Questioning Paul/Saul

[Zzyzx]

.
A great deal of the New Testament (31% of the total and thirteen of the twenty seven books of the New Testament) is attributed to Paul/Saul. He was apparently a (or the) driving force / originator of early Christianity and a mainstay of modern Christianity.

However, there are reasons to question the truth and accuracy of what his writings.

First, Christian scholars and theologians are in general agreement that some epistles attributed to Paul/Saul were actually written by others.

There is wide consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether Ephesians and Colossians are the letters of Paul; however, the remaining four–2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles–have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... e_epistles

Thus, seven (about half) are deemed authentic Paul/Saul, four are generally considered pseudepigraphical (written by others and falsely assigned) and two are disputed.

Second, Paul/Saul himself said VERY little about the “vision� (“conversion�) and did NOT describe the event. All he said was:

In the Pauline epistles, the description of the conversion experience is brief. The First Epistle to the Corinthians[9:1][15:3-8] describes Paul as having seen the risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

The Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with Jesus appearing to Paul.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversio ... e_epistles

Detailed accounts of the “vision� were written by the author of “Acts of the Apostles� attributed to Luke (whoever that may have been). Acts 9:3–9, –  Acts 9:13–19. That is a second-hand account by a person whose identity is unknown to or disputed by scholars and theologians – and who cannot be shown to have personal knowledge of the event (only what he was told by others) – AND who was writing decades or generations after the claimed event.

Christianity is heavily dependent upon the “vision� tale being true. If it is not, much of Christianity is based upon a false / fictional / imaginary event – that was NOT described by the supposed participant.

Questions for debate:

1. Why believe the “vision� tale?

2. Why believe anything said by or about Paul/Saul?

3. Are there additional reasons to question the authenticity / veracity of Paul/Saul?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 10 by oldbadger]



"I knew an Irish lady from County Kerry (this is not a rude limerick) who stopped going to Mass when latin was dropped for English. She didn't like the services after that. I asked her if she spoke latin well, and she looked at me in amazement..... she could not speak latin, she just liked the sound of it. It sounded nice!

None of the intangible drivvel is anything to do with Jesus or his vocation, which was clearly to win Just and Fair treatment for the peasant classes of Galilee and if possible, beyond."

It worked for her. Who are we to judge.

[oldbadger]

It worked for her. Who are we to judge.

..... yeah, it worked when she couldn't understand a word, just the chantings in weird sounds.
But she soon lost interest when she heard what was really being said. Then shw judged for herself....

We are not judging her, but just objectively reporting her own experiences.
And since you ask 'who are we to judge?' you might post that very question on Fubdie Christian forums where most members want homosexuals to be killed either slowly and painfully, or by dropped rock.
'Who are we to judge?' indeed.....

[marco]

..... yeah, it worked when she couldn't understand a word, just the chantings in weird sounds.
But she soon lost interest when she heard what was really being said. Then shw judged for herself....

As it happens I thought the Latin Mass had a certain rare beauty, an enchanting mysticism. I understood the Latin but the words themselves were memorable. When I see what they have become in translation, I see that God has been reduced to a polar bear. The various musical masses of the great composers are unsurpassed in giving a glimpse of another world. Human ingenuity and art are themselves divine.
I'm sure the Italian artists brought as many people to Rome as did the Bible.

[oldbadger]

..... yeah, it worked when she couldn't understand a word, just the chantings in weird sounds.
But she soon lost interest when she heard what was really being said. Then shw judged for herself....

As it happens I thought the Latin Mass had a certain rare beauty, an enchanting mysticism. I understood the Latin but the words themselves were memorable. When I see what they have become in translation, I see that God has been reduced to a polar bear. The various musical masses of the great composers are unsurpassed in giving a glimpse of another world. Human ingenuity and art are themselves divine.
I'm sure the Italian artists brought as many people to Rome as did the Bible.

Fair points.
I find an enchanting myticism in walking around the ruins of ancient ruins such as the Reculver Towers, Richborough Casstle or even Canterbury Cathedral on a tuesday morning, when nobody is around.

[1213]

1. Why believe the “vision� tale?

2. Why believe anything said by or about Paul/Saul?

3. Are there additional reasons to question the authenticity / veracity of Paul/Saul?

Paul basically opened and explained earlier teachings. They can be helpful for disciples, but they have not anything crucial in them that would be absolute necessary for person to believe. But all of scriptures that are allegedly from Paul are helpful for those who are disciples of Jesus and therefore I recommend them for disciples. But if person is disciples of Jesus, it is good to notice, Jesus is higher.

[liamconnor]

.
A great deal of the New Testament (31% of the total and thirteen of the twenty seven books of the New Testament) is attributed to Paul/Saul. He was apparently a (or the) driving force / originator of early Christianity and a mainstay of modern Christianity.

However, there are reasons to question the truth and accuracy of what his writings.

First, Christian scholars and theologians are in general agreement that some epistles attributed to Paul/Saul were actually written by others.

There is wide consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether Ephesians and Colossians are the letters of Paul; however, the remaining four–2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles–have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... e_epistles

Thus, seven (about half) are deemed authentic Paul/Saul, four are generally considered pseudepigraphical (written by others and falsely assigned) and two are disputed.

Second, Paul/Saul himself said VERY little about the “vision� (“conversion�) and did NOT describe the event. All he said was:

In the Pauline epistles, the description of the conversion experience is brief. The First Epistle to the Corinthians[9:1][15:3-8] describes Paul as having seen the risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

The Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with Jesus appearing to Paul.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversio ... e_epistles

Detailed accounts of the “vision� were written by the author of “Acts of the Apostles� attributed to Luke (whoever that may have been). Acts 9:3–9, –  Acts 9:13–19. That is a second-hand account by a person whose identity is unknown to or disputed by scholars and theologians – and who cannot be shown to have personal knowledge of the event (only what he was told by others) – AND who was writing decades or generations after the claimed event.

Christianity is heavily dependent upon the “vision� tale being true. If it is not, much of Christianity is based upon a false / fictional / imaginary event – that was NOT described by the supposed participant.

Questions for debate:

1. Why believe the “vision� tale?

2. Why believe anything said by or about Paul/Saul?

3. Are there additional reasons to question the authenticity / veracity of Paul/Saul?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Pauline epistles, the description of the conversion experience is brief. The First Epistle to the Corinthians[9:1][15:3-8] describes Paul as having seen the risen Christ:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There is quite a bit more here than Paul's mention of the appearance. He gives names of others, one of which was personally known to the Corinthians (Peter). I know that some here like to discount this because we do not have Peter's own written words, but that is because they inappropriately apply courtroom criteria (which is really not about finding out what happened, but about defense and prosecution) to historical documents; but that is their problem, not mine--I can't exactly say I have been scored upon in basketball when my opponent suddenly decides the rules of football apply and carries the ball to the net.

Detailed accounts of the “vision� were written by the author of “Acts of the Apostles� attributed to Luke (whoever that may have been). Acts 9:3–9, –  Acts 9:13–19. That is a second-hand account by a person whose identity is unknown to or disputed by scholars and theologians – and who cannot be shown to have personal knowledge of the event (only what he was told by others) – AND who was writing decades or generations after the claimed event.

There is good reason to believe the author had accompanied Paul during part of his missionary work.

"After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them." (Act 16:10 NIV)

Stylistically, one wonders why Luke did not introduce himself more smoothly; that is a stylistic question. As an historical quesiton, it lends credibility to the historicity of his presence. If he were lying we:

1) would need motives
2) would expect a more grandiose entrance into the narrative.

However, there are reasons to question the truth and accuracy of what his writings.

The only reason I have seen so far comes from two fallacious approaches: 1) applying courtroom rules to history. 2) approaching historical documents under the hermeneutic of doubt--that is, every document you open up, immediately assume the author is lying.

I see no reason why either should be judged as more rational than a neutral approach which assesses the veracity of each document on its own merits by applying methods and criteria appropriate to the discipline--that indeed is how historians of other topics approach their data.

If historical methodology is not sufficient for you, that is fine. But it does not mean the rest of us are irrational in accepting Paul's claim.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 16 by liamconnor]

"I see no reason why either should be judged as more rational than a neutral approach which assesses the veracity of each document on its own merits by applying methods and criteria appropriate to the discipline--that indeed is how historians of other topics approach their data."

I'm glad you wrote this. Here, plain as day, is where your reasoning fails you utterly.

What are the methods and criteria available to historians to establish what folk had what visions millenia ago?

When you couple this mystifying oversight with simply granting claimed eyewitness accounts mean the witnessed thing is more likely to be witnessed because the claim is from a claimed eyewitness....

Well you have Liamconnor apologetics 101.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is quite a bit more here than Paul's mention of the appearance. He gives names of others, one of which was personally known to the Corinthians (Peter).

Trying to verify a story with the story itself is a rather poor approach to learning truth.

I know that some here like to discount this because we do not have Peter's own written words, but that is because they inappropriately apply courtroom criteria (which is really not about finding out what happened, but about defense and prosecution) to historical documents; but that is their problem, not mine--

Is it “courtroom criteria� to ask WHY something should be believed or accepted as truth? Is it somehow NOT naïve and gullible to believe whatever one is told?

I can't exactly say I have been scored upon in basketball when my opponent suddenly decides the rules of football apply and carries the ball to the net.

The rules of debate are clearly set forth in Forum Rules and Guidelines – and include substantiating claims AND clear specification that the Bible is not any more authoritative than any other text (not proof of truth).

Detailed accounts of the “vision� were written by the author of “Acts of the Apostles� attributed to Luke (whoever that may have been). Acts 9:3–9, –  Acts 9:13–19. That is a second-hand account by a person whose identity is unknown to or disputed by scholars and theologians – and who cannot be shown to have personal knowledge of the event (only what he was told by others) – AND who was writing decades or generations after the claimed event.

There is good reason to believe the author had accompanied Paul during part of his missionary work.

Many in-the-pew Christians KNOW who wrote Acts and KNOW he was a companion of Paul/Saul. Christian scholars and theologians are not so certain:

Joseph B. Tyson, Professor emeritus of Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University April 2011

The range of proposed dates for Acts is quite wide, from c. 60 CE-150 CE. Within this range of dates, three are prominent in the scholarly literature: an early, an intermediate, and a late date.

Most modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date, i.e., c. 80-c. 90 CE, and they cite a number of factors to support this dating.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/actapo358006.shtml

The article is a good read for anyone interested

Stylistically, one wonders why Luke did not introduce himself more smoothly; that is a stylistic question. As an historical quesiton, it lends credibility to the historicity of his presence. If he were lying we:

1) would need motives
2) would expect a more grandiose entrance into the narrative.

Since there is no assurance who wrote Acts or when it would be foolish to speculate about motives and style.

However, there are reasons to question the truth and accuracy of what his writings.

The only reason I have seen so far comes from two fallacious approaches: 1) applying courtroom rules to history.

Do historians generally regard tales of supernatural events as truthful and accurate? Is believing tales about flying horses or reanimated corpses part of historical methodology?

2) approaching historical documents under the hermeneutic of doubt--that is, every document you open up, immediately assume the author is lying.

It is prudent to view every document as a possible source of truth OR untruth – to acknowledge that writers may have made errors (since they are human). A person may be wrong without lying – which implies deliberate deception.

It is NOT all “black and white� – “he is telling everything correct or he is lying�. An author may be recording what he has been told by others (as appears to be the case with many Bible stories). He may get things wrong.

If the author of Acts was writing during what is favored as “intermediate date� (80s or 90s) that would be decades after Paul/Saul likely lived and wrote and a half century after Jesus is said to have died.

I see no reason why either should be judged as more rational than a neutral approach which assesses the veracity of each document on its own merits by applying methods and criteria appropriate to the discipline--that indeed is how historians of other topics approach their data.

Let's apply that to the “vision� story. Who wrote it, when, what was their apparent purpose? Are they likely to have been promoting an agenda? Is there any external substantiation? Are the events within what has been shown to happen in the real world?

If historical methodology is not sufficient for you, that is fine. But it does not mean the rest of us are irrational in accepting Paul's claim.

Okay. Exactly what was Paul/Saul's claim about the “vision� in his own words?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 12 by oldbadger]

".... ask 'who are we to judge?' you might post that very question on Fubdie Christian forums where most members want homosexuals to be killed either slo..."

Never heard of 'fudbie christians'.

[oldbadger]

Never heard of 'fudbie christians'.

Wot?!
Never 'eard of a Fubdie Christian?
I could tell you that they are a secret sect that eats babies every full moon, and keeps several wives at any one time, with sex slaves on the side.....

But that would be fibbin'......

Truth is, Fubdie Christians only appear when idiots like me hit the wrong key, creating a typo....