Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 06-13-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Paul was at some time a tent maker, and supported himself by that trade. ...

This is so.

But it may be that his position changed later in his career; perhaps he may have inherited money, or be thought to have done so. For he was kept in prison on flimsy grounds by the notoriously corrupt Felix and then by Festus. If he had done so, perhaps this imprisonment is explained; one or both may have been angling for a bribe.

A bribe could be obtained from those with quite moderate wealth- and in any case, it may not have been Paul who would have paid it. The fact that Paul was a tent maker to support himself, that he later needed funds and other support from the church, as already mentioned, is good evidence that he was never affluent.

Clouseau · 06-13-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Isn't it more likely that Paul is made up too? Or if he really was historical he is as important as Muhammad for Islam. Christianity looks very much like a Paulianism more than a Jesusianism.

Not to those who know Paul. There is very little indeed that Paul wrote that cannot be traced to the OT, which Jesus fully endorsed, and the gospels. Moreover, Paul agreed in every way with John, Peter, James, Jude and Luke.

dog-on · 06-13-2007, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Isn't it more likely that Paul is made up too? Or if he really was historical he is as important as Muhammad for Islam. Christianity looks very much like a Paulianism more than a Jesusianism.

Not to those who know Paul. There is very little indeed that Paul wrote that cannot be traced to the OT, which Jesus fully endorsed, and the gospels. Moreover, Paul agreed in every way with John, Peter, James, Jude and Luke.

...or it was later made to appear that way, albeit somewhat poorly...

Clouseau · 06-13-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Not to those who know Paul. There is very little indeed that Paul wrote that cannot be traced to the OT, which Jesus fully endorsed, and the gospels. Moreover, Paul agreed in every way with John, Peter, James, Jude and Luke.

...or it was later made to appear that way, albeit somewhat poorly...

It would have been technically very difficult to edit that way. It would have been much easier to burn the originals and do a complete re-write!

dog-on · 06-13-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

...or it was later made to appear that way, albeit somewhat poorly...

It would have been technically very difficult to edit that way. It would have been much easier to burn the originals and do a complete re-write!

ah yes, but that flock was too good to pass up...

dog-on · 06-13-2007, 06:03 AM

I'll show you just how easy it was, as a matter of fact...

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, 5to ransom those under law

becomes

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law

bada bing, bada bam, bada boom!

Clouseau · 06-13-2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I'll show you just how easy it was, as a matter of fact...

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, 5to ransom those under law

becomes

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law

bada bing, bada bam, bada boom!

What difference does that make?

dog-on · 06-13-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I'll show you just how easy it was, as a matter of fact...

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, 5to ransom those under law

becomes

4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law

bada bing, bada bam, bada boom!

What difference does that make?

...and that, my friend, is why it was so easily accomplished...

Clouseau · 06-13-2007, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

What difference does that make?

...and that, my friend, is why it was so easily accomplished...

Because it makes no difference to anything? Waste of time and ink, I reckon.

Riverwind · 06-13-2007, 11:33 AM

Thanks a whole bunch to Roger. That's the type of input for which I'm looking. I especially appreciate the reference to Caracalla and his edict(?) of 212 A.D.

While I can understand Toto's viewpoint (and his posts are better than the rest, IMHO), Acts and the letters of Paul are all we have by which to know Paul, so I am attempting to use the lens of Roman Law to look at him and the historical accounts about him. The views about Acts being totally unreliable from a historical perspective I am unsympathetic towards, as they are merely a rhetorical coloring of the available data. I want to look at the ancient data as it exists.

As for the people who think Paul didn't exist... :Cheeky: Whatever. Socrates didn't exist because when talking about Hemlock, Pliny the Elder didn't even mention that the famous philosopher was sentenced to death by drinking a potion that included it.

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

06-13-2007, 06:03 AM	#16
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I'll show you just how easy it was, as a matter of fact... 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, 5to ransom those under law becomes 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law bada bing, bada bam, bada boom!

06-13-2007, 11:33 AM	#20
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Thanks a whole bunch to Roger. That's the type of input for which I'm looking. I especially appreciate the reference to Caracalla and his edict(?) of 212 A.D. While I can understand Toto's viewpoint (and his posts are better than the rest, IMHO), Acts and the letters of Paul are all we have by which to know Paul, so I am attempting to use the lens of Roman Law to look at him and the historical accounts about him. The views about Acts being totally unreliable from a historical perspective I am unsympathetic towards, as they are merely a rhetorical coloring of the available data. I want to look at the ancient data as it exists. As for the people who think Paul didn't exist... :Cheeky: Whatever. Socrates didn't exist because when talking about Hemlock, Pliny the Elder didn't even mention that the famous philosopher was sentenced to death by drinking a potion that included it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.