James The Least

Yes, quite easily, as a matter of fact:

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church ... God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Col 1:24-27)

I'm sure you can make sense of this gobbeldygook, but not everyone is so equipped in secret Christian voodoo as you are. Christ's afflictions lacked something ... good thing Paul came along to "complete" them. And only the Gentiles have been chosen by God to make this "mystery" known. Screw the Jews, except the handful of obedient ones like Paul. Oops, I mean, the "Deutero-Pauline" ghost writer. :Cheeky:

aa5874

entered in error

Toto

I feel like you really don't understand the issues.

What is the point of this thread? There is absolutely no evidence outside of Christian theological documents for the existence of Paul or someone essentially like the character in Acts. So how can someone debunk the idea that there was no historical Paul? There's nothing to debunk.

PS. - I think you mean "orthodox" not Orthodox.

sotto voce

Hahaaaaah.

The old Pharisee very likely has this in mind:

'Record my lament; list my tears on your scroll — are they not in your record?' Ps 56:8 NIV

So it is not so much that the author, in vexation, makes an accountant's record of unjust injuries to himself (not to Christ), as that he reminds his readers that all who follow Christ must take the consequences of concomitant unpopularity.

There is rejoicing at this suffering because it confirms valid faith. There is also (as thought) the parallel of Paul's body suffering for the sake of Christ's body, the church; which, if Paul had persecuted the church, was some sort of due recompense in his own mind. But those are not directly OT, but are indirect, necessary consequences of OT.

In v 27, the sending of the gospel to the Gentiles is well attested in the OT:

'He says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."' Isa 49:6 NIV

You see? There's nowt new in the NT.

aa5874

Well, if there is so little hard information why are people dogmatic that the Pauline writings are early.

Many Scholars are extremely dogmatic and argue or accept the Pauline writings are early but FAIL to tell people that it is based on Speculation.

The FACT is that there really is NO evidence at all in the Canon that the Pauline writings were composed BEFORE 68 CE--None.

Early Pauline writings are a product of Chinese Whispers because the author of Acts and the very Pauline writer did NOT EVER state that any Pauline letter was composed Before the Fall of the Temple.

How did Scholars and so-called Historians manage to be dogmatic about early Paul when we ALL know there is "so little hard evidence"??

But, how do you know this forum had its heyday??

James The Least

Yes, I'm aware that including Gentiles in the Judean religion is noted in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is not at all the same thing as "the gospel" of "Christ Jesus, which is the end of the Law," as one of the many Pauls insists on several occasions. A Pharisaic writer who thinks that the Hebrew scriptures are meant exclusively for the Gentiles whom God has chosen, as Col 1:27 makes clear, is not a writer who understands the scriptures or Jewish religion at all. In fact, he sounds exactly like a Christian apologist pretending to be a "Hebrew of the Hebrews, from the Tribe of Benjamin, Circumcised on the Eighth Day, and I even have my bar mitzvah tallit to prove it! So I'm uber-authentic!" This is a literary ruse known as protesting too much, something that never happens in authentic Jewish writings of the period -- but of course to you it doesn't matter how many Pauls there were or how much protesting they did. Only a Pharisee would know how to abuse the Hebrew scriptures.

sotto voce

Incorrect. There is and was no religion of Judea.

So some say. If Christians are true Jews, it doesn't matter what they say. Does it.

The issue is whether the Col passage refers to the OT, not whether people calling themselves Jews agree with it. Now we agree that the Colossians passage refers to the OT, and if you haven't got any other suspects, we can leave this particular topic.

Piffle. :facepalm:

TedM

I said "arguments", not necessarily "evidence". I'm looking for reasonable arguments. However, one theoretically can provide evidence: a display of knowledge of 1st century places and customs (and people) that had changed by the 2nd century would certainly be considered evidence.

There are implications to claiming Paul never started the Gentile churches and wrote to some of them in the 1st century. Someone obviously wrote the epistles. Those who claim Paul is fiction need to have a reasonable reconstruction of Gentile Christianity in light of his absence and in light of everything written about Paul, including Acts, or by 'Paul'. Every mention of Paul by the Church fathers would need to fit into this reconstruction. If one cannot be made, it is unlikely that the theory is accurate. My 5 arguments allude to the problems that arise from the fictional Paul theory. I was asking for input to flesh out those problems and provide new ideas too.

Toto

Only if all memory of them had been erased in the 2nd century.

I don't know what you think needs to be explained. The "gentile" church is missing from the historical record until the early part of the second century at best. Acts was a later attempt to reconstruct the origins of this gentile church, but the best non-apologetic scholarly treatment places its date at some point in the second century. Acts clearly tries to harmonize different factions of the church, which Paul's letters present as fighting with each other over table fellowship.

If you think that Paul wrote in the mid-first century, you create the extra problems for yourself of explaining what happened after 60 CE. How did these gentile churches survive without leaving a trace? Was there no evolution in their thinking? What took people so long to collect Paul's letters? Do you seriously believe that they are the originals, untouched by catholic redactors??

TedM

Paul's letters. Who wrote them, why, and when.

All references to Paul's letters -- and whether the references were valid or not (ie Ignatius for example).

The relationship between the letters according to Marcion vs orthodox. Who changed what, why and when.

Why Acts differs from Paul's letters.

A bunch of things need to be explained by any theory, including that of Paul's non-existence.

We know the orthodox explanations and for the most part they make sense. I've yet to hear a fictional Paul explanation and am curious as to whether one can be produced that actually makes sense.