The proto-orthodox bullshit story of their triumph over "heresy" does not allow for this paul fellow to have been anything other than what later writers claimed him to be.  Hence, when one lie is detected a thousand are suspected.  As late as 160, Justin Martyr has never heard of him or his miraculous deeds.  These were invented later.

Next we can discuss the actual history of the Roman town of Corinth in the first century..But not tonight.  It's midnight here not the middle of the afternoon tomorrow as it is in Australia.

(September 17, 2016 at 3:04 am)Minimalist Wrote: The proto-orthodox bullshit story of their triumph over "heresy" does not allow for this paul fellow to have been anything other than what later writers claimed him to be.

(September 17, 2016 at 2:34 am)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/newtestame...ion8.rhtml

Quote: Most scholars agree that 2 Corinthians is a combination of several letters written by Paul to the community of Christian believers in the Greek city of Corinth. These letters would have been written at intervals of several months.

Which is it?

It's a later editor's version.  That's what is important.

(September 17, 2016 at 11:58 am)Minimalist Wrote: It's a later editor's version.  That's what is important.

It's still by Paul though, isn't it? And we're only talking about 1 of his 7 undisputed letters, and it's one of the less significant ones anyway. 1 Cor is a single letter, so is Romans, so is Galatians. Your argument is a clear fallacy: 1. because Paul still wrote it even if it is an amalgamation of his letters, and 2. because it has no significance to the more important letters he wrote anyway. By your standard of evidence that we know that 2 Cor is an amalgamation, we know that 1 Cor, Romans, and Galatians were not.

(September 18, 2016 at 12:15 am)Aractus Wrote: It's still by Paul though, isn't it? And we're only talking about 1 of his 7 undisputed letters, and it's one of the less significant ones anyway. 1 Cor is a single letter, so is Romans, so is Galatians. Your argument is a clear fallacy: 1. because Paul still wrote it even if it is an amalgamation of his letters, and 2. because it has no significance to the more important letters he wrote anyway. By your standard of evidence that we know that 2 Cor is an amalgamation, we know that 1 Cor, Romans, and Galatians were not.

I think it's amusing that, as a historical jesus begins to unravel we desperately seek something written by a "Paul", lol.

(September 22, 2016 at 9:01 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(September 18, 2016 at 12:15 am)Aractus Wrote: It's still by Paul though, isn't it? And we're only talking about 1 of his 7 undisputed letters, and it's one of the less significant ones anyway. 1 Cor is a single letter, so is Romans, so is Galatians. Your argument is a clear fallacy: 1. because Paul still wrote it even if it is an amalgamation of his letters, and 2. because it has no significance to the more important letters he wrote anyway. By your standard of evidence that we know that 2 Cor is an amalgamation, we know that 1 Cor, Romans, and Galatians were not.

Rhythm
I think it's amusing that, as a historical jesus begins to unravel we desperately seek something written by a "Paul", lol.

Zactly.  What a guy.  Paul, a penniless preacher wanders all over the place, convincing strangers to forget their beliefs and put in place his stories of a Jesus that he never met except in a dream. He establishes all these churches leaving no proof that he founded any of them.  This superman even survives a stoning in Acts 14:19

Quote:Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead.
20But after the disciples had gathered round him, he got up and went back into the city. The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe.

What a guy.

(September 22, 2016 at 8:13 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: I don't believe that Paul wrote most, if not anything at all in the Bible, but for the sake of argument there is plenty of instances in there about Paul writing of the divinity of Jesus, for example Romans 8:3.  Just because you can find passages to the contrary just means that the book is a mess of contradictions as you know.

The author of Luke-Acts wrote more (by volume) than Paul. But Paul's writings are more original and earlier (Paul is writing before the fall of Jerusalem, and doesn't copy in the way the gospel writers do).

(September 22, 2016 at 8:13 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: C'mon Aractus, what would a real person do in that situation?  Imagine that you were a travelling priest and had a vision of Jesus that was so awesome it blinded you for 3 days.

Paul never claims that happened.

(September 22, 2016 at 8:13 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: Blasphemy was what I was thinking of, Jesus claimed he was the son of God.  The Jews could have done that without approval from the Romans.

I'm not convinced that Jesus made that claim. It is plausible, however it is not what got him executed, he was executed for being a threat to the public peace.

(September 22, 2016 at 8:13 am)Firefighter01 Wrote: It sounds like they have a pre-supposition that God and Jesus exist, so yes, they have a strong belief and would be extremely biased like most.

Everyone has biases. Scholars - the respected ones anyway - are not those who have simply done a course. It's those who are actively engaged in the area. Good scholars are ones that keep their preconceived beliefs in check, just as any good doctor would do as well. The difference though is that doctors have a much more difficult time getting educated in the first place, and the standards set at the point of education is what ensures that we are left with competent people to go into practise.