Toto

There may be reasons to think that Paul was a liar on some things, but he himself never claimed to have survived a poisonous snake bite or to have raised anyone from the dead. Those claims were made by the author of the book of Acts, who probably never met Paul, but who made Paul the hero of that obviously legendary account.

And it is not absolutely clear if Paul claimed that Jesus rose from the dead physically, or merely appeared spiritually or on some other plane of existence, or was speaking metaphorically, or if some later Christians added stuff to his letters. That's what Earl Doherty's book deals with.

HelenM

I agree - my point was that that was a false dichotomy.

It was IM's false dichotomy that if someone says they believe something he finds ludicrous, they are either [intentionally] lying or on drugs or insane. If you look back you'll see it was in his post. I agree with you that it's a false dichotomy - although I suppose it's a trichotomy actually.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

You error is in assuming that Paul believed what he allegedly said.

Ted Hoffman

I have always wondered - what exactly did Paul write if any? And how do we know it was him and not someone else writing (the epistles) as Paul?
How do we draw a clear distinction between Luke, Paul, the "author of Acts", Josephus as far as the Acts ane Luke are concerned?
How do we clearly draw a line between (1) one author writing the whole text [garblingly mixing midrash, literary devices, Greek genre and myth, imagination plus scant word of mouth info] (2) one writer using Pauls letters to write the text, one writer using Pauls letters to write the text but Lionizing Paul, (3) one writer using Pauls letters and Josephus' writings, (4)one writer using Pauls letters and Josephus' writings and adding some fiction, (5) Josephus writing [yes, I have heard some pretty radical views on authorship](6) Luke writing (7) Paul writing?

Especially bearing in mind that Acts makes no mention of Pauls famous letters.

Toto, whats your take on Paul on Trial by John Mauck where the author says that Luke was basically writing in defense of Paul - in a Lawyerly manner? Considering Luke and Acts were both written to Theophilus?
True, true. Pauls gnostic/platonic leanings do throw in a spanner in the works for an easy explanation on what Paul actually meant/believed.
But there is no actual reason to believe Paul's audience (if he had any) shared a similar gnostic/platonic mindset.

Its equally probable that Paul himself was a cheat and conman but that what we have is a hagiography crafted by an author well versed with Greek thought and philosophy and specifically Platonism.

What do you think?

Sauron

I can't post my latest response over at Tweb.com. It's over the 24k limit. But I posted it here, and linked to it over there.

Wonder how many of the feeble-minded will have the courage to watch their idol get his butt kicked....

Toto

Someone wrote the letters attributed to Paul. Let's call him Paul for convenience sake. There is general agreement that some of the letters attributed to Paul were written by him, although there might be "interpolations", and others were forged in his name. There is a fairly consistant persona that comes through the letters, and that is a good a basis for history as you will get.

Much later, someone wrote a fictionalized history of the early church (Acts) starring a character named "Saul" who became "Paul". This unknown author glamorized Paul, puffed him up, made him out to be an important person. I believe that this author had access to Paul's letters, but used them selectively, and also took background facts from Josephus.

Acts and Paul's letters differ to the point where there is no reason to think that Acts is at all accurate, or was intended to be accurate.

Sometime after this, the chuch fathers decided that Acts must have been written by Luke, who was a companion of Paul's. I don't think there is any truth to this.

Since Acts is fictional, there is no reason to believe that Paul was ever on trial at Rome, and no reason to write a brief for him. But Luke-Acts in some ways might be a brief for the new Christian religion.

Christian apologists usually explain the gnosticism in Paul's letters as part of his attempt to speak the language of his audience.

I think that Acts is hagiography. But there is also a tendency to blame Paul for everything that has gone wrong with the Christian church since the 3rd century, and I don't that will stand up to scrutiny. The enlightenment decided that Jesus was a good guy whose message had been messed up by his followers, and the first follower they could blame was Paul. But now that we know there was no Jesus we can appreciate Paul for what he was.

I am working on more on this, but other things keep coming up.

Dominus Paradoxum

HelenM, we do believe some of of the thing the Bible says, but not because the Bible said it; instead, we believe it if it is corroborated by independent evidence. For example, most scholars believe that there was a city of Troy, but not because Homer said there was, but rather because archaelogists have uncovered a city that matched his description. Believing in Troy while disbelieving in the greek Gods is not it "inconsistent", unless you are using that term in a novel sense of your own. Similarly, believing some accounts in the bible while rejecting others is not "inconsistent" because we do not base our belief in them on biblical testimony alone.

Ted Hoffman

Dominus Paradoxum ,
There has been talk of false dichotomies and the like. These pesky roots seem to run deep.

HelenM

Exactly! I realize that and that's exactly why I've been asking IM for corroborating evidence for his character assassination of Paul.

Helen