Loomis

I love your bluntness. You make me laugh. And I agree with you that ‘the letters of Paul’ are forgeries. But all this disagreement with Amaleq13 is getting boring. Get over him. Please spice it up with new information or take a break.

You keep saying that Paul depends on the “Gospels.” Well, why don’t you be more specific? Which ones?

It looks to me like Paul was familiar with Mark. But what about the others?

spamandham

Given this, there are numerous possibilities, one of which, is that the Gospels preceded the letters attributed to Paul. Other possibilities are:

1. The Gospel (really just 1), was aware of what "Paul" had taught

2. Both the writer of the Gospel and the writers of "Paul" were aware of a third source that included the details you listed.

3. "Paul's" letters in original form preceded the Gospel, and were edited later on.

4. Both the Gospels and Paul's letters were edited over the years. What we have are actually works that spanned decades if not centuries.

...not intended to be an exhaustive list.

aa5874

But, I have already gone through those options that is why I used the word "absolutely."

I don'f know if you have read the very same sources like me but I can't find "Paul" in the 1st century, nor the middle of the second. It seems that Justin did not know Paul.

This is Irenaeus in Against Heresies

Paul and Luke were inseparable according to Irenaeus. Luke wrote Acts of Acts of the Apostles. Paul and Luke were travellers together. Luke wrote the fictitious accounts of Paul's conversion.

Luke and Paul were inseparable.

And now John Chrysostom, near the end of the 4th century, in Homilies on Acts of the Apostles.

This is alarming. Many people do not even know Acts of the Apostles exists. Luke and Paul were inseparable.

Paul is late, real late.

maryhelena

fatpie42
Probably, re the can of worms....

Perhaps it does, re being a mythicist about Jesus requiring also a mythicist position regarding Paul. Simple question - where is the historical evidence that Paul was a historical person living and preaching, and persecuting Christians, prior to 70 CE?

The time stamp in Acts for Paul is no more validation for his existence than the date stamp of Tiberius for Jesus. Paul claims to have written letters to various congregations of Christians - that is not evidence for a pre 70 CE date for Paul - simply a case of backdating the beginnings of Christianity. The ‘Paul’ connected to the date stamp in the book of Acts cannot be a historical person living at that time. That story line makes no sense at all.

What happened after 70 CE and who were the historical individuals involved with early Christianity - that is a big question.......and if any of these people went by the names of Paul, Peter, James and John - is perhaps unlikely. Name changing, as even the NT highlights, was quite a popular pastime....

Shock is the right word......Christians are just left so far behind from academic research that there is a huge divide between the man in the pew and the scholar in the university. I’ve been a mythicist for over 25 years - getting started with John Hick’ ‘The Myth of God Incarnate’.

Where to go to read up on evidence for the historicity of Paul - nowhere that I can think of. I think perhaps the Jesus Seminar was going to do something on Paul but I don’t know if it ever got of the ground. Actually, I think that its the mythicist camp that should be furthering the debate over Paul - just using Paul’ theology to create a Cosmic Christ does not really help along the debate over a historical Jesus and the gospel story line. If anything this approach stalls the debate over the Jesus puzzle........

Maybe there was a historical 'Paul' who wrote dozens of letter to congregations of early Christians - but he could not have done this, even if he existed, during the time period attributed to him in the NT - which is a time period connected to the claimed historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth - which is itself a claim rejected by mythicists. There were no Christians to persecute at that time because the Jesus of Nazareth they claimed to follow did not exist. No leader = no followers.

As I said earlier, the mythicist position needs to be more consistent - to go the whole hog instead of cherry-picking what is deemed to be historical and not historical in the NT.

andrewcriddle

In 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 Paul refers to King Aretas. This almost certainly means Aretas IV who reigned from 9 BCE to 40 CE. which would require Paul's Christian ministry to begin before 40 CE.

This argument is independent of the Book of Acts and is IMO valid. However there have been long threads on this forum about the problem of having Aretas IV exercise some sort of authority in Damascus and other difficulties.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

It's no mystery to me. There is no necessary correlation between the quality of one's reasoning and the conclusions one reaches, except in one direction. If you reason well, you'll probably reach true conclusions. Aside from that, it's all a crap shoot.

Doug Shaver

We don't know it. That's just church tradition. We have no idea when, where, or how he died.

With that noted, the letters that are probably authentic seem to have been written before the First Jewish War.

DCHindley

Don't forget that even when the logic of a syllogism is technically correct, the truth value of the conclusion is still directly related to the truth values of the premises upon which the conclusion is based. Garbage in => Garbage out

DCH

Amaleq13

What, specifically, makes you think that rather than the reverse?

aa5874

The writer Paul placed himself in a a basket while in Damascus during the time of Aretas, the inseparable companion of Paul also placed him in a basket while in Damascus as found in Acts of the Apostles.

It should be noted that according to the church writers it was the inseparable companion of Paul, called Luke, who wrote Acts of the Apostles.

This inseparable companion proceeded on three occasions to give a total fictitious account of Saul/Paul's conversion.

The very close partner of Paul claimed he (Saul/Paul) was on his way to Damascus, a bright light blinded him, and the resurrected Jesus talked to Paul. Later some kind of scales fell from the eyes of Paul after he miraculously received his sight after prayer.

Luke was an inseparable companion of Paul. It must have been or likely to be Paul who told his partner about the fictitious conversion.

Acts is canonised. It is sacred scripture. It is predominantly about Peter and Paul. But, Peter was a fictitious disciple of the fictitious Jesus.

Luke, the inseparable companion of Paul, wrote a fictitious account of the ascension of the fictitious Jesus witnessed by fictitious disciples. But, Luke wants his readers to believe the ascension is totally accurate, he even claimed angels, two men in white clothes, also witnessed the incredible event.

In the mean time, within six or so years of the fictitious ascension of Jesus, around 40 CE, Paul, Luke's inseparable partner, is also fabricating a fictitious story, telling people in Damascus that Jesus rose from the dead after the third day.

Luke and Paul are fiction writers. Their stories are only believeable if they were backdated.

The gospels in the NT are all backdated fiction.
Paul placed himself after Jesus ascended to heaven.
The backdated gospels end at ascension.
The ascension was backdated.
Paul placed himself after the backdated ascension.

Paul's writings must be backdated fiction.

Paul placed himself after Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues.
Acts of the Apostles was backdated fiction.
The gifts of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues was backdated.
Paul spoke in tongues after the backdated fictitious Peter.

Pau's writings must be backdated fiction.

Now, Paul is late, real late. Sometimes I think he may have even attended the Nicene Council and did vote with Eusebius.