The historical Paul

[Jayhawker Soule]

You claim the quotations in Acts to be authentic?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you are of faith, Paul's words are the words of God, ...

And, therefore, there is nothing to debate. Such a perspective would seem to be wholly outside the domain of a debate forum.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

You claim the quotations in Acts to be authentic?

I claim nothing at this point in time. I will however say in the context of this discussion say that it shouldn't be overlooked when discussing Paul, or at least not dismiss Paul as the previous poster did so easily.
Is that not fair enough?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The claim is not being overlooked. It is being dismissed.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

And, therefore, there is nothing to debate. Such a perspective would seem to be wholly outside the domain of a debate forum.

Yet still it is one of the perspectives one will naturally wrestle with in their mind, when handling these topics.

It seems to me, that in any debate I have witnessed on religious topics, that when the God being or supernatural is taken out of the equation, the field becomes so dusty with anger and contempt, that little is solved or fruitful.

However, as you put it, there is nothing left to debate, when someone says "God did it".

Sensitive topics, nothing new about that.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The claim is not being overlooked. It is being dismissed.

By you, or Fallingblood?

 

[fallingblood]

Then can anyone give me any extra-canonical proof that the Epistles were written by the historical Paul?
Just affirming that there "cannot be any doubt" that Paul wrote the Epistles is no proof at all.
Who the real author of the so-called "undisputed" letters was, isn't clear, because we have no first century sources pointing in a historical Paul's direction.
Actually, we have absolutely nothing besides what is in the second century christian canon. Appealing to things that might have been there is no proof at all.

Paul is an invention of the person who wanted to set his ideology against the older one that mixed the Jewish law and the Jewish view of God with worship of Jesus.
His view is a more Gnostic one, where the physical Jesus and the Jewish law are pushed in the background and replaced by the Christ Jesus who lives in everyone who believes in him.

No doubt there were anecdotes about the first century Paul who must have left quite an impression in his time. But it is very unclear who that person really was if there is no connection to the second century fiction in the New Testament.

After the main body of the church centered on Rome had suppressed the Marcion branch, the letters were adapted and included in the canon as we know it today.

I really don't follow the logic you're using.

First, why do we need extra-canonical works to state that Paul is the author of the letters that he wrote? I don't need an different work telling me that Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings series. I don't need some extra work telling me that my mother wrote me a letter. In both cases, their signatures are left (either in writing styles and the like, or in actual signatures).

For Paul, we have documents that were written in the first century, before 70 C.E. We know this by looking at the letters, and seeing the situation that they were written in. They have been dated in the same manner that many ancient works are dated.

Then we have Paul, himself, telling us that he wrote these letters. Why would someone write fake letters in the name of Paul, if Paul wasn't at least known for writing such letters?

And after all that, we can compare the letters, and see which ones actually seem to be from the same hand, and which ones are not. As in, we can determine which one are most likely, most probable to have been written by Paul, and which ones were written in his name by other people. Actual research shows that Paul wrote letters, and that we have a handful of them.

As for you reason why Paul would be invented, that is just silly. Why write in the name of an invented character, when one could just write in their own name? Paul wasn't some special character. There was no reason to make him up. And Paul actually does mix Judaism and Jewish Law in which his teachings. In fact, Paul is a Jew.

Honestly, I don't think you have ever even read Paul. Because he never states that Jesus Christ lives in everyone, or does he push Jewish Law into the background. This seems like nothing more than a conspiracy theory. And I don't often use the term.

Probably one of the largest flaws in your argument is that the New Testament isn't a product of the second century. Again, we can trace Paul's writing to before 70 C.E. Rest of the NT was written in the first century as well. Some may have spilt over into the very early second century, but the vast majority, including the letters of Paul, are first century products.

 

[fallingblood]

Is this a normal type of comment for discussion of scholarship? In the light of the following verse?

If you read Paul, you will see that there are other missionaries to the Gentiles as well. Not to mention that there were many Christians who flat out rejected Paul. Then there were other Christians who remained Jewish. So your verse really doesn't negate what I said.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Does the anti-Paul lit like the pseudo-Clementines count has proof that Paul existed?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was Paul's name (Latin Paulus) Greek?

 

[Marcion]

I really don't follow the logic you're using.

First, why do we need extra-canonical works to state that Paul is the author of the letters that he wrote?

We do so because the New Testament is mainly fiction and apologetic stuff, so making historical claims using it, is impossible.

In both cases, their signatures are left (either in writing styles and the like, or in actual signatures).

That signature and that writing style doesn't mean a thing, there are many other pseudo-graphical signatures in the New Testament. It could just as well be the style of Marcion. My point is that there is no work of reference that can actually be placed in the first century.

They have been dated in the same manner that many ancient works are dated.

The dating is wrong.

Then we have Paul, himself, telling us that he wrote these letters. Why would someone write fake letters in the name of Paul, if Paul wasn't at least known for writing such letters?

Yes, that is a good question. Faking letters of people who were thought of as having contributed to the early movement was the norm in the second century. There was no need whatsoever for any "real" early historical letters. Besides that, the epistles aren't real letters at all, they are apologetic pamphlets imitating letters [quite poorly].

And after all that, we can compare the letters, and see which ones actually seem to be from the same hand, and which ones are not. As in, we can determine which one are most likely, most probable to have been written by Paul, and which ones were written in his name by other people. Actual research shows that Paul wrote letters, and that we have a handful of them.

That is no argument because if Marcion was the real author, then you are by that method merely telling which letters were by Marcion and which were written by his others in his church.

As for you reason why Paul would be invented, that is just silly. Why write in the name of an invented character, when one could just write in their own name? Paul wasn't some special character. There was no reason to make him up. And Paul actually does mix Judaism and Jewish Law in which his teachings. In fact, Paul is a Jew.

You don't understand the meaning of the signatures of the NT writings. Every writing or sub-text in the NT had to attributed to an "early" apostle or to Jesus himself even though such writings were largely absent. None of the people who knew Jesus wrote anything, but most NT writings were written in their names pseudo-graphically after the first century had passed.

If the reputation of Paul was known from anecdotes, this was a clever way to express your own "revealed" vision of the gospel. Not that this was any exception, they were all doing it that way when the different parts of the canon were being written in the second century. The orthodox catholic church accepted the letters [in adjusted form] precisely because no fixed canonical set of christian writings existed before Marcion's canon, there was only the Jewish canon and some loose gospels that had not yet acquired the status of holy scripture. Maybe the christian canon would never have come about if Marcion hadn't started making his, excluding the Jewish scriptures.

Honestly, I don't think you have ever even read Paul. Because he never states that Jesus Christ lives in everyone, or does he push Jewish Law into the background. This seems like nothing more than a conspiracy theory. And I don't often use the term.

He does do that over and over. I could make a separate tread about it, the writer of the original letters was definitely someone with gnostic or mystic beliefs.

Probably one of the largest flaws in your argument is that the New Testament isn't a product of the second century. Again, we can trace Paul's writing to before 70 C.E. Rest of the NT was written in the first century as well. Some may have spilt over into the very early second century, but the vast majority, including the letters of Paul, are first century products.

Then where are your proofs in genuine extra-canonical first century writings? Or even first century original fragments of the letters or gospels? There are none.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The dating is wrong.

Your evidence?

 

[Hawkeye112200]

If you read Paul, you will see that there are other missionaries to the Gentiles as well. Not to mention that there were many Christians who flat out rejected Paul. Then there were other Christians who remained Jewish. So your verse really doesn't negate what I said.

Which Christians flat out rejected Paul? I realize some were afraid at first, but please explain.

I never said other people weren't teaching Gentiles, I just pointed out that a book that has a lot to say about Paul, explains he was to be particularly important to the gentiles. So, what you are saying doesn't make much sense... yet! I would appreciate some more elaboration if you don't mind. Thanks.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Which Christians flat out rejected Paul? I

Ebionites, Nazoreans, some Gnostics...

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Ebionites, Nazoreans, some Gnostics...

OK, so he was refering to outside of the bible perhaps. If so, I apologize. Thank you Cynthia.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

Ebionites, Nazoreans, some Gnostics...

Maybe you can answer this for me. After I thought about this a bit. Isn't it true that in part the data we have concerning Ebionites and Nazoreans is scarce, and there is no consent that they all rejected Paul? Now, I don't mean modern day messianic Jews, but those we have records for in first/second century.

If you have some source I am not aware of, I wouldn't mind taking a look.

 

[outhouse]

Ebionites, Nazoreans, some Gnostics...

and more then likely the original apostles

 

[Hawkeye112200]

and more then likely the original apostles

I doubt it. I have spent enough time studying the Epistles and the NT in general, that the intricacies of what Paul taught had to be humbling to the other apostles. of course IMO.

Even though Peter is not generally credited with writing Peter, we read.

Take for example 2 Peter Ch 3 starting at vs 15

[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[outhouse]

I doubt it. I have spent enough time studying the Epistles and the NT in general, that the intricacies of what Paul taught had to be humbling to the other apostles. of course IMO.

Even though Peter is not generally credited with writing Peter, we read.

Take for example 2 Peter Ch 3 starting at vs 15

so the roman authors writing peter were talking good things about their roman brother paul??


amazing lol


how many apostles did pauil kill in 3 years when it was a very small movement??

 

[Hawkeye112200]

how many apostles did pauil kill in 3 years when it was a very small movement??

Apostles? Paul didn't kill anyone directly that I know of, but was consenting to certain deaths. Mostly of the followers. Though there was one account of Stephen, and Paul most likely sanctioned that.