite good.

and what church would know about it, this tells me your ignorant as to how much the movement had not advanced at pauls time.

You do know these churches he is talking about is nothing more then someones dinner table in a house. There were no buildings or churches as you know them.

Paul had places/houses set up for his converts to keep "HIS" message alive, these were small groups and how devoted these people were and size is a complete mystery, but large organized establishments THEY WERE NOT.

you missing the size of the movement, [very small] as well as the anthropology involved regarding how worship was done in this new pauline sect.

I mean think about it, paul only had his own people within his own movement he was dealing with.

Pauls movement had nothing to do with the oral tradition from the REAL apostles, or the real apostles movement in any wauy shape or form except a hellenized version of jesus and what paul expected

outhouse · 04-21-2012, 07:58 PM

How many years do you think it took to gather these epistles up? the fact we have paul editing some, others combining his copied letters, plus redactions and interpolations.

there is a easily seen history they were not created at once, in one volume.

Duvduv · 04-21-2012, 08:57 PM

There is no evidence that these letters were actually written and received by the intended recipients, nor is there evidence that any apologist knew of them in anything other than the canonical set of epistles.
There is no evidence they were collected from anywhere by anyone., either as individual letters or several letters.
If a few interpolations were added, this could have happened over a short time.

outhouse · 04-21-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is no evidence that these letters were actually written and received by the intended recipients, nor is there evidence that any apologist knew of them in anything other than the canonical set of epistles.
There is no evidence they were collected from anywhere by anyone., either as individual letters or several letters.
If a few interpolations were added, this could have happened over a short time.

would there be any evidence they were recieved? no

so your not making any sort of real point here one way or the other

but your wrong as far as evidence is concerned, we do have evidence epostles were compiled, redacted, forged, interpolated, all independant from one another

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2012, 07:33 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What language is duvduv's native tongue? I have noticed consistent errors like substituting 'unauthentic' or 'inauthentic.' Maybe it's a Canadian thing or the Queen's English.

04-21-2012, 07:58 PM	#18
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	How many years do you think it took to gather these epistles up? the fact we have paul editing some, others combining his copied letters, plus redactions and interpolations. there is a easily seen history they were not created at once, in one volume.

04-21-2012, 08:57 PM	#19
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	There is no evidence that these letters were actually written and received by the intended recipients, nor is there evidence that any apologist knew of them in anything other than the canonical set of epistles. There is no evidence they were collected from anywhere by anyone., either as individual letters or several letters. If a few interpolations were added, this could have happened over a short time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.