DCHindley

A sage has said, 'I will do nothing (of purpose), and the people will be transformed of themselves.'

He who stands on his tiptoes does not stand firm; he who stretches his legs does not walk easily. So, he who displays himself does not shine; he who asserts his own views is not distinguished; he who vaunts himself does not find his merit acknowledged; he who is self-conceited has no superiority allowed to him.

(Whatever that all is supposed to mean ...) :huh:

DCH

bacht

They would be if they were original autographs. What we have are copies of copies passing through many hands, with no guarantee that there even was an original letter at the base of it. Outside the NT there is no corroboration even for the existence of this person.

Paul's letters are so obviously fundamental to Catholic theology that we have to consider the reasons for their preservation and dissemination. They were eventually elevated to the status of holy scripture. These are not ordinary documents, like a business contract or a novel.

We know that religious authorities can and have fabricated material to serve theological or political goals (eg. the Donation of Constantine). We cannot approach the epistles without acknowledging the possibility, even likelihood, that some or all of it is pious fiction.

aa5874

I did not ask for the location of the LIES. You are not paying attention.

You said "They were Lying", so please again, give me the NAMES of the LIARS.

You are becoming quite illogical now.

Letters addressed to Jesus believers in MAJOR cities and regions of the Roman Empire must tend to indicate that there was a Massive network.

In the NT Canon, the author of Acts, an apologetic source, claimed he traveled and preached all over the Roman Empire with Saul/Paul.


You are not making sense. I have already considered that the author of Acts was one of THEM LIARS.

You are the one who is bamboozled by the Pauline writings and refused to accept that the Pauline writer did not ever claim the Jesus cult was Teensy-Weensy.

You refuse to accept that the Pauline writer must have lied about the persecution of Jesus believers and his meeting with the apostle Peter since there was no entity called Jesus the Messiah.

Plausibility is worthless since it has no value as EVIDENCE.

You are just an inventor of fables. I need to see the sources of antiquity that support your invention.

You DO NOT UNDERSTAND what EVIDENCE is.

You seem to think that whatever you believe is Plausible is History.

The Pauline writers were LIARS, not mad, they claimed they persecuted Jesus believers but Jesus the Christ was not even invented yet.

gurugeorge

Don't be silly. Give me the names of any of the writers of any of the texts in the NT Canon. THEIR REAL NAMES PLEASE. We are talking about objective reality, after all - hopefully.

Obviously, when I say I think there are lies in Acts, that means I think whoever wrote Acts was lying, but I don't know who wrote it - if it was one person, a committee, or 1,000 monkeys with papyrus and styli.

And neither do you.

Nope, there is no indication, or even tendency to an indication, of a "Massive" network. All there is in the "Paul" writings is an indication of a few study circles scattered around major cities and regions of the Roman Empire.

"Churches" in peoples houses do not indicate anything "Massive", because a house can't contain a "Massive" number of people.

The correct term would be fairly widespread, yes, but not "Massive". There is no indication in the "Paul" writings of large numbers of people, as there is in Acts.

Therefore, since Acts is more contradictory to the external evidence than the "Paul" writings, Acts is more likely to be where the lies are than the "Paul" writings.

Yes, but as I've told you, Acts is suspect because its story involves a living Jesus, who we both have good reason to suspect never existed, a bunch of disciples of that living Jesus, who we also have good reason to suspect never existed, and a fable about large numbers of people becoming Christians, who we also have good reason to suspect never existed at that time (at least not in large numbers).

But the "Paul" writings, in and of themselves do not have those indications:-

The "Jesus Christ" mentioned, while mentioned as historical, is not mentioned as being connected as a living entity with anybody mentioned by "Paul", and none of the the people mentioned in the "Paul" writings, are mentioned in those writings as being disciples of a living entity called "Jesus Christ".

This is compatible with a MERELY THEOLOGICAL/VISIONARY Jesus who was BELIEVED to have been historical, but not on the basis of anybody's personal acquaintance - only on the basis of Scripture and visions. And that is the content of the positive evidence in the "Paul" writings.

It is NOT compatible with Acts.

"Paul" is more compatible with the external evidence than Acts (or most of the other NT stuff, for that matter).

I don't refuse to consider it, I just consider that reading of the evidence less coherent than the Pauline writer telling the truth about his visionary experience, in the context of writings that DON'T talk about a living Jesus known to any of the people the Pauline writer talks about, and DON'T have any of the people the Pauline writer talks about being personal disciples of a living Jesus.

You are looking at the same texts as me, we just have a different understanding of what counts as evidence, and for what.

But there is NO claim by "Paul" that any of the Jesus believers were personal disciples of a living Jesus entity.

To make your case, you need to show that the "apostles" mentioned by Paul are CONCEIVED IN THE SAME WAY as the "apostles" mentioned in the Acts (and other orthodox texts that you are using to judge the "Paul" writings as lies) - i.e. you need to show that the "apostles" Paul is talking about are conceived as disciples of a living Jesus Christ, whom they eyeballed and got teachings from personally.

You need to show, in other words, that the "Canon" really is of a piece, and that the discrepancies (specifically with regard to "Paul") are the result of lies rather than the result of the incoherence of jamming together writings from different phases of a developing cult.

Until then, your theory is based on an UNEXAMINED ASSUMPTION that "apostle" in the "Paul" writings means the same as "apostle" in Acts (i.e. that it has the same connotation of personal discipleship of a living Jesus entity that we both agree most probably didn't exist).

Furthermore, you have no response to my charge re. the fundamental incoherence of your concept of a late "Paul" that's invented by orthodoxy while containing gnostic-sounding elements of the kind that were considered (at the very least) dubious and/or heretical by that same orthodoxy, at roundabout the time you posit they were invented. You had no response to Petergdi's structurally similar argument re. the charismatic elements in "Paul" - what I'm calling "occult" elements - either.

Well, I guess we've both shot our bolts on this. I've enjoyed arguing with you - it's helped me sharpen up my own thinking. I do agree with many things you say, but we obviously have some disagreements at crucial points. Despite my joshing, I do respect your thinking, and you know I've always supported your Carthago delenda est re. the obvious and overtly mythical nature of the Jesus story - maybe we will be able to revisit this at some other time!

Petergdi

We don't have autographs of ancient literature. We have inscriptions, and we have a fair bit of ephemera such as bits of business correspondence, but for the interesting stuff that was preserved intentionally we have copies of copies, some ancient, mostly medieval. In the case of Bible manuscripts we are in a particularly fortunate position in terms of the number and quality of manuscripts.


There were definitely originals. Letters don't evolve from single celled organisms by a process of natural selection. A semi-exception - Ephesians is a work of theology in the Pauline school (if not by Paul) in the form of a letter. It may not have originally been addressed to Ephesus or anywhere in particular. We could call it a general epistle instead, but I don't think the addition of Ephesus as a destination harms it in any way. If it is not by Paul, it is by someone by someone who understood Pauline theology really well, wrote before the time of Marcion, and intended no harm.

Yes, they have been probably been edited, collections of letters usually were edited. This doesn't imply monkey business. The Pauline epistles as we have them are not 2nd century proto-orthodoxy, they are something which could have given rise to 2nd century proto-orthodoxy, but the ideas are actually somewhat different.

Why should this matter? I'm not even sure it is strictly true. There appear to have been Jewish-Christian groups who had a tradition of their version of the dispute that arose because of Paul which is likely independent of the letters.

Of course not, but they also aren't quite the theology of the people who preserved them.

Sure, but if you fabricate something, or modify it heavily, it will be what you want it to be. The Pauline epistles aren't like that.

Peter.

aa5874

But, YOU KNOW A NAME.

You called his name already.

His name is "GENUINE PAUL".

See Galatians 1&2.


You KNOW "genuine PAUL".
You KNOW what he wrote.
You KNOW his visions.
You KNOW the contents of his visions.
You KNOW he had a Teensy-Weensy movement.


BUT, How is it that you don't KNOW that he DID NOT meet the apostle Peter in Jerusalem?

How is it you don't know that there were no apostles before him?

How is it you don't know that there no Jesus believers to persecute?

How is it that you don't know that he did NOT persecute Jesus believers?

"Genuine Paul" claimed he persecuted the faith he now preached and that he met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

How is it that you don't KNOW "genuine Paul" was a LIAR?

Because you don't KNOW one thing about "genuine Paul."

Now, obviously when I say "genuine Paul" was LYING, it could be "one person, a committee or a 1000 monkeys".


But, your logics is found wanting.

It is NOT JUST churches in people's houses, It is CHURCHES IN GALATIA, in ROME, CORINTH, EPHESUS, THESSALONICA, COLOSSE, and PHILIPPI.

Now, these MAJOR CITIES AND REGION of the Roman Empire HAD A MASSIVE number of HOUSES.

Do the math.

So, you can forget about your TEENSY-WEENSY.

Your Teensy-Weensy theory has evaporated into thin air.

But, the Pauline writer seems to respond to Acts of the Apostles. The Pauline writer appears to have corrected the author of Acts.

Look at the conundrum.

The author of Acts lied about Saul/Paul when he claimed Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers and met the apostles in Jerusalem shortly after his blinding bright conversion.

There were no apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem or Jesus believers to be persecuted. Jesus was a fictitious character.

A Pauline writer then wrote that is was about three years later that he met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem and that he persecuted the Church.

The author of Acts and the Pauline writers LIED about the meeting of Saul/Paul and the apostle Peter and the persecution of Jesus believers.

You are forgetting a very important point. The fables of Acts include Saul/Paul or supposedly the post-conversion history of "GENUINE PAUL".

But, the Canon has a post-conversion history for Saul/Paul. And it supposedly shows how Saul/Paul (GENUINE PAUL) was converted by a blinding bright light.

Supposedly Saul/Paul (GENUINE PAUL) met Jesus Christ the offspring of the Holy Ghost after he was betrayed in the night, crucified, raised from the dead, ascended through the clouds, and after the day of Pentecost.

It is just disingenuous to say that the apostle Peter is not in the Pauline writings or that the Pauline writers did not admit that he persecuted the faith.

The name JESUS CHRIST is not in Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint.

The LAST SUPPER is not in Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint.

The biography of Jesus and geography of Judea are not in Hebrew Scripture or Septuagint.

A Pauline writer claimed he received that Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had supped using words ONLY found in gLuke.

An apologetic source claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

Which Scripture did he get it from.

Very likely from gLuke.

And the external evidence cannot account for the Pauline writers.

But, I am not dealing with visions. I am dealing with the claim by a Pauline writer that he persecuted the faith he now preach and that he met an apostle called Peter in Jerusalem.

The author of Acts also made similar claims about Saul/PAUL.

You admit Jesus most likely did not exist.

You must admit the Pauline writer is most likely the LIAR and the author of Acts may be mistaken.


It is not necessary for the story in Acts to be true or for the Pauline writings to be non-fiction

One can reasonably infer that the apostle Peter in the Pauline writings is referring to the same character in Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul, one who persecuted the Church, in Acts, met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem and a writer using the name Paul, admitting he persecuted the faith, claimed he met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

You do not understand what EVIDENCE is.

Once it can be reasonably deduced that Jesus of the NT Canon did not exist then your "genuine Paul" lied about persecuting Jesus believers and meeting the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

And once Saul/Paul did not exist in the 1st century and is fiction then "genuine Paul" vanishes into thin air.

And what about your "genuine Paul"? Some "genuine Pauls" differ. There may be widespread differences between your "genuine Paul" and the real "Paul" who did not live in the 1st century.

What is so difficult in writing fiction stories with gnostic-sounding elements?

What elements did the author of Acts use in his fiction stories about the blinding bright light conversion of Saul/Paul?

Now, my position that the Pauline writings are late is very comprehensive and is based on EVIDENCE from antiquity.

1.The Synoptic Jesus was not aware of the revelations to the Pauline writers.

2. The Synoptic Jesus was not aware that without his resurrection mankind would remain in sin as stated by the Pauline writer.

3. The Synoptic Jesus was not aware that circumcision was not necessary after his death. The Synoptic Jesus was circumcised.

4. The authors of the Synoptic did not realise that over 500 people saw Jesus as stated in the Pauline writings.

5. The teachings of the Synoptic Jesus is very simple. Just believe that the Synoptic Jesus is the Christ and you will be saved.

6. The Pauline teachings from his Jesus is complex. In the Pauline teachings circumcision must be avoided at all cost by Gentiles.

7. The Synoptic Jesus came primarily to warn the Jews through his disciples about the fulfillment of prophecy. The Jews would cause the Synoptic Jesus to be innocently killed and God will destroy the Jews and their Temple and then a conflagration will follow shortly after.

8. The Synoptic Jesus did not know his prediction about the second coming would fail.

9. The Pauline revelation does not include the "failed second-coming prediction."

10. The biography of the Synoptic Jesus was not derived from the Pauline writings.

11. The geographical locations for the Synoptic Jesus story were not from derived from the Pauline writings.

12. The Pauline writers did not claim to be the first to preach about Jesus.

13. The late long ending of gMark is compatible with the Pauline writing.

14. The Synoptic Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost not the Word.

15. The Pauline Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth compatible with the late Gospel gJohn.

16. The Pauline revelations are AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven.[/b]

17. The Synoptic Jesus story [u]ENDS[/b] at resurrection or ascension.

18. The Pauline revelations and visions are LAST.


I have just began shooting.

I am going to bring down "genuine PAUL".

He was not mad. He attempted to historicise fiction with his close companion called Luke the physician, who doctored his story book about Saul/Paul ("genuine Paul").

spamandham

...there is no way to distinguish whether Marcion simply embraced someone else's work or whether he penned it without knowing a heck of a lot more about Marcion than what we know. How can you tell that he embraced the letters due to confusion about what they really say? Are you sure you understand the letters better than Marcion who was 2000 years (and probably 2000 miles or more) closer to the source?

Have you seen the Skeptics Annotated Bible? How plausible is it that the author is opposed to the Bible, considering how highly dependent it is upon the Bible?

What's important is not dependence, but how the work is represented. Detractors are very likely to depend on a source they hope to undermine.

Peter, it might be helpful if you provided some specific examples of Paul's dependence on the OT that you think supports your argument.

gurugeorge

Must ... restrain ... self

I know that (well, I'm pretty sure about it) because the "apostle" Peter he meets in the Acts story is an apostle of a living, eyeballed, personally-apprenticed-to Jesus; whereas in the "Paul" writing, there is no suggestion that the "Peter" he is talking about was a disciple of a living entity of whom he was a personal disciple.

The former DOESN'T cohere with the lack of external evidence (sc. of a living human being Jesus).

The latter IS coherent with the lack of external evidence, and THEREFORE also coherent with the other evidence in Paul, that the Jesus he, and the "apostles" were talking about was evidenced SOLELY in Scripture and visionary experience, and NOT through any personal contact with a living entity (whom we have good reason to believe never existed).

The former implies "Jesus believers" as believers in someone they had personally known, the latter doesn't, it just implies "Jesus believers" as believers in a REVISED IDEA OF WHAT THE MESSIAH WAS.

Therefore Acts is the lie, "Paul" is genuine. Therefore Acts is an elaboration and confabulation of what's in "Paul", an elaboration and confabulation based on the FALSE and LATER idea that there was a living Jesus who had PERSONAL DISCIPLES whom "Paul" came into contact with.

As to the "church"/houses thing - again, you're unconsciously retrojecting the large numbers in Acts back into the "Paul" writings. All you have in the "Paul" writings, per se, is something like a couple of HOUSES in each city - so a movement with, at most, a few hundred scattered around the Roman Empire, in small study groups or study circles - easily enough to be missed by any contemporary external evidence (whereas of course the Acts proposition - thousands and thousands of believers - is unlikely to have been missed by contemporary external evidence, and is likely to be a lie).

But I commend you on that last post - as Avi said, we want more of that kind of stuff from you, rather than gnomic, throwaway utterances about lying!

bacht

I'm seeing the process more as the reverse of your description: that the theology of Paul came first, and the legends about him were added later. Or, there was an (eschatological?) Paul and he wrote something that was substantially modified later by proto-Catholics.

I don't see why myth-making shouldn't be at least as plausible an explanation for Paul as the official story. Paul was the hero of the mission to the gentiles, the bridge (according to the story) between 2nd temple Judaism and the new covenant with non-Jews. If he hadn't existed the church probably would have invented someone like him to create a suitably noble origin story. They certainly wouldn't want the record to show that someone like Marcion was the primary creator of Catholicism.

And there was the necessity to appease the Romans, recent victors over Jewish messiah Simeon bar Kochba. Any association with this nation was tricky, so the church legends may have expunged awkward Jewish connections and back-dated events to before the first revolt.

aa5874

But "Your Genuine Paul" IS Saul/Paul in ACTS.

"Your Genuine Paul" corroborates Saul/Paul in ACTS.

1. "Your genuine Paul" of the Epistles was in a BASKET in Damascus and Saul/Paul was also in a BASKET in Damascus in ACTS.

2. "Your genuine Paul" of the Epistles was imprisoned and Saul/Paul was imprisoned in ACTS.

3. "Your genuine Paul" was in the company of Barnabas and Timotheus and Saul/Paul was in the company of Barnabas and Timotheus.

4. "Your genuine Paul" met an apostle Peter in Jerusalem and Saul/Paul met an [b]apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

5. "Your genuine Paul" was filled with the Holy Ghost and Saul/Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost.

6. "Your genuine Paul" traveled to major cities of the Roman Empire and Saul/Paul traveled to major cities of the Roman Empire.

7. "Your genuine Paul" was shipwrecked and Saul/Paul was shipwrecked.

8. "Your genuine Paul" was stoned and Saul/Paul was stoned.

9. "Your genuine Paul' was beaten and Saul/Paul was beaten.

10. "Your genuine Paul" preached about the resurrected and ascended Jesus and Saul/Paul preached about the resurrected and ascended Jesus.

11. "Your genuine Paul" was a Jew and Saul/Paul was a Jew.

12. "Your genuine Paul" persecuted Jesus believers and Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers.

13. "Your genuine Paul" claimed there apostles before him and Saul/Paul met the apostles before him.

14. "Your genuine Paul" claimed Jesus was in the heavens and Saul/Paul heard from Jesus after he ascended to heaven.

So, we have POSITIVELY identified "Your Genuine Paul" he is none other than SAUL/PAUL of ACTS.

Now, once Jesus did not exist and there were no apostles or disciples of Jesus then "genuine Paul"-Saul/Paul was a LIAR.

"Your genuine Paul"-Saul/Paul claimed that:

1. There were Believers of the FAITH before him.

2. He persecuted the Faith he now preached.

3. He was in Jerusalem with the apostle Peter for fifteen days.

But, there was no Jesus, no Jesus Faith, no Jesus believers, no JESUS apostles in Jerusalem before the Fall of the Temple.

"Your genuine Paul" was not mad, just a genuine LIAR.

"Your genuine Paul" was CAUGHT in the BASKET in which he tried to escape.