bacht

If you're saying that we shouldn't read the epistles through the lens of the later gospel stories I agree. I'm not qualified to comment on authenticity or interpolations, other than to acknowledge that these are important factors.

One interpretation of Paul could simply be that he was enlarging on the same teaching as John the Baptist: The End Is Near, bolstered by "visions" or "words of the Lord". I've seen it suggested that Paul, James, Peter et al were originally fellow-followers of JtB :huh:

Ben C Smith

No. That is Dohertian fantasy. The Paul we have in our texts thought that Christ was a descendant of David and of Abraham.

Ben.

bacht

Okay, so you accept that there was someone behind the Jesus stories, some teacher or prophet or whatever that Paul acknowledged though never met?

[I see the evil Earl is as popular as ever...]

Ben C Smith

Actually, I do, but that was not my claim. My claim was that Paul is asserting that there was a past incarnate coming of Christ; that Paul is not only looking forward to a future coming of Christ. Paul could be wrong about that past coming, of course, but I think it is important to read what Paul actually wrote.

Earl and I (along with others) have debated this issue quite a bit on this board in the past, and I hold that his view of Paul is untenable. I do not know him personally, so I do not know whether he is evil or not , but he is wrong about Paul.

Ben.

spamandham

This evidence of this is weak. The only thing I can think of that really supports it is Rom 1:3, which comes across to me as a clumsy add on, and so is suspicious in regards to its authenticity.

The references to Abraham in Romans and Galatians depict him as a spiritual father, not a biological father, do they not?

spin

Do you think, given Paul's revelation and the conviction it inspired, that his writings, those that can be established as his, can provide any evidence for the historicity of Jesus? If so, what and how?


spin

Ben C Smith

The evidence of this is irrefutable, if those verses are genuine (recall that I was talking about the Paul we have in our texts; I meant, of course, the extant texts, not reconstructions). Your own tack (that certain lines are interpolations) is a much better one than the one Earl chose to navigate (at least until recently).

I advised Earl during one or more of our debates that he would be better off arguing that Romans 1.3 and Galatians 4.4 were interpolations than that they really meant something else. He eventually did just that with regard to Galatians 4.4 (I am not claiming he did so because of me), though he has not (yet) done so for Romans 1.3.

For the record, Earl and I never once debated the HJ, to the best of my memory. We always debated what various texts meant, and I even adopted the position of a Wells mythicist at times in order to sharpen the point. To the extent that you think that the author of Romans 1.3 thought Jesus was a fleshly descendant of David, you are agreeing with me against Earl. To the extent that you think the author of Romans 1.3 thought Jesus never existed in the flesh and was never even born, let alone of the line of David, you are agreeing with Earl against me.

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

I'd really, really -LOVE- to read what Paul -actually- wrote.
I wonder if we will ever find a genuine undoctored writing of Paul?
The Church certainly did its damndest to make sure that nothing of his -actual- writings survived without their first heavily tampering with it.
As it now is, there is not even one single sentence attributed to Paul, that can be trusted to have -actually- originated friom the -real- Paul of Tarsus,
if there ever was such a person.

aa5874

But Paul's gospel was endorsed and accepted by the Churches and according to church writers, Paul's gospel is authentic since the 1st century. It was not disputed or altered in any way based on Eusebius, even the ancients used Paul's gospel.

Sheshbazzar

".......based on Eusebius" it always comes back to this.