Paul Never Existed

[The Nice Centurion]

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

Question for debate:

Is that true ?

What are the pro & contra ?

[1213]

Question for debate:

Is that true ?

What are the pro & contra ?

I believe Paul existed. But, if he didn't exist, who wrote his letters and why he didn't take credit for himself?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]
Every main consens explains that Paul wrote only a small part of his letters.

But what if he didnt even write this small part?

[LittleNipper]

Ah, yes! And the astronauts never went to the moon... It was all a hoax! There is far, far less proof of Alexander the Great then there is of Paul. What is Alexander noted for, except maybe -----

[TRANSPONDER]

Thee are coiuns of Alexander, likenesses, cities named after him. Rather like Muhammad, the conquests at least support their existence. For Paul we have only the letters, and half of those are reckoned to be spurious. Some may claim that Marcion faked all of the letters. I don't believe it myself, but Paul really has little or no support outside of the Bible

[Difflugia]

Ah, yes! And the astronauts never went to the moon... It was all a hoax! There is far, far less proof of Alexander the Great then there is of Paul. What is Alexander noted for, except maybe -----

You're just pointing out things that actually are extraordinarily well-attested, then saying, "and Paul, too, eh?" We have photographs taken on the moon. We have moon rocks. Buzz Aldrin is still alive. As for your claim that we have "far less proof of Alexander the Great," that claim is utterly without merit. Even if you try to argue that ancient Greek and Roman historiography are as bad as the Bible, Alexander was the hereditary ruler of the Macedonian Empire. We have things like sculpture and coins bearing his likeness and name that were physically contemporary with him.

The reason Paul is likely to have been real isn't because we have fantastic documentation of his existence. We don't. It's because Paul is basically just the guy that wrote about half (give or take) of the Pauline epistles. It makes sense why people would claim to be Paul after his theological opinion became well respected, but how does that process start if there's no Paul in the first place? Even if all of the known epistles are forgeries, what reason for the attribution other than a genuine writer (or at least orator) to impersonate? That's not nothing, but it's not as much as most people think it is and it's certainly not in the same league as film reels from the moon or the city of Alexandria, Egypt.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]
Every main consens explains that Paul wrote only a small part of his letters.

But what if he didnt even write this small part?

If so, I would like to know, who wrote them and why he gave credit to Paul. If you can't give any reasonable answer to that, i have no good reason to believe it was not Paul.

[TRANSPONDER]

For myself, the tome of some of the epistles show a person struggling a bit. After the confidence of Romans (despite Official Consensus I see that as his Thesis and foundation in which he argues his whole Crucifixion saves theory) he is having to rethink and excuse and justify himself. This is the record of a person and his work in progress, not someone faking it. It's a personal impression, but it's why I credit Paul as real.

[Difflugia]

If so, I would like to know, who wrote them and why he gave credit to Paul. If you can't give any reasonable answer to that, i have no good reason to believe it was not Paul.

Oh, there are many good reasons to believe it wasn't Paul.

• The vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is radically different than that of the epistles generally accepted as genuine. Not only does the author (or do the authors) or the pastorals use words that Paul doesn't, they often give different meaning to the words they have in common. Finally, the vocabulary of the pastorals more closely matches that of other Christian authors of the second century.
• The topics discussed in the pastorals include topics and church structure that more closely align with the state of the Church in the second century after Paul was dead than with the earlier Church.
• The earliest references to the pastoral epistles in other Christian writings don't appear until at least the mid to late second century.

We've led the horse to water. I suspect that the horse would rather drink from a river in Egypt, though.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1]

I would say, other than for historical interest, it doesn't really matter if "Paul" existed. Clearly someone wrote the original letters "from Paul". Was that person's name Paul? Who knows?

Like others have stated, some of the letters "from Paul" do not appear to be from the same author as others so at least some of them are likely not "from Paul" (whether that person's name is Paul or not).

At the end of the day, it kind of doesn't matter since what we are generally concerned about in these discussions is what "Paul" wrote about not the real name of the author of the original letters.

What matters more IMHO:

1. Are the contents of the letters relevant to establishing any truth about Jesus (since Jesus is the central topic)?
2. Are all the letters from the same author?

Even if Paul never existed, clearly someone did and they wrote some stuff down that is central to a new religion. If Jesus never existed, Christianity is pointless. If Paul never existed, then... well not much changes. Someone had visions/thoughts about Jesus and wrote them down. Whether this someone is named Paul doesn't really matter.