LegionOnomaMoi

This, however, involves several fallacies:

1) The assumption of a demarcation between theological literature and ancient biography, history, letters, etc.

2) The use of "character" applied to letters, a genre in which the term is almost always (even in pseudepigraphical letters) inapplicable, misleading, and/or inaccurate.

What historical text did not reference gods, myths, etc.?

aa5874

Your statement that there is no conceivable reason that certain events in the Epistles could be made is completely unsubstantiated. Scholars themselves have argued that the Pauline writings have more than one author so it is highly likely that events in the Epistles may have fabricated to give the impression that Paul lived BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Toto

The usual assumption is that there was one author who wrote a few letters, an editor who heavily edited them, followed by later editors who did more editing and forgers who added new letters. It doesn't break down so easily.

MrMacSon

1. There is generally "a demarcation between theological literature and non-theological ancient biography, history, letters, etc.". To say there isn't is, in turn, special pleading.

2. "applied to letters"? I am applying it to theological literature whether alleged "letters" or not.

3. Of course historical text often referenced gods, myths, etc. so what, most of it is not almost purely theological literature like the Bible.

Yes, Pilate is an exception, but he is referenced in non-theological literature.

It is fallacy to say because Pilates was real, all other characters in the biblical literature could be real. Each character must be dealt with on individual merits. The James in the non-biblical literature may not be the same James in the biblical and apocryphal literature, as with the mention of Jesus in non-biblical literature - it was a common name at the time. Josephus mentions a second - Jesus of Damneus.

... The texts have clearly been added to and embellished over many, many years, and none of the central characters or alleged authors are unknown outside their texts. These texts and characters would not be considered historical if the subsequent religion had not been gained the status it had, despite its highly dubious origins.

To say the texts and their origins are significant because the subsequent religion has been a significant belief system is the fallacy of appealing to consequences.

aa5874

We all are asking for CORROBORATIVE sources for an historical Paul. We already know that it has been PRESUMED some Pauline letters were written before c 70 CE BUT we are NOT interested in the number of people who have presumed.

We just want CORROBORATION from credible non-apologetic sources.

In the very Pauline letters Paul claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith so Paul cannot be the First to preach the Faith. Galatians 1

In the very Pauline letters Paul claimed he SAW resurrected Jesus LAST AFTER over 500 people, AFTER the James, AFTER ALL the Apostles. See 1 Cor 15.

There is ZERO credible historical sources that show that Paul persecuted Christians of a Jesus cult in Jerusalem and Judea before c 70 CE.

Grog

I have been interested in Marcion's relation to the Paulina for some time now. Setting aside whether or not Marcion actually existed, we know that apologists claimed he did and also credited him with first gathering Paul's collection of letters. We also know that Tertullian accused him of altering the text of Paul's letters. We don't know, though, what Paul's (supposing a real Paul) original letters might have said. We can't really weigh Tertullian's letters vs. Marcion's because we don't know what might have existed before Marcion.

However, this leads to the question of how this collection came to be in the first place. How, if one supposes he did, would Marcion have collected these letters? He certainly had access to sea travel, but the time involved, the scope of tracking down letters and the fact that the letters had actually been preserved raises a number of improbabilities (I am not a follower of Detering, by the way, I do lean toward the proposition that there was a Paul and there are authentic letters). In an age when writings were very rare and the ability to make copies and promulgate them limited to the 1% (really much less), one has to wonder how these letters from an itinerant preacher to newly founded churches, that didn't have even a designated place of worship let alone established scriptoria...we are confronted with improbability upon improbability. Maybe someone can correct me on these points. I do hope so, because based on this, I really have no good reason to cling to an authentic "Paul" whoever that might have been.

On the other hand, if there were no "Paul" why would anyone care about letters written by someone so named? Unless there was some sort of Paul that could command attention (yes, I read the fairy tale Paul posts), there would be no reason to give authority to letters written by a Paul.

The argument that there is a genuine voice behind the letters, fails. The voice need not be authentic, it could be invented. Therefore we can't rely on that.

We know little about these letters. We don't know where they came from. We don't know how they were collected. We don't know why they were collected. We don't know when they were collected. We don't know who collected them. We don't know the occasion for which they were collected.

Lots of questions with no real answers. I would have to say that any theory of christian origins based on these letters (including my own) is subject to a great weakness, actually a fatal one.

Still...we have to work with what we have.

LegionOnomaMoi

Then pretty much every historian of the ancient world is guilty of it, quite apart from those who deal with Jewish or Christian texts. But as you disagree, perhaps you would care to share what model of genre/register you are using, and how your application of it successfully distinguishes theological literature from non-theological using a logically sound empirical method?

And how many Greek or Roman letters have you read?

The bible isn't purely theological. It is filled with myth, legend, and some history. The origins of Greek history are myth. And they continued to contain myth and legend throughout, and this practice was continued by hellenistic "historians." "biography" in the ancient world was a special kind of story-telling, in which "legendary" figures capable of all sorts of wonders, from Alexander to Augustus to Jesus to Apollonius, were described through a particular type of narrative.

aa5874

When people here are challenged to produce evidence or credible sources for the history of Paul all of a sudden I get statements that are NO different to those who have FAITH in the Bible.

However under scrutiny, the Pauline writer is surrounded and engulfed in forgeries, fraud and fiction.

The very first thing that is noticed is that Acts of the Apostles although deduced to be written Long After c 70 CE it does NOT included the supposed Martyrdom of Paul under Nero but it contains the supposed martyrdom of Stephen and James.

Secondly, the author of Acts did NOT ever state that Paul wrote letters to churches but it claims the Jerusalem church wrote letters which Paul and his group delivered.

1. We have ZERO corroboration that Paul wrote letters and NO corroboration for his death.

2. The Pauline corpus was composed by multiple authors using the name Paul.

3. Letters to and from Paul to Seneca to corroborate the Pauline writer are found to be forgeries.

4. The anonymous letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement of Rome which mentioned Paul is fraudulent. Clement of the bishop of Rome is a fiction character.

5. A letter of Ignatius mentioned Paul but the Ignatius letters are also questionable.

6. Irenaeus mentioned Paul but "Against Heresies" is a product of multiple authors and bogus information with respect to the dating, authorship and chronology of the NT Canon.

7. Apologetic sources do NOT know when Paul lived--it is claimed Paul was executed under Nero [before c 68 CE] but he was still ALIVE after gLuke was composed probably after 85 CE.

8. A Pauline writer claimed he received certain instrctions from the resurrected Jesus which Must be False and those instructions are ONLY found in gLuke.

9. The Pauline writings contain information that is found AFTER gMark was composed--in gMatthew the supposed disciples met Jesus in Galilee after the resurrection but in gLuke they met the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem and stayed there. A Pauline writer met the disciples in Jerusalem.

10. The Pauline writer is aware of the Commission to preach the Gospel found ONLY in Gospels AFTER gMark was written. The Short-Ending gMark does NOT contain the Commission to preach the Gospel.

11. The short-ending gMark, the long-ending gMark and gMatthew have NOTHING from the Pauline letters.

12. The Pauline writings [P 46] have been dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

It is completely unreasonable to accept the words of Paul alone, a most questionable source, to determine past events.

No Scholar, Historian, or Amateur can provide any evidence, any credible source whatsoever to show that Paul did exist before c 70 CE and that he wrote a letter to a church in the Roman Empire.

LegionOnomaMoi

So far, every so-called "credible source" you've referenced contains and should be dismissed.

aa5874

You cannot provide any Historical corroborative source for Paul so please stop wasting my time.

Do you know of Myth Fables and forgeries that are credible??

I FORGOT HJers use Myth Fables as credible sources and forgeries for THEIR Jesus and Paul.

The NT Canon is a Compilation of Myth Fables about Satan, the Devil, evil spirits, demons, angels, the angel Gabriel, Beelzebub, the Holy Ghost, God, and the Son of a Ghost called Jesus the creator of heaven and earth, who walked on water, resurrected and ascended.

The Pauline writer must have lied when he claimed he met Apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother.

Jesus of the NT did NOT exist. Jesus of Galatians was NOT human. LOOK at Galatians 1.

Paul is a LIAR and even apologetic sources claimed James the apostle had NO human brother called Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr did NOT write about Paul, his letters, Churches or his revelation from the resurrected Jesus.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed Paul IMITATED his predecessor John and wrote his Epistles.

The ENTIRE CANON was Composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.