Why you should distrust all religions.

[Jehanne]

Few scholars are of the opinion that the author of Acts was a true traveling companion of Paul and the contradictions between his account and that of Acts is a hallmark of the latter's embellishments. But, as I posted several weeks or so ago, Travis Walton claimed to have been abubcted by space aliens and his co-workers all claimed with him to have seen the space ship. Paul almost certainly suffered from epilepsy, as did some of the early Christians (as do some of our day), and he and these others likely combined and embellished their accounts after the fact, which copiests further embellished decades afterward.

[RoadRunner79]

Few scholars are of the opinion that the author of Acts was a true traveling companion of Paul and the contradictions between his account and that of Acts is a hallmark of the latter's embellishments. But, as I posted several weeks or so ago, Travis Walton claimed to have been abubcted by space aliens and his co-workers all claimed with him to have seen the space ship. Paul almost certainly suffered from epilepsy, as did some of the early Christians (as do some of our day), and he and these others likely combined and embellished their accounts after the fact, which copiests further embellished decades afterward.

And the question stil. Is how did you come to that conclusion?

[GrandizerII]

Acts being a book of legends is plausible. And if we go by what Paul himself said in the Epistles, he lends no support to the accounts of the vision described several times in Acts.

[Godscreated]

 I know a person who is functionally schizophrenic and will be in heaven, she is a wonderful lady you could learn from.

GC

I know someone on this forum (CL, *wink kiss*) who is generally nice to everyone and isn't a total asshat, You could learn from her.

 I'm sure I can learn things from CL, but the spiritual things for a relationship with God I leave up to Him. Besides I wasn't talking to you, you are always getting yourself invovled in my conversations wasting my time.

GC

[Nay_Sayer]

I know someone on this forum (CL, *wink kiss*) who is generally nice to everyone and isn't a total asshat, You could learn from her.

 I'm sure I can learn things from CL, but the spiritual things for a relationship with God I leave up to Him. Besides I wasn't talking to you, you are always getting yourself invovled in my conversations wasting my time.

GC

Now you know how the rest of the forum feels.

RAmen

[The Grand Nudger]

Few scholars are of the opinion that the author of Acts was a true traveling companion of Paul and the contradictions between his account and that of Acts is a hallmark of the latter's embellishments.  But, as I posted several weeks or so ago, Travis Walton claimed to have been abubcted by space aliens and his co-workers all claimed with him to have seen the space ship.  Paul almost certainly suffered from epilepsy, as did some of the early Christians (as do some of our day), and he and these others likely combined and embellished their accounts after the fact, which copiests further embellished decades afterward.

And the question stil. Is how did you come to that conclusion?

You're suddenly less confident in the majority position of biblical scholarship?  Or are you questioning the epilepsy comments towards the end? I always find that one amusing, myself. It's only a thing because people try to explain why a person might see or experience whats contained within magic book. Paul didn't have epileptic seizures. There was no Paul. He didn't see shit. That's just another part of the story.

[GrandizerII]

And the question stil. Is how did you come to that conclusion?

You're suddenly less confident in the majority position of biblical scholarship?  Or are you questioning the epilepsy comments towards the end?  I always find that one amusing, myself.  It's only a thing because people try to explain why a person might see or experience whats contained within magic book.  Paul didn't have epileptic seizures.  There was no Paul.  He didn't see shit.  That's just another part of the story.

What do you mean "no Paul"? Or is this a rhetorical thing?

[The Grand Nudger]

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]
[img=241x0]https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/F.C.-Baur-241x300.jpg[/img]
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)
Thirteen of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are letters with Paul’s name as the author, and a fourteenth, the book of Acts, is mainly devoted to the story of Paul’s life and career—making up over half the total text.[iv] The problem is, these fourteen texts fall into four distinct chronological tiers, giving us our four “Pauls”:
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/
Notice no.4.

The question then becomes whether or not an identifiable man exists in "Authentic Paul", and what relationship we're proposing between whomever we posit that to be and the "Paul" of the gospels, and particularly, in context, the "Paul" of Acts.  Regardless of which of the many Pauls any given nutter believes is contained within the "historic paul", we have found no paul, at all, outside of the new testament.

There is -no- question that the character of paul is a tremendous embellishment, at best. One wonders what trivial details a historical paul might have had in common with Paul the Apostle. I see no reason to posit a person when confronted with a legendary figure. That;s the mistake of people who believe in legends. Paul Bunyan and Hercules and King Arthur are calling us again.

(the christer story is many layers of horseshit...lol)

[vulcanlogician]

I'm starting to feel sorry for the Christians. They don't even get Paul?

That's a toughie.

[GrandizerII]

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]
[img=241x0]https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/F.C.-Baur-241x300.jpg[/img]
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)
Thirteen of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are letters with Paul’s name as the author, and a fourteenth, the book of Acts, is mainly devoted to the story of Paul’s life and career—making up over half the total text.[iv] The problem is, these fourteen texts fall into four distinct chronological tiers, giving us our four “Pauls”:
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/
Notice no.4.

The question then becomes whether or not an identifiable man exists in "Authentic Paul", and what relationship we're proposing between whomever we posit that to be and the "Paul" of the gospels, and particularly, in context, the "Paul" of Acts.  Regardless of which of the many Pauls any given nutter believes is contained within the "historic paul", we have found no paul, at all, outside of the new testament.

There is -no- question that the character of paul is a tremendous embellishment, at best.  One wonders what trivial details a historical paul might have had in common with Paul the Apostle.  I see no reason to posit a person when confronted with a legendary figure.  That;s the mistake of people who believe in legends.  Paul Bunyan and Hercules and King Arthur are calling us again.  

(the christer story is many layers of horseshit...lol)

Just so I'm not strawmanning you, you're referring to the Paul of Acts when you say "there was no Paul"? If so, sure, Paul is just a legendary character in Acts ... but I see the characters as based on a historical person.

4 different depictions of Paul doesn't mean one of them could not have been the authentic one. #1 is called authentic Paul, and according to scholars, some of the epistles were authored by a Jesus Christ spokesman called Paul.