RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 24, 2015 at 8:29 am
(This post was last modified: May 24, 2015 at 8:30 am by Mudhammam.)
(May 24, 2015 at 6:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: The notion of the man is as much a vehicle as any legendary/mythological character in either the NT or the OT. These characters are, themselves, unimportant.... and so, -as human beings- underdeveloped in the narratives, nigh non-existent.I wouldn't say the character of Saul/Paul in Acts is unimportant. What's your basis for that claim? The whole point is to establish his credibility as a legitimate prophet.
(May 24, 2015 at 6:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I could offer the contention that with the above you seem to be attempting to establish:What narrative? The Pauline epistles predate any narratives. They make it pretty clear that Paul was a convert to a movement that already existed in some infantile stage. The writing of at least seven of the epistles is the distinctive work of a single individual, who offers biographical details about his life, his obstacles in spreading his newfound theological perspective, and mentions dozens of personal acquaintances in the churches unknown anywhere else... But most importantly he calls himself Paul. So what motive would there be to create a "Paul" when no one in the church at that time was revered under any heading even remotely approaching "sainthood" with perhaps the exception of Jesus' inner circle, which Paul wasn't manifestly a part of as he almost has to plead with his audience and remind them of the literal pains he has endured following his mystical experience, in hopes of establishing his inclusion among the rank of apostleship?
-Paul was a name - granted
-The name carried/carries authority with a certain subset, and was talked about both within and without that subset(as it is today, conveniently.......for reasons?) - granted
Neither of those things rely on their actually having been a Paul, either -as- described in the narrative (ludicrous) -or- as an actual, mundane, man -or- as an amalgam of many men. Paul satisfies the narrative, it would be difficult to conclude much more than that about Paul...don't you think? I left out a bit about conspiracies, etc...mostly don't see the need to invoke conspiracy as an explanation, which I think we would both agree on, yeah?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza