Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(28-10-2012 08:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 08:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for your comments.

Do you agree with me that this is the only place in Paul's writings where he actually mentioned anything that Jeebus did or said? I'm guessing this is an interpolation. What do you think?

I'll have to look. It probably is, but the question is did HE even write this ? Since all his letters are combo jobs, you can tell when the writing styles and Greek vocabulary changes. I'll have to puzzle over the quotes with my "Greek" hat on. But yes, in general, the *Risen Lord*, or *The Christ* or *The Anointed One Who Was Raised* is a wholly "new understanding" of Yeshua. It's a concept that *The Exalted One* "bears a resemblance" (secondary to having been granted martyr status), but Yeshua is dead and gone. The *Exalted One* is a "new creation", or a part of the "new creation". We hear those words so often they cease to actually have the real meaning that actually had, when he first wrote them. Our brains take them back and forth to metaphor. Some he meant that way. Some he really meant.

I am guessing this whole scenario is an interpolation....ie someone else wrote it. I don't think Paul ever imagined his Christ was a flesh and blood character. I don't believe his "Christ" (in his mind) was Yeshua or Jeebus or Jesus. What do you think?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 09:34 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:So about one of the Pauls : The Tarsus Paul.

Beyond all the obvious stuff, about him introducing the "salvation paradigm" (which is 100 % absent in Mark, the first gospel, thus we know it was not the message of Jesus),


Uh-huh. Observe.

Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar_13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.


There's your salvation message in Mark purportedly from Jesus. Impossible to miss by even a basic student.


Quote:Paul is traditionally credited with writing thirteen of the twenty-seven titles in the New Testament. All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name to give them credibility. This was a common practice of the time, and was, in fact, forgery.

You have provided no references to substantiate this assertion that "All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name."

The truth of the matter is that there are only 4 of the letters that are doubted as having Pauline authorship by a majority (not ALL) of the scholars. The other 3 are split 50/50 among the scholars. Below is the breakdown.

Quote:Authenticity of the epistles

Main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles.

Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:

Hebrews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

So please represent the scholarship community truthfully.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:32 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:24 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:So about one of the Pauls : The Tarsus Paul.

Beyond all the obvious stuff, about him introducing the "salvation paradigm" (which is 100 % absent in Mark, the first gospel, thus we know it was not the message of Jesus),


Uh-huh. Observe.

Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar_13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

There's your salvation message in Mark purportedly from Jesus. impossible to miss by even a basic student.


Quote:Paul is traditionally credited with writing thirteen of the twenty-seven titles in the New Testament. All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name to give them credibility. This was a common practice of the time, and was, in fact, forgery.

You have provided no references to substantiate this assertion that "All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name."

The truth of the matter is that there are only 4 of the letters that are doubted as having Pauline authorship by a majority (not ALL) of the scholars. The other 3 are split 50/50 among the scholars. Below is the breakdown.

Quote:Authenticity of the epistles

Main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles.

Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:

Hebrews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

So please represent the scholarship community truthfully.
Prove, please, that THAT author of THAT Wiki article had taken a poll of the scholarly community.
1 Wiki article proves nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 09:39 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 09:24 AM)Free Wrote:  Uh-huh. Observe.

Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar_13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

There's your salvation message in Mark purportedly from Jesus. impossible to miss by even a basic student.



You have provided no references to substantiate this assertion that "All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name."

The truth of the matter is that there are only 4 of the letters that are doubted as having Pauline authorship by a majority (not ALL) of the scholars. The other 3 are split 50/50 among the scholars. Below is the breakdown.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

So please represent the scholarship community truthfully.
Prove, please, that THAT author of THAT Wiki article had taken a poll of the scholarly community.
1 Wiki article proves nothing.

Quite simple. Go to Wiki article and click the reference numbers at the end of each statement, which lead you to the actual resources.

No brain required, but for you I will give a link that actually names the scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...e_epistles

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:24 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:So about one of the Pauls : The Tarsus Paul.

Beyond all the obvious stuff, about him introducing the "salvation paradigm" (which is 100 % absent in Mark, the first gospel, thus we know it was not the message of Jesus),


Uh-huh. Observe.

Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar_13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

There's your salvation message in Mark purportedly from Jesus. impossible to miss by even a basic student.


Quote:Paul is traditionally credited with writing thirteen of the twenty-seven titles in the New Testament. All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name to give them credibility. This was a common practice of the time, and was, in fact, forgery.

You have provided no references to substantiate this assertion that "All scholars admit that a number of the letters in the Bible attributed to Paul were written at a much later date by other parties who used Paul’s name."

The truth of the matter is that there are only 4 of the letters that are doubted as having Pauline authorship by a majority (not ALL) of the scholars. The other 3 are split 50/50 among the scholars. Below is the breakdown.

Quote:Authenticity of the epistles

Main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles.

Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates)[3] considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:

Hebrews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

So please represent the scholarship community truthfully.
Poster is, (as he is no scholar) unaware of what the "salvation paradigm" means. The "salvation paradigm" has nothing to do with the concepts Free has pulled out from Mark, of a "personal salvation". The "salvation paradigm" is that the MAN, Yeshua ben Josef effected the possible salvation OF ALL by a "salvific action" in, or b y his death on the cross. Maybe he should take Bible 101.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:38 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  Quite simple. Go to Wiki article and click the reference numbers at the end of each statement, which lead you to the actual resources.

No brain required.
How can a book written in 1988 contain any information about the consensus among scholars today? Consider

The other source is http://catholic-resources.org, you should take a look at it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:43 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  Quite simple. Go to Wiki article and click the reference numbers at the end of each statement, which lead you to the actual resources.

No brain required.
How can a book written in 1988 contain any information about the consensus among scholars today? Consider

The other source is http://catholic-resources.org, you should take a look at it.
First publication in 1988, followed by revised publications. This is standard in scholarship.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:43 AM)Free Wrote:  First publication in 1988, followed by revised publications. This is standard in scholarship.
Have you actually looked at it? It was originally published in 1978. The version used as source on the wikipedia article is a revised version that was released 10 years later. I reiterate: How can a book published in 1988 contain any information about the consensus among scholars 20+ years after it's release?

Having said that, have you also looked at the second source used on the article? It's the homepage of a catholic priest who does exactly what you dislike so much about Bucky Ball. He asserts that there is a certain consensus among scholars without providing any external references.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:58 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Have you actually looked at it? It was originally published in 1978. The version used as source on the wikipedia article is a revised version that was released 10 years later. I reiterate: How can a book published in 1988 contain any information about the consensus among scholars 20+ years after it's release?

Quite simple. Most of today's scholars were scholars 20 years ago. The consensus is virtually identical.

Quote:Having said that, have you also looked at the second source used on the article? It's the homepage of a catholic priest who does exactly what you dislike so much about Bucky Ball. He asserts that there is a certain consensus among scholars without providing any external references.

Did you look at the 2nd link I provided? The one that names many of the scholars?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:01 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 09:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Quite simple. Most of today's scholars were scholars 20 years ago. The consensus is virtually identical.
And what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

(04-11-2012 09:58 AM)Free Wrote:  Did you look at the 2nd link I provided? The one that names many of the scholars?
Not yet. My posts were written in reference to the first wikipedia article you used to accuse Bucky Ball of misrepresenting the consensus among scholars today. As it turns out, the two sources used to back it up are either unreliable or completely outdated.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: