aa5874

Paul could NOT be making references to Hebrew Scripture because such scriptures do NOT support the Blasphemy that Jesus was a SACRIFICE and DIED for our Sins.

It is CONTRARY to Hebrew Scripture and perhaps even punishable by death for a Jew, and Pharisee to claim Jesus DIED for the Sins of Jews.

Only Christian Scriptures contains such Blasphemy.

Jewish Laws required the blood of Bulls, Goats and even birds. See Leviticus and Josephus.

I hope you enjoy this Excerpt from Josephus on Sacrifices--You won't find that Jesus was Sacrified for OUR sins in Hebrew Scriptures.

Antiquities of the Jews 3.9 Now look at Leviticus

Leviticus 9:3 KJV Well, let us do some LOGICAL deductions at this point.

Josephus and Leviticus have DESTROYED the claim that "according to the Scriptures" mean Hebrew Scriptures.

It is Christian Scriptures that do state the Blasphemy that Jesus shall SAVE people from their sins.

Matthew 1:21 KJV We now know that the Pauline writings were COMPOSED after the Jesus story was already publicly circulated in Scriptures.

outhouse

Good link


But if say a play like that influenced paul to add to his theism with that context, would mythers just jump all over that and not realize the influence?? over 100% outright fiction??


they will claim all fiction even if there was only a small amount of influence

Toto

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think this has anything to do with mythicism. Welborn is a conventional scholar on the faculty of a seminary. The only question is whether that brief mention of Aretas provides any clue for dating Paul's letters or Paul.

Bernard Muller

My take on the ethnarch in Damascus:
YLT 11:32 "In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king was watching the city of the Damascenes, wishing to seize me, 33 and through a window in a rope basket I was let down, through the wall, and fled out of his hands."
Part of 32-33 (more so "of Aretas the king") or the whole is contested as interpolation because there is no external evidence that Damascus came under Aretas' rule at that time. However, it is not necessarily meant here this ethnarch had control of the city. Rather, he may just have been the representative of Nabataean residents and, at the same time, ambassador for Aretas IV (9-40C.E.). As such, he could hire henchmen in order to watch the few city gates and search for Paul, for the purpose of bringing him to trial.
a) Damascus was a center of trade by caravans and immediately North of the territory held by the Nabataean Arabs. At some time in the past, the city was part of the Nabataean kingdom. Therefore the presence of a Nabataean minority is plausible.
b) According to Josephus (Ant., XIX, V, 2-3), the Jews of Alexandria (Egypt) were represented by an ethnarch and Claudius extended the practice to all cities with Diaspora Jews. Therefore it is very plausible other significant national minorities in cities would have their own ethnarch.

outhouse

Im saying a influenece from a play is possible


but "if" it is the case. Many here in the forums would use this influence as proof of a paul myth without, understanding how paul used said influence

aa5874

Again, once the Pauline writings are challenged for authenticity and historical accuracy then there will be no credible source of antiquity that can corroborate that any Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE.

Any statement written or oral once questioned cannot be of itself be the same evidence for veracity. Some other source MUST be employed.

There are NO credible sources to authenticate or corroborate the Pauline writings ONCE they are questioned.

But most remarkably, we have an unprecedented massive problem for Paul.

Only sources which are NOT credible mention the Pauline writings.

2 Peter, Acts of the Apostles, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius are apologetic sources that are suspect.

The Presumption that the Pauline writings are authentic cannot survive an inquiry.

maryhelena

1. The text does not clarify which Aretas it is referencing.

2. Historically, Aretas III ended his rule of Damascus around 63 b.c.

3. To assume the text is referencing Aretas IV (because of assuming a historical ‘Paul’) requires that the ethnarch of Aretas be downgraded to being nothing more than a representative of an ethnic percentage of the population of Damascus.

4. The reason why the ethnarch of Aretas would want to seize ‘Paul’ would be a matter of conjecture.

5. Since Aretas IV would be in Rome’s bad books after his defeat of the army of a Roman client tetrarch, in 36/37 c.e., Aretas IV is not going to be receiving any favours from Rome re having a special representative in Damascus. Thus, ‘Paul’s Damascus escape would have to be prior to 36 c.e. - which is cutting into the dating of his conversion. On top of which is the problem of Josephus having John the Baptist still alive prior to the war with between Aretas IV and Herod Antipas.

6. ‘Paul’s’ escape in a basket over the walls of Damascus has echoes of the Joshua’s spies being lowered over the walls of Jericho. Indicating that this story about ‘Paul’ is not historical.

7. Number symbolism: 100 years between Aretas III’s lose of Damascus to Pompey, around 63 b.c., and the victory of the army of Aretas IV over the army of Herod Antipas around 36/37 c.e.

8. Reading the text to be referencing Aretas IV with an ethnarch in Damascus during the early part of ‘Paul’s’ ministry is to read into the text something that is not there.

9. One can reject the text as an interpolation or view it as some sort of dramatic role play. In which case there is nothing whatsoever, in ‘Paul’s’ writing, by which to date his activities.

10. Reading the text as referencing Aretas III opens up a wider vista that allows more history to play a role in seeking early Christian origins - and also in understanding the history that underlies the NT pseudo-historical story-line.

aa5874

How can the Pauline writings be Canonized and still was known to be about some character that lived 100 years earlier??

In the Canonized Pauline writings, the timeline for the character called Jesus Christ cannot be 63 BCE. One must understand context and chronology.

The Jesus of the NT is established by the authors to have been in Galilee during the reign of Tiberius when Pilate was governor, Herod was tetrarch, and Caiaphas was High Priest.

It is the stories themselves that must be understood NOT what you IMAGINE could have happened.

The very Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to see Jesus, that he persecuted the Faith that he now preached and that there were apostles BEFORE him.

The question is rather simply.

When did the author under the name of Paul write those things???

Up to the mid 2nd century, apologetic sources like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Celsus and Aristdes did NOT know of the Pauline writings.

maryhelena

Come now,aa - lets not confuse history with the NT pseudo-history. The NT pseudo-history makes reference to an ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus. Historically, without any rationalizing to make Aretas fit ones assumptions re the NT pseudo-history, that reference fits with Aretas III and not Aretas IV.

From an ahistoricist/mythicist position that views the gospel JC as non-historical - there is neither rhyme nor reason - to assume the other NT figures are historical figures.

'Paul' neither lived in 63 b.c. nor in 36 c.e. Unless, of course, you have historical evidence to the contrary? Someone, somewhere, wrote the letters that are attributed to the NT 'Paul'. That is a very different claim than one that assumes that it was the NT 'Paul' that did this writing. Characters in a story can be made to do and say whatever the author so desires. It's history we have to get on the table - we have to get underneath the pseudo-history, the 'salvation history', if we are searching for the origins, the context, in which christian thinking/theology/philosophy arose.

Toto

On the contrary, this would make the Paul of the epistles a more credible character.

Please don't succumb to mythicist derangement syndrome, in which every argument is interpreted or misinterpreted as some argument for or against mythicism.