The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[outhouse]

Ancient history concerns itself much less with facts and far more with story.

.

So true.

The rhetorical prose gave them artistic freedom to manipulate these stories whole cloth to persuade readers to keep turning pages.

 

[Tabb]

You do realize that this is a thread with a topic, right?

I made a few points against the idea that Paul was on Rome's payroll, the author amended his opinion to 'favors' and I stated that my points were still valid. And they are.

The assertion that Paul was in any way paid by Rome flies in the face of basic Roman custom and the author couldn't situate it within any historical framework.

Then you pop in with irrelevant crap about citizenship. And take the thread off topic with baseless comments about me personally based on my reaction to the irrelevant crap you posted.

Now I have pretty thick skin, and it's almost a given that I'm not only *a lot* smarter than you but I've been around this block a few times. Now I don't mind that you are so obstinate that you don't even know that you're making an *** out of yourself. So keep it up.

And you continue to do it. Even to the point of adding personal attacks. So is your point that Paul was a homicidal maniac and we should leave it at that? Still not addressing the point that he was a less than savory character that wrote half the book. As you pointed out that this thread had a topic. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.

You know what I like about Outhouse. He's a poster that lets you know where he stands. He doesn't like Islam and he's a stickler for references. There isn't much he and I agree on but when our debates are over I usually walk away with something I learned. You my friend may of been around the block a couple of times( So have I) but you still hold onto your belief of Santa. Your personal attacks have no affect on my stupidity. Instead of attacking me and others how about using that superior intellect and defending Paul Or Saul.

 

[Shad]

I think there was a historical figure named Paul who wrote epistles, started churches in Gentile territory and acted as a church authority. I think a lot of the details outlined in Acts are purely fiction, conjured to make for a good story.

Remember: Ancient history is a far different animal from modern history. Modern history concerns itself with preservation of facts and minutae. Ancient history concerns itself much less with facts and far more with story. Ancient history is concerned with large movements in history, and is not above making up details to illustrate those large movements. Luke-Acts is about the known world, and how it changed with the coming and aftermath of Jesus. Details of Paul have been fabricated or enhanced in order to "make the story better.

I am just speculating a link between the city and citizenship.

 

[sojourner]

Your personal attacks have no affect on my stupidity.

Affect? Methinks "effect" is more effective here, although stupidity is certainly affective.

he was a less than savory character that wrote half the book.

27 books in the NT (66 total). Of those, Paul wrote 7. Do the math 7 is not half of 66 -- or even 27.

 

[sojourner]

I am just speculating a link between the city and citizenship.

Citizenship doesn't matter. It's not cogent to the topic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Don't hold your breath...

I never do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, I've done my search and I'm satisfied. I don't think that there's any record in the church fathers of someone either saying that Paul is an anti-Christ OR the fathers accusing enemies of the church or heretics of saying the same thing.

Now that's the first 450 years of Christianity.

I know it goes without saying, but it's not in any of the Gnostic literature, the non-canonical Christian apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, or the Marcionite canon.

I would love to know if anyone else finds it in the very off chance that I missed it.

Otherwise, the issue is pretty much settled: the idea of Paul being the anti-Christ is unknown to Christianity, at least within the historical framework that would lend any credibility to the argument that early Christians thought that he was.

 

[outhouse]

I would love to know if anyone else finds it in the very off chance that I missed it.
.

They had pseudepigrapha in my class that was not early but trashed Paul.

He was a temple guard who was in love with a daughter of someone high up, and all the hate and trimming that go with it.

few others showed no favor for him as well. Sort of a mixed bag of negativity.


But no anti Christ, I thought it was rather laughable.

 

[Tabb]

Affect? Methinks "effect" is more effective here, although stupidity is certainly affective.


27 books in the NT (66 total). Of those, Paul wrote 7. Do the math 7 is not half of 66 -- or even 27.

Read what I wrote genius. "Fourteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul".

I didn't create that statement its verbatim from Wikipedia genius.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They had pseudepigrapha in my class that was not early but trashed Paul.

He was a temple guard who was in love with a daughter of someone high up, and all the hate and trimming that go with it.

few others showed no favor for him as well. Sort of a mixed bag of negativity.


But no anti Christ, I thought it was rather laughable.

Yeah, I didn't look past 450.

I think that you're thinking about Paul and Thecla. It gives a humble appearance for Paul (and I believe the most detailed early description, even if it is fictitious, it stuck in Christian tradition till today) in a prison setting, but not a low opinion of his teachings.

But if you recall anything else about the story, I'd love to read it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Read what I wrote genius. "Fourteen of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul". I never said he wrote it.
I didn't create that statement its verbatim from Wikipedia genius.

Once... twice... three times a genius. :beach:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread for Angellousia!

 

[outhouse]

But if you recall anything else about the story, I'd love to read it.

Its in my Harvard class, I can go back through and source it.


I do know its 200-400 CE though, for me early is first century.

I find little of use past 125 CE ish.

 

[Tabb]

Once... twice... three times a genius. :beach:

Ok I did say "wrote" but I should of said "responsible for". I did correct that. Oh by the way I did like your statement about your search for anything to prove Paul's deception. It was informative. I don't think you can find any statement negative about Paul in Christian literature. Just like you won't find negative statements about Muhammad in Islamic literature.

I still disagree with you about Paul. I agree with Islam in calling him "a deceiver of the Christians". I believe he distorted Yeshua's teachings to make it more acceptable for Gentiles. Jews aren't that fond of him either. I'm not trying to convince you of Paul's deception, just like you will never convince those of us that question Paul's veracity.

 

[outhouse]

Paul and Thecla

.

I dont think so.

Ill see if I can login and check

 

[outhouse]

You know what I like about Outhouse. .

Thanks but honestly, he helped set me straight when I first started.

It was his words that made me see things enough to stop me down the wrong road.


There is quite the knowledge there and if you even 1/4 polite he shares. Its more then most with that education.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Its in my Harvard class, I can go back through and source it.


I do know its 200-400 CE though, for me early is first century.

I find little of use past 125 CE ish.

That sounds about right. One of us is remembering it incorrectly-- I really hope it's you.

I'm sticking with Paul and Thecla - that's my best guess.

I've read the Christian pseudipigrapha many times - but it is possible that there's a few writings that are excluded from my collections.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I dont think so.

Ill see if I can login and check

I really do appreciate that kindness. Thanks. If you can't find it, I'll thumb through my notes again. Not a big deal - but it's just something that would keep me awake at night.

 

[outhouse]

- but it's just something that would keep me awake at night.

I have to literally watch the classes 2-3 times for it to sink in fully. It puts me to sleep.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok I did say "wrote" but I should of said "responsible for". I did correct that. Oh by the way I did like your statement about your search for anything to prove Paul's deception. It was informative. I don't think you can find any statement negative about Paul in Christian literature. Just like you won't find negative statements about Muhammad in Islamic literature.

You're incorrect about that assumption. There were many divisions in early Christianity, and early Christians wrote about their enemies -- that is, all the other sects that didn't eventually 'Romanize' and become the orthodox church. Now these Christian writers characterize their opponents - sometimes incorrectly and most of the time, correctly. In this vast body of literature, we would expect to find some sect that the Christians criticize as mistaking Paul for the anti-Christ, if it indeed existed.

And if we look at the first four centuries, we have all of the writing before Constantine, when the other sects lost influence and focus in Christian apologetics.

Also, four hundred years is enough time for conflicting traditions to mature... that is, if a writer from the first century preserved the tradition that Paul was the anti-Christ, then it would be repeated throughout later Christianity -- if indeed the tradition had traction. In this case, if a tradition did exist that labeled Paul an anti-Christ, it was completely insignificant and did not survive.