Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[Bucky Ball]

So all there is, is your "consensus of scholars". They are no doubt, all "Christians". 
What non-Christians *scholars* studied an historical Paul ?
Are there any historical mentions of a "Paul" or "Saul" in any secular sources ?

Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?

And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?

Prove it. Yes he should have. Philo says nothing about him. They claimed a student of Gamaliel the Great "converted", yet no one in Judaism mentioned it. They claimed that a Jew (who had no authority to do anything to anyone in Syria) "persecuted" Christians in Damascus, (who were still Jews). At the end of the First Century the Jewish High Priest (in exile) required the recitation of the Expulsion Curses. They (the Christians were still Jews). In the year 400, John Chrysostom told HIS congregation (Istanbul) to STOP going to the synagogue, (Christmas Sermon). There is no coherent "history" of the "church" , and its separation from Judaism. I simply don't buy any of it.

[GrandizerII]

The historicity of Paul is basically a non-issue. It really has no bearing on either the truth or modern condition of Christianity. In that sense, he's a lot like Jesus.

Boru

Well, yeah, a historical Paul should be a non-issue. It's also a more parsimonious view than to say that there was never a man by the name of Paul who wrote/authorized at least some of the epistles in his name, because then you'd have to ask what the motivation here is then to just attribute these epistles to a fictional character. I can understand later works attributed to Paul being pseudepigraphical due to his later popularity, but every single epistle in his name? What was so special about the name "Paul"?

[Bucky Ball]

The historicity of Paul is basically a non-issue. It really has no bearing on either the truth or modern condition of Christianity. In that sense, he's a lot like Jesus.

Boru

Well, yeah, a historical Paul should be a non-issue. It's also a more parsimonious view than to say that there was never a man by the name of Paul who wrote/authorized at least some of the epistles in his name, because then you'd have to ask what the motivation here is then to just attribute these epistles to a fictional character. I can understand later works attributed to Paul being pseudepigraphical due to his later popularity, but every single epistle in his name? What was so special about the name "Paul"?

There are at least three philosophies evident in the letters of Paul.  
Once the "letter writing" under any name began, and became recognized as "authoritative", this one happened to be Paul, 
that alone would be good enough to fake letters by a "Paul".

[GrandizerII]

Historical Paul is the mainstream scholarly view among basically all NT scholars, Christian or atheist or otherwise. Unless you think people like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are Christians now? Who are the NT scholars that don't believe Paul was a historical figure?

And why the stock argument from ignorance? Should Paul/Saul have been mentioned in any secular source at the time?

Prove it.

Prove it? Really?

I can give you a small sample, but it'd be far easier and less time consuming to disprove me instead.

Here's James Tabor on the historical Paul (video hosted on channel belonging to Bart Ehrman):

https://jamestabor.com/presentation-on-t...00k-views/

Here's Bart Ehrman himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PnD1TScw4

And see LG's link to Richard Carrier's take on the historical Paul.

Who else do you want? Should I also prove that these guys are not Christians?

Yes he should have. Philo says nothing about him. They claimed a student of Gamaliel the Great "converted", yet no one in Judaism mentioned it. They claimed that a Jew (who had no authority to do anything to anyone in Syria) "persecuted" Christians in Damascus, (who were still Jews). At the end of the First Century the Jewish High Priest (in exile) required the recitation of the Expulsion Curses. They (the Christians were still Jews). In the year 400, John Chrysostom told HIS congregation (Istanbul) to STOP going to the synagogue, (Christmas Sermon). There is no coherent "history" of the "church" , and its separation from Judaism. I simply don't buy any of it.

This might be a fair case to make, but is this enough to cast strong doubt on a historical Paul? What's the story behind "Paul" then?

[GrandizerII]

Well, yeah, a historical Paul should be a non-issue. It's also a more parsimonious view than to say that there was never a man by the name of Paul who wrote/authorized at least some of the epistles in his name, because then you'd have to ask what the motivation here is then to just attribute these epistles to a fictional character. I can understand later works attributed to Paul being pseudepigraphical due to his later popularity, but every single epistle in his name? What was so special about the name "Paul"?

There are at least three philosophies evident in the letters of Paul.  
Once the "letter writing" under any name began, and became recognized as "authoritative", this one happened to be Paul, 
that alone would be good enough to fake letters by a "Paul".

This doesn't address the point I'm making above. What was the motivation initially to attribute to a fictional character?

[Bucky Ball]

There are at least three philosophies evident in the letters of Paul.  
Once the "letter writing" under any name began, and became recognized as "authoritative", this one happened to be Paul, 
that alone would be good enough to fake letters by a "Paul".

This doesn't address the point I'm making above. What was the motivation initially to attribute to a fictional character?

I already answered that, above.
See : https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Paul did not preach (if there was one) "Christianity". He preached his own gospel, which he admitted/claimed he got "by personal revelation", (and "from no man").
I still want to know which academics support your claims who are not "economically obligated" (not PAID by Christian organizations) to support the status quo.

[GrandizerII]

This doesn't address the point I'm making above. What was the motivation initially to attribute to a fictional character?

I already answered that, above.

I don't think you did, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Let's start again:

There are six or seven epistles written in the name of Paul deemed to be authentic by scholars. You don't consider them to be authentic, but nevertheless they share a style of writing and philosophy that appears to indicate they were written/authorized by the same person (or group of people). You also see the name "Paul" as the "speaker" in these epistles. Now who was this "Paul"? If it's a fictional character, why the name "Paul"? Why not a real person's name? Or maybe it is a real person's name, but only had remote indirect connection to these epistles?

If there was no historical Paul, what's the story here?

You've been arguing a lot in the negative, but what's your positive case?

See : https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Paul did not preach (if there was one) "Christianity". He preached his own gospel, which he admitted/claimed he got "by personal revelation", (and "from no man").

I've seen that site dozens of times before. Skim reading the first article on Paul in that link, the author makes one assumption that I don't think is warranted: that the "Paul" of the epistles is meant to be honestly conveying information about himself. I don't think Paul was exactly an honest man. I think he had some grandiose idea of himself (much like what you're implying here actually) and exaggerated a few things about his own life details. So maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians in his past life, and maybe he's lying in his writings about his exact origins/background to prop himself up and justify his supposed special status.

Also, going back to your objections earlier about why Paul-this-or-that wasn't mentioned in any of the secular/Judaic sources at the time, it seems like you're basing them on legends about Paul in Acts rather than on what Paul himself said in his writings. And if that's the case, that weakens your objections.

I still want to know which academics support your claims who are not "economically obligated" (not PAID by Christian organizations) to support the status quo.

Well, you've basically rigged the game here. If you think someone like Richard Carrier is considered as "economically obligated" to support the status quo that the historical Paul existed, then nothing I say is going to satisfy you.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I already answered that, above.

I don't think you did, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Let's start again:

There are six or seven epistles written in the name of Paul deemed to be authentic by scholars. You don't consider them to be authentic, but nevertheless they share a style of writing and philosophy that appears to indicate they were written/authorized by the same person (or group of people). You also see the name "Paul" as the "speaker" in these epistles. Now who was this "Paul"? If it's a fictional character, why the name "Paul"? Why not a real person's name? Or maybe it is a real person's name, but only had remote indirect connection to these epistles?

If there was no historical Paul, what's the story here?

You've been arguing a lot in the negative, but what's your positive case?

See : https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Paul did not preach (if there was one) "Christianity". He preached his own gospel, which he admitted/claimed he got "by personal revelation", (and "from no man").

I've seen that site dozens of times before. Skim reading the first article on Paul in that link, the author makes one assumption that I don't think is warranted: that the "Paul" of the epistles is meant to be honestly conveying information about himself. I don't think Paul was exactly an honest man. I think he had some grandiose idea of himself (much like what you're implying here actually) and exaggerated a few things about his own life details. So maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians in his past life, and maybe he's lying in his writings about his exact origins/background to prop himself up and justify his supposed special status.

Also, going back to your objections earlier about why Paul-this-or-that wasn't mentioned in any of the secular/Judaic sources at the time, it seems like you're basing them on legends about Paul in Acts rather than on what Paul himself said in his writings. And if that's the case, that weakens your objections.

I still want to know which academics support your claims who are not "economically obligated" (not PAID by Christian organizations) to support the status quo.

Well, you've basically rigged the game here. If you think someone like Richard Carrier is considered as "economically obligated" to support the status quo that the historical Paul existed, then nothing I say is going to satisfy you.

*chuckle* I’m trying to imagine Richard Carrier being paid by Christian organizations to argue for an historic Paul.

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

I already answered that, above.

I don't think you did, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Let's start again:

There are six or seven epistles written in the name of Paul deemed to be authentic by scholars. You don't consider them to be authentic, but nevertheless they share a style of writing and philosophy that appears to indicate they were written/authorized by the same person (or group of people). You also see the name "Paul" as the "speaker" in these epistles. Now who was this "Paul"? If it's a fictional character, why the name "Paul"? Why not a real person's name? Or maybe it is a real person's name, but only had remote indirect connection to these epistles?

If there was no historical Paul, what's the story here?

You've been arguing a lot in the negative, but what's your positive case?

See : https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Paul did not preach (if there was one) "Christianity". He preached his own gospel, which he admitted/claimed he got "by personal revelation", (and "from no man").

I've seen that site dozens of times before. Skim reading the first article on Paul in that link, the author makes one assumption that I don't think is warranted: that the "Paul" of the epistles is meant to be honestly conveying information about himself. I don't think Paul was exactly an honest man. I think he had some grandiose idea of himself (much like what you're implying here actually) and exaggerated a few things about his own life details. So maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians in his past life, and maybe he's lying in his writings about his exact origins/background to prop himself up and justify his supposed special status.

Also, going back to your objections earlier about why Paul-this-or-that wasn't mentioned in any of the secular/Judaic sources at the time, it seems like you're basing them on legends about Paul in Acts rather than on what Paul himself said in his writings. And if that's the case, that weakens your objections.

I still want to know which academics support your claims who are not "economically obligated" (not PAID by Christian organizations) to support the status quo.

Well, you've basically rigged the game here. If you think someone like Richard Carrier is considered as "economically obligated" to support the status quo that the historical Paul existed, then nothing I say is going to satisfy you.

I never said Carrier was "economically obigated". 
That's ALL you got ? 
I want to know who else is in your "consensus" claim.
YOU claimed consensus. You don't know what that consists of ?

[GrandizerII]

I don't think you did, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Let's start again:

There are six or seven epistles written in the name of Paul deemed to be authentic by scholars. You don't consider them to be authentic, but nevertheless they share a style of writing and philosophy that appears to indicate they were written/authorized by the same person (or group of people). You also see the name "Paul" as the "speaker" in these epistles. Now who was this "Paul"? If it's a fictional character, why the name "Paul"? Why not a real person's name? Or maybe it is a real person's name, but only had remote indirect connection to these epistles?

If there was no historical Paul, what's the story here?

You've been arguing a lot in the negative, but what's your positive case?


I've seen that site dozens of times before. Skim reading the first article on Paul in that link, the author makes one assumption that I don't think is warranted: that the "Paul" of the epistles is meant to be honestly conveying information about himself. I don't think Paul was exactly an honest man. I think he had some grandiose idea of himself (much like what you're implying here actually) and exaggerated a few things about his own life details. So maybe Paul never really persecuted Christians in his past life, and maybe he's lying in his writings about his exact origins/background to prop himself up and justify his supposed special status.

Also, going back to your objections earlier about why Paul-this-or-that wasn't mentioned in any of the secular/Judaic sources at the time, it seems like you're basing them on legends about Paul in Acts rather than on what Paul himself said in his writings. And if that's the case, that weakens your objections.


Well, you've basically rigged the game here. If you think someone like Richard Carrier is considered as "economically obligated" to support the status quo that the historical Paul existed, then nothing I say is going to satisfy you.

I never said Carrier was "economically obigated". 
That's ALL you got ? 
I want to know who else is in your "consensus" claim.
YOU claimed consensus. You don't know what that consists of ?

That's all I got? Are you not reading my posts properly?

I claimed consensus, yes. Do YOU know what that consists of? Hint: It's not only going to involve a handful of scholars that may be to your liking. Again, you're rigging the game so that no matter what I say, you will not be satisfied.

Also, why don't you present your positive case for the mythicist Paul? Bring it to the table, so we can analyze it.