It is currently Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:49 pm
Posts: 11
Ken Humphreys and you should read "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. Saul was "consenting in the death" of "Stephen" because "Stephen" was JAMES, and not Stephen. It occurred in 62 BCE, long after Jesus was gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Paul the Apostle Full Movie*

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:53 pm
Posts: 9
i just watched a video debate between ken humphreys and habermas in which habermas gives the "accepted" dates of paul as follows:

two years post crucifixion--his conversion
5 years post crucifixion--the first epistles


this sounds all well and good, but a moment's reflection brings up something interesting. paul is a former self-professed persecutor of the christians. well given that his conversion is so close to jesus' death, just how big was christianity that believers in jesus had their own detractors? my readings on the era explain that during that time the christians were indistinguishable from jews....and jews were treated fairly.

but let's assume that paul, or saul at this point, had heard of christians and was hell bent on persecuting them. this puts his persecutions almost assuredly being contemporaneous with the life of jesus. the only way for this to happen is for him to have encountered enough people who had heard jesus speak and persecute them. that puts him only a couple of degrees of separation from the man himself. furthermore, if he were such an avid persecutor during the life of jesus, it follows that he would have surely attended his crucifixion and witnessed the wonders of it (the massive eclipse that lasted three hours and the zombie apocalypse). yet none of this firsthand information makes it into the epistles. paul writes his provenance to christianity as "i was really into persecuting them until i had a vision on the road one day." why would he have left out the real meat to his witness? that would be like me trying to sell you elvis's underwear by telling you that i found them on the street with his name on the waistband.....when in reality i had seen elvis take said underwear off and give them to me!!

but let's assume, for charity's sake, that saul was late to the party. maybe he didn't start feeding christians to kitties until after jesus died. what do we think transpired during these persecutions? did the christians try to explain their faith at all to saul? is it reasonable to think that saul had not heard the story of jesus of nazareth umpteen times during his persecutions? it is simply impossible that he was unfamiliar with the man. so the epistles portray a man trying to convince believers in other cities that his version of christ is true, yet he fails to use any of his own personal experiences to bolster his message other than claims of "direct revelation" by god.

there are only two responsible conclusions to make from this.

1. early christians did not believe in a historical jesus, so saul would have never heard of him during his persecutions. he only would know of christ as spiritual son of god. this is the most favorable reading for the historicity of paul, yet it is damning for the case for jesus.

2. there never was a paul, hence the inconsistencies with the story.

from this it appears christians are on the horns of a pretty nasty dilemma. they must choose who didn't exist, paul or jesus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
The following post someone circulated on my Christ Con Yahoo group sounds like good reasoning.

I would submit that the story of the trip to the East - as possibly based on midrash - was included in the "life" of the fictional composite "Paul" because it was a tale told about Apollonius of Tyana and/or Pythagoras, etc.

As we can see, the biblical tales are based demonstrably on pre-Christian mythology, legends and midrash.

It's good to see other people thinking in this manner.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/apollonius.html

Quote:
In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.

Quote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jake <jacobjonesiv@yahoo.com>
To: JesusMysteries@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: [JesusMysteries] Paul in Damascus?


In Galatians, we read of Paul's alleged trip to Damascus.

We should not imagaine that a historical Paul ever did such a thing. Paul's alleged trip to Damscus is midrash on Elijah's attempts to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The "Arabia" and "Damascus" details explain what has puzzled scholars who look for history in Galatians.

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul when he encounters the risen Christ (Acts 9). Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise, Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus. That is the source of Paul's alleged association with Damascus, "midrash" (loosely defined). It is very much of the same thing that was used to create the fictional life of Jesus.

It is evident that Galatians 1 was written after Acts 9 because Gal 1:17 states Paul returned to Damascus. Returned? Galatians doesn't mention Damascus before this. It was mentioned in Acts 9:3. These texts evolved "in conversation" with each other. This is supported by the fact that the so-called biographical details of Acts 9 and Galatians 1 in conjunction were derived from Elijah in 1 Kings 18 and 19. See message 42280.

2 Cor. 11:32 contains the story of Paul escaping from Damascus. The "lowering in a basket" has all the elements of a folk tale based on the motif of the hero being lowered to escape his enemies.

In the archives, a strong case was presented by Sid Green and Dennis that 2 Cor. 11:32 is an interpolation. I have trouble with the idea that Damascus was under control of Aretas in 38/39 CE. And that is explicitly what 2 Corinthians 11:32 states.

Nabataean control of Damascus by Aretas IV has never been established from any external sources. Instead, defenders of the biblical text twist all historical facts to try to save the accuracy of this, one of the very few historical anchors in the Pauline Corpus.

The only King Aretas who was documented to have had such authority in Damascus was Aretas III. In 84 BCE he conquered Damascus (BJ 1.4.8) and in 65 BCE besieged Jerusalem. But he broke off when the Romans appeared (BJ 1.6.3). The redactor of 2 Corinthinas has conflated Aretas III and Aretas IV from Josephus. It wouldn't be the first time a New Testament writer misread Josephus. In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.

Jake Jones IV

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:50 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:49 pm
Posts: 11
Acharya wrote:
The following post someone circulated on my Christ Con Yahoo group sounds like good reasoning.

I would submit that the story of the trip to the East - as possibly based on midrash - was included in the "life" of the fictional composite "Paul" because it was a tale told about Apollonius of Tyana and/or Pythagoras, etc.

As we can see, the biblical tales are based demonstrably on pre-Christian mythology, legends and midrash.

It's good to see other people thinking in this manner.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/apollonius.html

Quote:
In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.

Quote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jake <jacobjonesiv@yahoo.com>
To: JesusMysteries@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: [JesusMysteries] Paul in Damascus?


In Galatians, we read of Paul's alleged trip to Damascus.

We should not imagaine that a historical Paul ever did such a thing. Paul's alleged trip to Damscus is midrash on Elijah's attempts to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The "Arabia" and "Damascus" details explain what has puzzled scholars who look for history in Galatians.

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul when he encounters the risen Christ (Acts 9). Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise, Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus. That is the source of Paul's alleged association with Damascus, "midrash" (loosely defined). It is very much of the same thing that was used to create the fictional life of Jesus.

It is evident that Galatians 1 was written after Acts 9 because Gal 1:17 states Paul returned to Damascus. Returned? Galatians doesn't mention Damascus before this. It was mentioned in Acts 9:3. These texts evolved "in conversation" with each other. This is supported by the fact that the so-called biographical details of Acts 9 and Galatians 1 in conjunction were derived from Elijah in 1 Kings 18 and 19. See message 42280.

2 Cor. 11:32 contains the story of Paul escaping from Damascus. The "lowering in a basket" has all the elements of a folk tale based on the motif of the hero being lowered to escape his enemies.

In the archives, a strong case was presented by Sid Green and Dennis that 2 Cor. 11:32 is an interpolation. I have trouble with the idea that Damascus was under control of Aretas in 38/39 CE. And that is explicitly what 2 Corinthians 11:32 states.

Nabataean control of Damascus by Aretas IV has never been established from any external sources. Instead, defenders of the biblical text twist all historical facts to try to save the accuracy of this, one of the very few historical anchors in the Pauline Corpus.

The only King Aretas who was documented to have had such authority in Damascus was Aretas III. In 84 BCE he conquered Damascus (BJ 1.4.8) and in 65 BCE besieged Jerusalem. But he broke off when the Romans appeared (BJ 1.6.3). The redactor of 2 Corinthinas has conflated Aretas III and Aretas IV from Josephus. It wouldn't be the first time a New Testament writer misread Josephus. In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.

Jake Jones IV



Acharya,

fascinating stuff, for sure. I want to hear more on Paul, as I also suspect he is fictional. I just finished rewriting my book, The Bible says 'Saviors' - Obadiah 1:21. I want to send it to you to read at your leisure. It is in the vein of Robert Eisenman (a friend of mine now), who wrote "James the Brother of Jesus". In my book, chapter Six, the newly added chapter, I show TEN characters who cover for James, to write him out of history. I just today found another one in Eisenman's new book, James and the Dead Sea Scrolls Vol 1: Centurion Cornelius. He takes on attributes of James found in Josephus, according to Eisenman. This is going to be important information for further study. I, for one, am going to!

This is the original book:

http://www.amazon.com/Saviors-Beyond-Qu ... 738&sr=1-1

Email me at sahansdal/yahoo and I'll pdf file it to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:06 am 
Offline
Thor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:28 am
Posts: 22
In my reading of Acts, Paul was in it for the money. He was a bounty hunter.

Also the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of the epistles. In one of the letters Peter (Cephias) is reluctant to eat with Gentiles for unclean foods and Paul makes an argument to do so. The Paul of Acts learned of the miracle that there were no longer any unclean foods. The Paule of Acts would have reminded Peter of the miracle.

My view of the author of the five long epistles thought to be Paul is that he existed simply from the body of the text. He was not the Paul of Acts.

Now if you read the letters he is clearly saying the end is not only nigh it is some time next week. To any rational Christian he got the central message all wrong. If he got that wrong no rational person would take him seriously on anything else. Christians are not rational.

_________________
http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:12 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
I know this suggestion will be opposed on this forum, but is Saul-Paul not Josephus Flavius?

You will note that there are many similarities between Saul and Josephus, including both having a flash of inspiration and changing sides in a dispute. And both were on a ship carrying 'prisoners' from Judaea to Rome, and both were shipwrecked and taken to Naples, and both went on to see Emperor Nero. How many renegade Jews went to see Nero?

There is also a good correspondence in the writings of Saul and Josephus, with many historians/theologians commenting that the author of Acts (aka: Saul) has relied upon and duplicated large sections of Josephus' works. You will also note that both Saul and Josephus appeared to have used the same 'publisher', Epaphroditus.

Since I first made this claim back in '97, many people have opined that the birth date for Josephus is far too late for him to have been Saul. But if Saul were born in AD 37, then he would have been a man in AD 50 at his bar mitzvah (hence the priesthood being amazed at his teachings aged 12-14, exactly the same as for Jesus in Luke 2:46).** This means that the conflated character called Saul-Josephus could have started his evangelical missions around the Med in AD 50, under the guidance of Barnabus. And the gospels do say that Barnabus was the elder. Just like modern Jehovah's Witness evangelists, it is always the youngsters who are sent out on evangelical missions abroad, because the older folk are often married with kids and cannot make such voyages.

But if Saul were Josephus, it would explain nearly everything about the biblical texts. In other words, Saul-Josephus not only wrote a secular history of 1st century Judaea for the Romans, he also wrote a 'spiritual' history of 1st century Judaea for the Romans - a real history derived from his Jewish War but covered in a thick layer of fairy-dust. This was a Jewish War that preached peace instead of war, which is exactly what Rome wanted.

** No miracle here, this was a standard bar mitzvah test for boys. Most Jews have the same test today, where they must demonstrate their knowledge of the Torah before a rabbi to pass their bar mitzvah.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:48 am 
That Saint Paul is not mentioned in non-biblical sources, does not prove anything. You need to understand that in the first century, life was much different. They did not have the convenience of modern transportation, printing methods, etc. In Jewish eyes, Paul was an apostate, so there would be no good reason to bring attention to him. Also, Christianity was a religion the Roman empire wanted to crush, not advertise. It's amazing that we have anything about Paul at all. Saint Paul is also mentioned in non-biblical Christian sources (Apostolic Fathers).

I would remind you that the vast majority of scholars today (conservative and liberal) believe Paul wrote several epistles traditionally attributed to him. 1 Corinthians, being one of them. He could hardly have written epistles, if he did not exist. I would also point out that Paul is mentioned in the Book of Acts, which is a very reliable book, in terms of history and archaeology. The New Testament is not one book, it's a collection of several Greek documents. Lastly, there is evidence that St. Paul visited Rome and was martyred there. For example, the Church historian Eusebius writes about this,


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:54 am 
Here is some information about saints Peter and Paul.

The early Church Historian Eusebius:

"Peter, that coryphaeus, after having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome preaching the Gospel, and he also, after [presiding over] the church in Antioch, presided over that of Rome until his death. [Chronicle, 44 A.D. PG 19:539]. Coryphaeus means chief, or foremost man.

Pope Saint Leo the Great himself, referred to the Roman See of Peter. [Sermon 82. PL 54, 422-4].

Saint Optatus said this when refuting the Donatists:

"...You cannot deny, then, that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal Chair first conferred upon Peter, in which Peter, head of all the apostles, first sat, wherefore he was called Cephas: in which one Chair unity may be preserved by all...."

He continued:

"Therefore in the unique Chair, which is the first of the endowments, Peter first sat: to whom succeeded Linus, to Linus, succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus," etc, etc. [Contra Parmenianum, II, 2-3. PL 11: 947-50].

Eusebius states that Peter "presided" at the see of Rome until his death. [Chronicle, 44 A.D. PG 19:539].

Eusebius also says that the title of "Peter and Paul" which was given to the cemeteries in Rome, confirmed the tradition about the martyrdom of the great apostles in Rome. Eusebius also speaks of a priest named Caius who defended the Churches tradition in these words:

"But I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church." [HE II, 25].

Eusebius also recorded the words of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome, about 170 A.D.:

"By so great an admonition you bound together the foundations of the Romans and Corinthians by Peter and Paul, for both of them taught together in our Corinth and were our founders, and together also taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred at the same time." [HE II, 25].

Saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople [c.400], had been a priest of Antioch. In one homily he states Peter left Antioch and went to Rome. [De Inscr. Act. II, PG 51:86].

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter's episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter's chains, on January 16, proclaim:

"...And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities....". [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de I Eglise Grecque. Rome 1867, LVII].

The priest Cauis mentioned the Vatican with reference to the place of Peter's burial. Later on a basilica rose in that area, and on its walls a mosaic bore this inscription: SUMMA PETRI SEDES, "The Supreme See of Peter." [SVNC 5:38].

The ancient "Poem Against Marcian" describes the succession at Rome:

"In the chair, located in the mighty Rome, Peter first commanded Linus, who was great, chosen and approved by the people, to sit where he himself had sat..."[PL 2: 1077-8].

Rufinus, a Latin historian [c. 400] says that after Peter's death, St. Clement received the "chair of teaching." [Preface to the Clementine Recognitions. PG. 1:1207-8].

St. Epiphanius discussed the apostolic succession at Rome and left this account:

"The succession of the bishops in Rome has this order: Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus....."[. Haer. 27. PG 41:373].

Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos was a Greek historian [c. 1330]. He remarks that St. Peter, having entrusted "the Keys of the Church of the Romans first to Linus, afterwards to Anacletus...."[HE II, 35. PG 145:845-6].

The Armenian Synaxarion of Patriarch Gregory VII of Anawarza [c. 1300]] commemorates St. Linus of 26 Sahmi [November 4], with this notice:

"St. Linus became bishop of Rome and "the most wise disciple and successor of the holy apostles" on November 25. [PG 117:177].


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:25 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
Hold on now, let me get this claim straight.

Are you insisting that Eusebius was a contemporary eye witness to the historical existence of Paul and therefore a credible source?

That would be just plain silly, seeing as how their lives were no where near overlapping.

Or are you insisting that a NON-CONTEMPORARY source (like Eusebius) proves the historical existence of some one who 'supposedly' lived well before the non-contemporary sources own life time (like Paul), simply because the non-contemporary source (Eusebius) wrote about a character in a long established supernatural fantasy tale (Paul) as if that story character was at one point historical?

That would be equally foolish.

But not as foolish as speaking about the book of Acts as if it's 'historically reliable' and NOT a known fabrication as the consensus of scholars now firmly agree: LINK TO RELEVANT TOPIC

Quote:
"Here are some of the conclusions of the historians of the Acts Seminar on the historicity of Acts of the Apostles… The percentages are for “virtually certain” and “probably reliable.” There are many, many more, some dealing with specific passages. These are a few of the more general ones, about Acts in particular.

“Acts is a work of imaginative religious literature unable to support the high level of trust Christian interpreters have traditionally placed in the historical accuracy of the story. 100%

“If the writer of Acts made use of the letters of Paul as a source, the Book of Acts provides little, if any, independent data on Paul. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Homer. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Vergil in some form. 94%

“Acts is a work of fiction with some relatively minor historical elements in it. 94%

“The burden of proof rests on those who claim that particular stories in Acts are primarily history rather than fiction. 94%

“Acts was written in the second century CE 100%


“A major factor behind the composition of Acts was the perceived threat posed by Marcion and Marcionite Christianity. 86%

“By imitating epic tradition, the author of Acts is promoting an “epic” view of Christian history, which culminates, on the model of the Aeneid, with the hero arriving in Rome to become the founder of a great people. 100%

“Canonical Acts’ basic outline of the historical development of Christianity is accurate. 0%

“Luke’s goal in Acts is to provide apologetic justification for gentile Christian origins, which is foreshadowed in Luke 4:16-30. 96%


Now you wouldn't be that foolish, would you?

:?

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:40 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Southeast Asia
Attachment:
File comment: Front Cover
9781560852162_p0_v2_s260x420.jpg
9781560852162_p0_v2_s260x420.jpg [ 25.54 KiB | Viewed 6281 times ]
The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul by Dr. Robert M. Price

In 2012, Dr. Robert M. Price released another book that shows the problems within the epistles and pastoral letters, the probable origins of these letters, and the scanty evidence that a person named “Paul from Tarsus” had written these proselytizing letters that made Christianity successful. It should be noted that the criticisms for Pauline authorship of the epistles is not new. In fact, Church Father Origen of Alexandria is quite sure that the epistle to the Hebrews is not written by Paul. Hermann Detering published an article in the Journal of Higher Criticism that shows the different Radical Criticisms on the Pauline epistles. Detering said that the canonical epistles are products from the second century and the Paul character is just a sanitized version of Simon Magus. http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/

Saul’s conversion to Paul in going to Damascus is a historical novel that only sprang out in the second century. Dr. Price wrote, “There is no historical value to it, but it is rich in edifying propaganda, its author having extensively rewritten sources that seem to include Homer, Virgil, Euripides, Josephus, and the Septuagint, creating a revisionist version of the early Christianity in the golden age of its origin.” Dr. Price also said that within second century, the Catholic Church suppressed the Pauline epistles because it appeals to the heretics. With regards to the canonical Acts, Dr. Price said that the authorship of Acts of the Apostles is pseudoepigraphical. Next, the Pauline archetype is rampant in the ancient pagan literature. He didn’t explicitly said that the pagan characters influenced Paul but only shows the parallels. For example, Siddhartha Gautama’s conversion to Buddha is so similar to Paul’s conversion. He even suggested that Moses from the OT has influences on Paul, just like when Moses was commanded by God in the scene of the burning bush and told to free his people, Paul is also blinded by light and talked to Jesus and was commanded to evangelize. Since Paul’s conversion is not history, the potential primary source of this event is taken potentially from 2 Maccabees 3:24-26 and Euripides’s Bacchae.

Next, he examined the real authorship of the Pauline letters. It is interesting to know that Church Father Origen of Alexandria admitted that the epistle to Hebrews is not written by Paul. He demonstrated the NT schools of criticism in 19th century like the Tubingen School and the Dutch Radical Critics. The reasons given as to why it is not Paul who wrote the epistles are the following:

The Question of their form
1. They are treatises, not letters, whether to an individual or group.
2. They cannot have been written to the ancient churches whose names they bear since they have left no trace on the history of those churches.
3. The imaginary nature of the letters is evident because of the Catholicizing phrases.
4. They have been redacted.

Their contents
1. Confusion over the nature of the churches
2. No coherent picture of Paul’s opponents
3. The complexity and depth of the theology and ethics betoken a time long after the days of Paul.
4. Virulent advocacy, opposition, and reinterpretation.
5. Paul is oblivious of the contents of the Synoptic gospels.
6. No historical retrospective in the tone of the epistles.
7. Romans 9-11 speaks about the rejection of Israel which is impossible before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
8. No contemporary records of persecutions done by Paul or in his early days.

Dr. Price mentioned that it is possibly Marcion the source of the epistles with Gnostic flavors attached to it like the Kenosis Hymn in Philippians 2:6-11. He even said that Marcion is the first collector of the epistles for the reason that he rejects the OT to make Christianity distinct from Judaism. In fact, Justin Martyr never mentions Paul but had written against Marcion. The other Church fathers are actually neglecting the epistles until Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian of Carthage.

Then Dr. Price spilled so much ink in the chapters “The Apocalypses and Acts of Paul” & “The Original Gnostic Apostles”. Those chapters are very long to demonstrate the influences of Gnosticism in the canonical epistles as well as the non – canonical epistles like the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Revelation by Paul, etc that shows it diverges from the canonical ones. He explained also the parallels of Apollonius of Tyre with Paul, although it is a short one.

The last part is a biblical commentary which I really commend Dr. Price because from Romans to the Pastoral Letters, he did it chapter by chapter. He demonstrated the problems, contradictions, improbabilities, and anachronisms within the epistles.

1. How can Peter baptize three thousand people in a single day? (Acts 2:41)
2. Luke’s use of Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews with reagards of the Simon Magus character.
3. The Nag Hammadi Revelation of Paul, Paul is depicted as the soter/savior and Jesus was never mentioned even once. This parallels Colossians 1:24, where Paul is also an atoning savior, ergo Jesus is one of the prototypes of Paul.
4. Marcion’s gospel is what scholars call “proto-Luke” or “ur-Lukas”.
5. How can Papias of Hierapolis write about Marcion being John’s secretary while inserting his own heresies if nothing about Papias is known?
6. The Catholic Church as we have it is not the earliest type of Christianity, but a mixture of elements from Christianities its bishops despised and condemned.
7. Paul said he came to evangelize and not to baptize (1 Cor 1:17) but contradicts Jesus's command (Matt 28:19) as well as Galatians 3:27
8. 1 Cor 2:8 has the obvious flavor of Gnosticism.
9. 1 Cor 4:16 is the definition of narcissism.
10. The talk about Lord’s Supper can be traced in mystery cults of Osiris and Dionysus.
11. 1 Cor 7:4 - That ain’t right.
12. The references to celibacy is an anachronism.
13. 1 Cor 15:6 is an abrupt interpolation.
14. 1 Tim 5:11-12 contradicts 1 Cor 7:28
15. 1 Cor 1:22-23 contradicts 2 Cor 12:11-12, why Paul so apologetic for not doing miracles but later does miracles.
16. Why does Paul have to declare that he is writing a lot (Gal 6:11)? This verse breaks the parallelism and conciseness of the chapter. In reality, not only we don't have any originals of the gospels, we also don't have original copies of the epistles.
17. Paul is saying vegans/vegetarians are evil, and celibate people are also evil. (1 Tim 4:3)


And so on…Dr. Price used the Bible itself to show that the figure Paul of Tarsus didn’t existed. I’m a little bummed that he didn’t dwell so much on pagan parallels but nonetheless, his book is a must read about the problems within the epistles, very much like WWJ that focuses on gospel problems. It should be noted that despite of the Marcionite influence to the epistles, Dr. Price is not claiming that all of the letters ascribed to Paul came from Marcion.

http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Colossal-Apostle-Search-Historical-ebook/dp/B00IB3YSMO/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:21 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Southeast Asia
It should be noted too that wannabe Christian apologist James Patrick Holding attempted to refute Hermann Detering's thesis. I have not yet read Detering's thesis but I'm planning next. I'll comment on the things JP Holding said.
Code:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/detering01.php

JP Holding is a nut job in my opinion, such that his tortured apologies is easily laughed.

Quote:
Justin Martyr, Detering says, is not aware of Paul; but what about places where Justin seems to have been influenced by Pauline material? That's simple, says Detering: The letters were around, but not yet attributed to Paul [73], which doesn't seem to explain why Justin doesn't mention the true author of the letters, or at least say, "according to these letters which go around anonymously." Proof that this could have been done is found in that it was also done with the letter from James....probably! And strangely, while Justin, according to Detering, could have been hesitant to name Paul because his letters were considered forgeries, he was still using ideas clearly derived from these forged letters.

There's another matter as well: 1 Clement and Ignatius clearly testify to Paul early enough to satisfy Detering's arbitrary requirements; but that's no problem, because those letters are fake also, for the same kind of reasons Detering finds problems over Paul. But that's another subject, and we'll pick up again on page 85 where Detering talks of Paul again.
- JP Holding

It is because the epistles as we have them did not appear in the historical record until second century, very much like the gospels. Justin is addressing the heretic Marcion, and Marcion is the one of the prime sources of the epistles. Then his conclusion once again is appeal to authority.

Quote:
In light of this, Detering's closing sermon (which is what it is) in which he waxes eloquent (marginally so) about the "freedom" one obtains from following his higher critical method, is tragic. Detering simply claims the high ground (however illicitly) and waves off those who disagree as priorly committed to the old paradigm. It speaks for itself that he also stands up for a form of the Christ myth (which sees Jesus as a composite of several historical figures [178].

To put it bluntly: JHC is a journal for those whose work is so far outside the consensus that they can't pass peer review in something more serious like New Testament Studies. Detering's claims would never pass peer review beyond the limited circle of JHC, and he likely knows this. However, he is also likely counting on readers not knowing this.

His case against Pauline authenticity is a failure, and shall remain so.

-JPH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did St. Paul exist?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:25 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:12 pm
Posts: 31
Quote:
To put it bluntly: JHC is a journal for those whose work is so far outside the consensus that they can't pass peer review in something more serious like New Testament Studies. Detering's claims would never pass peer review beyond the limited circle of JHC, and he likely knows this. However, he is also likely counting on readers not knowing this.


This is from the same guy who self-publishes his books through a Christian publishing firm.

_________________
Y GWIR YN ERBYN BYD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:31 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Southeast Asia
It seems that German scholar Hermann Detering has the same conclusion with Dr. Price that the Acts of the Apostles is not written by Luke the Apostle of Jesus, but some other Christian writer from the second century who doesn't know Paul. Detering also said,

Quote:
What he tells us about Paul and his activities are not first-hand reports. The heightened interest of the author in miraculous, wondrous stories, healing, escape, and punishment miracles, and the "predominance of personal legends" gives the impression rather that we have to do here not with a presentation of history, but with the transmission of legendary tradition. - The Fabricated Paul:Early Christianity in the Twilight, Hermann Detering

He also said that the only source we have for a historical Paul is the Acts of the Apostles, though it is being disputed by growing number of scholars. Another source for his alleged historicity is the epistles only, but again the epistles lack any form of historical accounts. Another thing is that he and Dr. Price are on the same boat that the road to Damascus story comes from Euriphides's Bacchae.

And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" - Acts 9:4 RSV

Dionysus speaking to Pentheus: "You turn a deaf ear to my words...Instead of kicking against God's goads as a mortal, you should rather offer sacrifices." - Bacchae, 787ff

http://www.amazon.com/Fabricated-Paul-Early-Christianity-Twilight-ebook/dp/B006XXX04G/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:33 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:10 am
Posts: 12
Location: Southeast Asia
Quote:
Just to be clear, I am not saying that "Paul" is a complete rip off of "Moses". Rather, I am trying to show the parallels of their lives and teachings. Of course, these two aren't exactly the same; there are a lot of times their characters diverge but upon reading the epistles and the Pentateuch, they got parallels which makes me wonder if the composers of the epistles used the Pentateuch as one of their blueprints.


I decided to take down the table about Moses-Paul parallels, for I was in error on that comparison and had an oversight. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support