(August 20, 2020 at 2:21 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Vicki Q Wrote:They are very good evidence of the wish to tie Jesus into the OT meta-narrative.

Wow, two conflicting genealogies about the same guy are a "good evidence".

Two conflicting genealogies are indeed very good evidence for the wish to tie Jesus into the OT meta-narrative, with the fact they are apparently conflicting bizarrely being even stronger evidence for the wish  because of textual independence. Each author has tried to make the tie-up independently.

Those who wish to argue for compatibility of the lists have a number of standard available routes- 1) one list is Joseph, one list is Mary 2) Matthew is doing the legal list, Luke the biological 3) There is a choice of routes and Matthew is going via sons of David who actually reigned while Luke is pointedly avoiding them 4) We don't know and can't find out but there's a really good reason.
Since I'm not a fundy, my view is 'whatever'.

Quote:Oh so that was proper, unlike those pagan baptisms which were improper.

I was trying to avoid a potentially lengthy diversion into C1 Jewish water rituals. John' baptism was a one time eschatological baptism which would have served as the template for Christian baptism, although contemporary Jewish water rituals also existed (e.g. proselyte conversion rituals). My point being that Paul had no need to steal baptism from paganism and introduce it to Judeo-Christianity from the outside, because it was already in Judaism, especially through John the Baptist.

Quote:BTW it's not Josephus but Iōánnēs, you know very similar to Oannes the dipper whose priests were baptizing people.

No it's Josephus, the writer of Antiquities, who wrote about JtB in it.

Quote:Sure, Jan.

???   meaning?


So as I see it, we still very much have Paul, who was fanatically devoted to the Jewish story as Saul, and remained so when he came to understand that the astonishing events around Jesus were the climax of that story.

Pauls story is not believed, by biblical scholars, to be credible.

You still have it, ofc, yes.

I can't agree with that at all. I mean first define 'story' and then we can do detail, but some general observations:

Obviously N.T.Wright and Richard Bauckham and many similar take the general story as read. But so do the non-Xian likes of Geza Vermes and Bart Ehrman also take the basic autobiography as accurate (minus the miracles!).

It is notable that neither Encyclopedia Britannica nor Wikipedia mention any challenge to the basic biographical outline.

Hyam Maccoby's attempt to rewrite Paul's story has generally been met with borderline derision.

If you think the academic consensus is wrong, please provide your evidence.

Basically, something dramatic happened to Saul on the way to Damascus. He instantly altered his opinion about Jesus from imposter to Messiah who had instigated the Kingdom of God. Paul joined up with those who claimed witness to the resurrection events, and despite some awful tortures inflicted on him proclaimed the message to the Gentiles until his death. Brave guy.

This is consensus in academia.

Quote:What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him.[i] As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.[iii]

Quote:1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)

2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)

3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)

4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...ical-paul/

You might notice that quite a bit more than just the miracles in the story of paul is left out of authentic paul, and the claims of having experienced a miracle are left in - because that's not at all how these categories were determined. Trivializing the issues with the story of paul disrespects any attempt to study the most influential founder of the christian religion, and will cause endless rippling failures in understanding the development of that faith.

The consensus of academia is that paul, whoever he was, made those claims in category one - not that any of the claims were true (including claims to biographical detail) - and that categories 2-4 are...in effect...fan fiction.

The wiki entry, here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

....absolutely does go over this, at length - as does the eb link, here...

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sai...he-Apostle

.............................?

As pauls story is only tangenital to christian myth, I really have to ask how committed you are to throwing caution to the wind and getting into a doomed argument over the credibility of paul as presented in the nt? It's a theological treatise, not a biography. Which is fine , OFC, as it's very obvious purpose is to communicate the story of christ and christianity, not the details of a mans life. It does this well enough, with paul as narrrator - but it would be naive of us to insist that the details of the narrator have not been made convenient to the purpose and requirements of the story. Just as naive as it would be to insist that authentic paul is captured and preserved correspondence between himself and any other person...rather than a collection of polemics.

(August 25, 2020 at 11:48 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)

2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)

3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)

4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

Thank you for your reply.

The assessment of the letters is fairly standard, although many would argue that 2 Timothy may well be by Paul.

Acts is controversial; it probably shouldn't be used naively as a historical source. However that doesn't imply dogmatic hand-waving away; it is a valid, proper and important source when used with care. It is, after all, Luke- the sequel.

Quote:You might notice that quite a bit more than just the miracles in the story of paul is left out of authentic paul, and the claims of having experienced a miracle are left in - because that's not at all how these categories were determined.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that the miracles are out or in? (2 Corinthians 12:12? Romans 15:19?)

Quote:Trivializing the issues with the story of paul disrespects any attempt to study the most influential founder of the christian religion, and will cause endless rippling failures in understanding the development of that faith.

Understanding Paul's story is integral to understanding the development of the Early Church, which is essential sine qua non towards the study of the Historical Jesus.

Quote:The consensus of academia is that paul, whoever he was, made those claims in category one - not that any of the claims were true (including claims to biographical detail) - and that categories 2-4 are...in effect...fan fiction.

Category 2 is disputed, as you say, therefore by definition the consensus doesn't call it fan fiction because there is no consensus. Colossians particularly has a strong case to be Pauline. Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians were either written by Paul or by someone close to him and therefore are very important. Category 3 can still be used for illumination rather than support, and Acts is still hugely valuable as above.

Quote:As pauls story is only tangenital to christian myth, I really have to ask how committed you are to throwing caution to the wind and getting into a doomed argument over the credibility of paul as presented in the nt?

Hardly doomed, given the immense volume of top class academic literature doing exactly what I'm doing, and as mentioned earlier in the thread, the academic consensus that his life was as written.

Quote:  It's a theological treatise, not a biography.  Which is fine , OFC, as it's very obvious purpose is to communicate the story of christ and christianity, not the details of a mans life.  It does this well enough, with paul as narrrator - but it would be naive of us to insist that the details of the narrator have not been made convenient to the purpose and requirements of the story.

It's a series of letters plus (Acts) biography. The uses and limitations of letters as historical evidence are highly standardised processes, and using these gives a picture of Paul's life we can know to a high degree of certainty. To repeat, this is not debated in academic circles.

Quote:Just as naive as it would be to insist that authentic paul is captured and preserved correspondence between himself and any other person...rather than a collection of polemics.

Correspondence between Paul and his young churches is exactly what they are. There is no serious debate about that.



I notice you still haven't provided any evidence for an alternative theory.

I have no alternative theory, and don't need one. You decided to argue your own opinions by calling them the consensus of academia - which they are not.

They are theologically important details of your religion.

The life of Paul is not debated within academia. You are welcome to check out all the major summary resources- Wikipedia, Brittanica, BBC, Biography online, History World and even things like this ; you'll get the same story. Even if you ignore Xian resources, a simple Google comes up with the same thing in place after place.

The history about his life is secure.

Given that you're wisely not going to try for any alternative theory, it seems we still have to explain the most unlikely of scenarios, being how a hardline Pharisee came to be running the Gentile section of a Jewish sub-faith which believed that the Kingdom of God had been inaugurated.

What changed his mind? Why did the group tell him the Kingdom of God had been inaugurated and why did he buy into it? What caused him to go from fanatical Torah observer to being not bothered about Torah?

One can do a simple and obvious solution to this jigsaw puzzle, or try a clumsy way to avoid the most obvious explanation, which sensibly you've decided to not do.

(August 30, 2020 at 10:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote: The history about his life is secure.

Only to those firmly deluded by the christian cult.

(August 30, 2020 at 10:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote: The life of Paul is not debated within academia.

It is, as well as his authorship. Here's a single page from a book so that you can see what you are missing out on

(August 30, 2020 at 11:25 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(August 30, 2020 at 10:33 am)Vicki Q Wrote: The life of Paul is not debated within academia.

It is, as well as his authorship. Here's a single page from a book so that you can see what you are missing out on

Herbert isn't a NT scholar AFAIK. Maybe we should acknowledge that perhaps NT scholars have access to not only materials but exposure to context that is not so readily easy for us to be exposed to and take into consideration.

Anyway, I don't see what's remarkable about some guy claiming he had a vision. Happens all the time. And doesn't mean we should 100% dismiss everything said in his name and reject any work claimed to have been written by him to have been written by him.

I don't agree with Vicki regarding the claim that "the life of Paul is not debated within academia" but I also disagree when you say that his authorship is debated within academia by referring to a passage written by someone not part of this specific academia and who doesn't make an argument that supports your claim. Yes, not all Pauline Epistles are authentic, but there are at least six Epistles that share a particular style that seem to stem from a particular person who calls himself "Paul" and there's no good reason to think even these could have been forgery (what's the motive after all when these were the initial writings by someone who was at the time a nobody?)