The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[The Grand Nudger]

A pretty remarkable picture into the mindset of a first century Jewish Christian proselytizer who was very influential in the founding and maintaining of the earliest churches ... have you even read any of Paul's epistles? Lol.

The author's mindset, sure...but I think we ought to establish that there was a Paul before we go claiming that we have insight into his mind, don't you? We've both agreed that we are removing the ignorant and un-serious from "Paul", yes?

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.

Do you get the feeling, from the narrative, that anything about Paul, as a man, is important?   Seems to me the message is the focus, and stands either way.   Legitimate prophet, lol? More on that in a minute I suppose...

What narrative? The Pauline epistles predate any narratives.

-and it's never occurred to you that they -are- a narrative?  That they are not factual accounts? Ever read the Screwtape Letters, lol?

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?

Didn't you seek to demonstrate yourself..earlier, that Paul was both a name, and a name that carried authority in a certain subset?  Does there need to be anything more than this?  Is there any Paul now.....are people referring to Pauls authority regardless?  I don't know why there would have to be a Paul then...if there doesn;t have to be a Paul now - and still those things are true. Why would there need to be a motive -at all-....I'm not sure I understand the question..?  I thought we both agreed that neither of us sees a conspiracy here?

You and I don't really differ -that- much on the issue of Paul, btw, I can already tell. You conceive of Paul as a man who wrote letters regarding doctrine. I thinks it's awfully convenient that he gets those opportunities, that's all. Particularly in that it is those ignorant and un-serious claims made about "Paul" which forms the basis of his authority to speak to begin with (ah yes, "prophethood"). I doubt that there was a singular man being solicited to respond, via letter, to these churches. I think that the response to churches is a narrative device...a reason for the narrator to tell the story, a solicitation for correction where none seems to be incoming.

Are trying to establish that the Epistles had an author...or do you think that I would dispute that claim? We can both agree to skip that, entirely un-serious debate...eh? :wink: