Clivedurdle

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=205374

The relationships to the true gods needs exploring further.

Clivedurdle

And a detailed look at the "real" Pauline letters and those attributed to him.

Why did he not write to Tarsus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsus_(city)

TedM

You are saying that "someone" or "someones" could have writtten the "Pauline" epistles in the first century during the time Paul is now believed to have lived. If it was someONE, it might as well have been Paul. The multiple writer theory could be true, but the authentic epistles are quite consistent, and they allude to people and places found in the other epistles. One author sounds much more reasonable than multiple ones to me.


Possibly. If this is the case, how would you answer my other 9 questions? Why not interpolate in the 12 disciples, Jesus' sayings and doings, the Roman church, etc..?



Isn't he talking about the Gospels here?

Is this primarily because you don't find early references to Paul outside of the NT? Or because of the gospel reference by Justin, or something else?


Why "heavily"? What suggests that?

Wouldn't the churches in Corinth, Thessalonia, Galatia, etc.. have refuted the idea of an unknown Paul as their founder? Don't you think--especially with epistles written to and about them by someone else--they would have known how they began by the time Acts was written?

ted

schilling.klaus

no, they aren't, they are senseless scribbles
corrupting the works of Marcion.

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

But, some biblical scholars have already deduced that the "Pauline" epistles had more than one author, so I can claim that it is more reasonable to consider that the epistles had multiple authors.

I did not make any claim that the epistles were written when Paul should have lived, my claim is that the epistles appear to have been written and the authors seem not to be known up to or around Justin Martyr's First Apology. And Justin Martyr did not mention any epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, etc.. or to any person in all his extant writings, he referred to them only as memoirs of the apostles.

The word "authentic" is a misnomer with respect to the epistles, there is no known original epistle confirmed to be written by "Paul" and the epistles themselves can be easily manipulated.


So why didn't the Churches refute the 3hr darkness at crucifixion, the star at the birth of Jesus, the ascension, the resurrection, the virgin birth, the temptation with the Devil, the transfiguration, the raising of Lazarus from the dead after four days and feeding thousands of people with a few bread and fish?

It would appear to me that believers believe whatever they are told to believe.

And when did the Churches realize that there were epistles addressed to them? In which century did they ever see those "Pauline" epistles? And are there any records to show that the Churches did receive these epistles?

TedM

Hi Klaus. If you don't mind providing a few examples of the inconsistencies which support the idea of multiple authors for the "authentic Pauline" epistles, I'd appreciate it.

ted

TedM

I'm not aware that scholars would say that of the "authentic" epistles. If they do, can you provide a source?


Sorry. I misunderstood then.

I'd have to read it. Did he quote? I thought he at least paraphrased the gospels--and his reference to apostles was in connection with that.


If it happened later as you suggest, I'd like to know how you respond to my questions 2-10. Those silences are glaring enough to me to point to a much earlier date--prior to the gospels.




The founder of your church is a lot more basic a concept in my mind.


Ok. Fair point. If you think they were falsified later and by multiple authors, I'd like to know your thoughts about my 9 other questions.

ted

aa5874

The fourteen epistles supposedly written by "Paul" were all regarded as authentic until some biblical scholars deduced that the pastorals and others were written by at least a different author.

Now bearing this in mind, it then becomes extremely difficult to determine who "Paul" was and what exactly he wrote.

In Church History 2.22.6 by Eusebius, for example, this problem becomes obvious.

Church History 2.22.6 So, if this "Paul" of Church History did not write the second epistle of Timothy, as some scholars contend, who really is "Paul".

The "Paul" in 2Timothy claimed he was imprisoned, but he is different to another "Paul" in Corinthians who also claimed he too was imprisoned. The "Paul" in 2Timothy knows "Luke" but this "Paul" is different to the "Paul" in Colosians who claims to also know "Luke". And if "Luke" really was with the author of 2Timothy and his name was actually "Paul", who were the authors of the other epistles to the Churches?

I do not consider any of the epistles to be authentic since it cannot be determined who "Paul" actually was and what he actually wrote.

TedM

Ok. Sounds to me like you choose to be skeptical here without addressing the scholarship position. You know, scholarship has become a lot more critical over the years, and yet there seems to be widespread agreement that "Paul" wrote 7 or so of the epistles when tradition says he did. This isn't simply because they want to believe it, though I'll admit that I dont' know all of the arguments to support their positions--probably literary style, theological style, certain references that show an accurate understanding of the regions and cultures of that day, etc..

I was at least hoping you would address my questions which seem to be relevant to your skeptical position, as without considering those issues it seems to me you have no coherency in your position--preferring to doubt because you want to doubt and because of a lack of certain evidences and some ambiguities (Justin, the existence of some epistles that are possibly inauthentic, etc...). That being said, you of course may be correct.

ted

Toto

Scholarship is not that unanimous. If you don't know what the scholarship is based on, you can't rely on it. The scholars who are willing to accept the possibility of interpolations in Paul find lots of probably interpolations.

I don't know that any "references that show an accurate understanding of the regions and cultures of that day" have been identified. There are references that indicate that the writer of the letters was familiar with Greco-Roman theater and culture. There is a lot of dispute over whether he understood Jewish culture.