aa5874

The very first thing one needs to establish is that there was an actual person called Paul who lived in the 1st century at least around the time of King Aretas as stated in 1 Cor.11.

The Pauline writer cannot be corroborated to have lived at any time in history.

The authenticity of the Pauline letters cannot be confirmed by any credible sources.

MrMacSon

Good points; especially that ....

there is no evidence that any apologist knew [of the letters attributed to Paul] in anything other than the canonical set of epistles!

"Paul" could be a fictitious character; a literary device to convey a message, or an air of respectability to an overall message, or both.
.

outhouse

no one with any credibility at all thinks he was not a real person

Duvduv

It would be easier to understand if all the epistles were uniform which they aren't. And if they were written or interpolated by people who knew the gospel stories one would expect things from those stories to be added into the epistles.

MrMacSon

Perhaps, but not necessarily.

Not if they wanted another source or angle with which to support their narrrative.

There is no credible evidence that he was a real person.

The fact there is no evidence speaks more than appeal to biased authority.

mountainman

Thank fucking Christ you are noticing consistencies and inconsistencies in Clement, and that he was not an Australian.

And while we're at it why doesn't someone answer the question about where the known forged correspondence - a letter exchange between Paul and Senaca - fits into the overall jigsaw puzzle of evidence. The idea is to examine and discuss ALL the evidence. Both evidence FOR and AGAINST the authencity of the epistles of Paul.

We are dealing with unprovenanced undated documents, asserted to have been written by an historical paul. Well, didnt Bilbo Baggins write letters to Frodo and the Elves?

G'Day Paul,

The is Seneca here.

How ya goin dude?

You owe me a beer.

Your best mate,

Seneca.

mountainman

biblical scholars have obtained their corn flakes and credibility from biblical colleges since nicaea 1687 years of blind authority

aa5874

What??? You invent your own credibility??? The author of Acts has little or NO credibilty but claim Paul was a real person. Eusebius too. In fact, based on the abundance of Evidence a person of antiquity who has no crediblility is likely to claim Paul was a real person.

Now, please name one credible source for Paul.

mountainman

Seneca.

aa5874

I did NOT say a GENUINE source of forgery.