Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[GrandizerII]

pid='2172191' dateline='1696392847']

Alright, so I've just gone through all this text, but not sure I understood all key points here. What is the takeaway exactly? What is the relevance exactly to what we've been arguing about here? Or is this just sharing something from what you previously wrote up for a lecture or something that you thought would be an interesting read? Was Saul of Tarsus real or not?

Off-topic, I didn't understand what your issue was with Thomas being one of the "Twelve"? If there were 11 in the room, and Thomas was away, what's the problem exactly here? Nevermind, I see what you mean. 11 at that point, as in Paul wasn't an item then. Still, there were 12 at that point, per "John", and Paul is overlooked/ignored there. ETA: Also, forgot about Judas.

I copied it in, to demonstrate ONE point. I am not a Paul mythicist. 
That's the only "takeaway". 
Obviously someone wrote the damn letters, .. someone who had familiarity with other sources. 
And that someone was an Apocalyptic Jew, who remained an Apocalyptic Jew, who was and remained in the Jewish Apocalyptic tradition, even after "conversion".

I'm happy to take your word for it that you are not a Paul mythicist.

So what was the deal with your original question to me then?

That I said Paul was a prominent leader among mid-first century Christians? Sure, maybe "one of the prominent leaders among mid-first century Christians" is not exactly accurate in terms of the wording, but I wasn't suggesting he was the top head among all heads, only that he had a high status among the various Christ-believing communities that he conversed/interacted with.

But that aside for a second, your question was worded as follows:

What evidence is there that a "Paul" was a prominent leader among "First Century Christians" ?

Double quotes around Paul seemed to imply you didn't believe Paul was a historical figure. I'm happy to be charitable here and assume it's because you're suggesting there was no such Paul that was, as I put it, a prominent leader among, as I also put it, Christians. Which, ok fair enough, but the point I was trying t make is that he was of some significant importance, as part of my answer to FM's OP question.

I'm guessing the quotes around "Christians" is because you didn't believe they were independent groups back then. And if so, that's fine by me, but I'd still consider them Christians.

And then you did make the sort of arguments Paul mythicists are known to make, like why was Paul not mentioned in secular sources then, if he was a student of someone awesome like Gamaliel and stuff like that.

So again, happy to accept you're not a Paul mythicist then, but I can't fault myself for misinterpreting you then. Plus, you kind of annoyed me with the whole prove consensus bs, so maybe I wasn't fully paying attention.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no evidence that any paul was anyone of significant importance. There is only the character of paul in magic book, which not even the consensus thinks is the historic person of paul. The consensus doesn't even think that authentic paul was the historic person of paul.

"The arguments that mythicists are known to make" is just a dry recounting of facts acknowledged even by the consensus. It's a bridge too far, for many of them, to simply say that paul is a literary, rather than historical, person. They know all of this, and still think, for whatever reason or none, that there was some real boy lost to history. Even mythicists like carrier tend to think this about paul (his reason being pretty cut and dry, relying on a historical paul to spread a mythological jesus).

Personally, I look over all of this and realize that all of these people, even the mythicists, would likely contend that the nigerian prince is real, and that this is the most parsimonious explanation for his emails. He tells embarrassing stories about himself. Somebody had to write them. How are we to explain all the money changing hands if there were no nigerian prince? Why would anyone lie about a nigerian prince specifically...and who would believe them? Anyone who denies or is even skeptical of the historicity of the nigerian prince is a nut espousing a view contradictory to the methods of the consensus of scholars.

[Bucky Ball]

I want to know who are ALL the names in his consensus, believers and non-believers, 
and the organizations they work for.

Because this sort of inquiry is up for grabs to the highest bidder, just like climate science.  Everybody knows that! When I first came to this atheist forum I was in the pay of Satan, but the fucker turned out to be a deadbeat.  Paychecks bounced.  Thinking of moving over to a Christian Forum now.

No. If there were one, someone would have one. 
If you wanna move, please go. On the way out the door, read Pagels "The Origins of Satan".
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Satan-Chri...0679731180
On second thought, anyone in 2023 buys into Babylonian mythology as fact. needs to go.
Buh bye.

[LinuxGal]

It very much seems like the romanizing influence was also the christianizing influence.  This is a pretty good candidate for why "paul" was important.  Paul -as written- was a romanizer.

Hence the name change.

Only the Book of Acts calls him Saul, and that whole book is a propaganda piece to paint him as totally harmonious with the Jewish-Christians at Jerusalem.

[LinuxGal]

Another counterfactual, we know people invent seemingly embarassing stories, but whatever.  The idea that a fictional superhero story wouldn't "go there" is absurd.  It did go there.  Regardless of whether there were a real boy, it went there.

Jesus mythicists think if they can erase a historical Nazareth, they can erase the historical Jesus.  The gospel of John acknowledges the problem with this exchange:

Philip: "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth..."

Nathanael: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

Later in John 7:2 he has people say, "Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

So everyone knew the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2): "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Mark and John ignored it, but Matthew and Luke tried to fix the Nazareth problem by making two entirely different stories about the Holy Family's side trip there.  If you're making up a superhero story you stick with Bethlehem and never mention Nazareth at all.   But they couldn't do it because the name of the damn sect was the Nazarenes.

[LinuxGal]

Personally, I think whatever Paul meant to say exactly regarding persecuting Christians in his past life, he was exaggerating what he did, to make himself sound like he was the worst of the worst before he became the best of the best. So maybe there is a grain of truth to him having been mean to Christians, but I think this got overblown through his exaggerations and through the beliefs of later Christians

Going by his account in Galatians, the word of his persecution three years prior was already out on the street and needed no embellishment from him.

Galatians 1:22-23 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

[The Grand Nudger]

Another counterfactual, we know people invent seemingly embarassing stories, but whatever.  The idea that a fictional superhero story wouldn't "go there" is absurd.  It did go there.  Regardless of whether there were a real boy, it went there.

Jesus mythicists think if they can erase a historical Nazareth, they can erase the historical Jesus.  The gospel of John acknowledges the problem with this exchange:

Philip: "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth..."

Nathanael: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

Later in John 7:2 he has people say, "Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

So everyone knew the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2): "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Mark and John ignored it, but Matthew and Luke tried to fix the Nazareth problem by making two entirely different stories about the Holy Family's side trip there.  If you're making up a superhero story you stick with Bethlehem and never mention Nazareth at all.   But they couldn't do it because the name of the damn sect was the Nazarenes.

Yes, the gospels (and the ot, and the ot and nt in combo) have alot of narrative discontinuity.  So does every other kind of fanfic. If I recall correctly, this was one of the things that chris hitchens found most compelling about the narrative.

[arewethereyet]

I am confused. Are we trying to prove or disprove the Bible with Biblical quotes?

[LinuxGal]

Quote:

If the Jewish authorities and Romans had gone to all the trouble to arrest and try and crucify him, why was there never once a search-party assembled to find him and take care of him, if he posed enough of a problem to go to all the trouble to do away with him on Passover weekend.

Something spooked Jesus.  He  hid from his enemies in Jerusalem by spending December of 29 CE through April of 30 in  the southern frontier of the Decapolis region over the river Jordan.


https://jamestabor.com/wp-content/upload...John-1.pdf

What I find most intriguing is the cryptic reference in the gospel of John to Jesus’ retreat
across the Jordan the last winter of his life. He has left Jerusalem after Hanukah and John reports:
Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. He went away
again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first, and there
he remained. And many came to him. And they said, “John did no sign, but
everything that John said about this man was true.” And many believed in him there
(John 10:39-42).

[LinuxGal]

Quote:

Back in Matthew 27:53 he says that after the resurrection the "bodies of many saints who had 'fallen asleep' were raised. And coming forth from their tombs AFTER his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many".

Paul: "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible."

Jerusalem Christians: "Again?"