Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you believe Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter's deeds and that is why he appeared to a stranger on the road to Damascus?

<just-for-grins> One would think that Roman citizenship would be helpful. </just-for-grins>

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well, according to Acts, Jesus did appear to James and Peter first. Several years before the conversion of Paul, in fact.

There's also agreement between Galatians 2 and Acts 17 concerning Paul's trip to see them in Jerusalem - in an attempt to get on the same page regarding Gentiles.

I don't think that we're in a position to say that Paul lied about "seeing" Jesus. Acts says far more about it than Paul does, and he didn't have anything to do with that. Paul's description about the event is extremely general "and he appeared to me last of all as one abnormally born." That's it, that's all that Paul says. He doesn't give us any details about the "appearance" at all, which obviously is nothing compared to making up the elaborate stories in Acts.

Lets examine the book of Acts.

Do you believe the author of Acts is Luke?

If so, Luke is the only person who called Paul an apostle with the exception of Paul himself.

The Bible does not mention the rift between James and Paul at any length or what became of this encounter that I am aware of.

If Paul and Luke really spoke to what Jesus wanted, I believe it would not be at odds with James ans Peter.

One would assume a true apostle of Christ would be in agreement with other apostles to strengthen the religion and deliver the true message.

Just as God had to keep Moses on the straight and narrow, so would Jesus keep James and Peter in line. There would be no need for Paul.

If I am wrong about this, why was not Moses replaced as well?

There should be some logic behind Paul being inspired by Jesus other than Paul just saying so or Luke just backing Paul 100%.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Lets examine the book of Acts.

Do you believe the author of Acts is Luke?

If so, Luke is the only person who called Paul an apostle with the exception of Paul himself.

The Bible does not mention the rift between James and Paul at any length or what became of this encounter that I am aware of.

If Paul and Luke really spoke to what Jesus wanted, I believe it would not be at odds with James ans Peter.

One would assume a true apostle of Christ would be in agreement with other apostles to strengthen the religion and deliver the true message.

Just as God had to keep Moses on the straight and narrow, so would Jesus keep James and Peter in line. There would be no need for Paul.

If I am wrong about this, why was not Moses replaced as well?

There should be some logic behind Paul being inspired by Jesus other than Paul just saying so or Luke just backing Paul 100%.

I don't know who wrote Luke.

But, whoever wrote Acts called Paul an apostle, and obviously the Pauline churches recognized his apostleship.

And here's something else to consider: in the Gospels, the disciples - particularly James, John, and Peter - are a bunch of faithless knuckleheads. Jesus couldn't "keep them in line" - they even abandoned him at his time of greatest pain.

As for the "need" for Paul, that's a superfluous question. He happened, and he was accepted by the early churches, especially Acts / Galatians 2.

Oh, Paul did not replace any of the apostles. He just had a different mission.

 

[Shermana]

All right, now we are getting somewhere. Do you believe Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter's deeds and that is why he appeared to a stranger on the road to Damascus?

Seriously, why the need for Paul? Even if Jesus was unsatisfied with James and Peter why not appear to them instead of Paul?

I believe Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him.

Yeah, it would help if Paul was able to keep his story straight about whether his friends saw the light and heard the voice.

The only Rift even discussed between Peter and Paul is about inviting Gentiles to eat with them.

It's quite clear that the Jerusalem Church existed before Paul did and I'm sure they didn't just come up with the idea of being Torah observant on their own.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yeah, it would help if Paul was able to keep his story straight about whether his friends saw the light and heard the voice.

The only Rift even discussed between Peter and Paul is about inviting Gentiles to eat with them.

It's quite clear that the Jerusalem Church existed before Paul did and I'm sure they didn't just come up with the idea of being Torah observant on their own.

That is my objection, paul got away from the law to appease Gentiles and pagans

 

[Desert Snake]

That is my objection, paul got away from the law to appease Gentiles and pagans

So you think the NT is a fabrication?

 

[Shermana]

So you think the NT is a fabrication?

The majority of scholars think that about half of "Paul's epistles" are fabrications, and there's great a deal of interpolations and different versions within the texts of the NT. There's a reason they are called the "Deutero-Pauline" epistles.

 

[Desert Snake]

The majority of scholars think that about half of "Paul's epistles" are fabrications, and there's great a deal of interpolations and different versions within the texts of the NT. There's a reason they are called the "Deutero-Pauline" epistles.

So assuming your right, why would gentiles follow all the Torah laws?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The majority of scholars think that about half of "Paul's epistles" are fabrications, and there's great a deal of interpolations and different versions within the texts of the NT. There's a reason they are called the "Deutero-Pauline" epistles.

Math is difficult for a lot of people. Nothing to feel bad about.

 

[Shermana]

Math is difficult for a lot of people. Nothing to feel bad about.

Indeed, I imagine its difficult for you to think 6/13 is "about half". But 7/14 if you count Hebrews which I generally take for granted as already considered a different source, since it never says "From Paul" like the Deuteros. Technically, Colossians is about split in opinion so if I said the majority of scholars, it wouldn't possibly fall under the "Majority" category unless a precise count was taken. Even 6/14 would still be "about half".

 

[Shermana]

So assuming your right, why would gentiles follow all the Torah laws?

Why would Jews follow all the Torah laws in the first place? Why do you suppose we are given the Laws in the first place?

Which Law (other than the Sacrifices which as I've said are temporarily out until the next Temple) do you think a Wild Olive Graft to the Tree of Israel shouldn't have to follow particularly? Dietary Laws? That is a common example, but the same people who love bacon have difficulty with saying Jesus allowed eating fried flies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Indeed, I imagine its difficult for you to think 6/13 is "about half". But 7/14 if you count Hebrews which I generally take for granted as already considered a different source, since it never says "From Paul" like the Deuteros.

Only three of Paul's letters are "Deutero-" or "Pseudo-."

Three are disputed, which means that half of the NT scholars argue about their authenticity.

One is so far off that it's not even considered Deutero-Pauline. Even though it came after Paul, it was obviously not from a Pauline school.

Seven are considered genuine.

So that doesn't mean that half are considered fake. Not almost, not even close.

More than half (if we exclude Hebrews), 7/13, are considered Pauline.

Maybe it's not bad math after all. Perhaps it's laziness.

 

[Shermana]

If 7/13 are considered genuine, that means "about half" are not, and Ephesians at least has an 80/20 percent vote against it, not half. 2 Thes may have a higher than half ratio against it as well at least today. Colossians has a tight split though.

And it should be said, Edgar Goodspeed was not the only person who said that the Corinthians' and Romans may be Patchworks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If 7/13 are considered genuine, that means "about half" are not, and Ephesians at least has an 80/20 percent vote against it, not half. 2 Thes may have a higher than half ratio against it as well at least today. Colossians has a tight split though.

And it should be said, Edgar Goodspeed was not the only person who said that the Corinthians' and Romans may be Patchworks.

Do you even remember what you said?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If 7/13 are considered genuine, that means "about half" are not, and Ephesians at least has an 80/20 percent vote against it, not half. 2 Thes may have a higher than half ratio against it as well at least today. Colossians has a tight split though.

And it should be said, Edgar Goodspeed was not the only person who said that the Corinthians' and Romans may be Patchworks.

More lazy thinking.

7/13 are genuine, BUT ONLY THREE ARE CONSIDERED INAUTHENTIC BY A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS and the rest are disputed.

Yet you said:

The majority of scholars think that about half of "Paul's epistles" are fabrications, and there's great a deal of interpolations and different versions within the texts of the NT. There's a reason they are called the "Deutero-Pauline" epistles.

... which cannot be true.

Talking about consensus without reading anything is just silly.

(Maybe caps are easier for you to read)

 

[kepha31]

The seven "Undisputed Letters" (a.k.a. the "Authentic Pauline Letters").

• • These can be put into three subgroups chronologically:
    • The Earliest Letter (ca. 50-51 AD): 1 Thessalonians
    • The Middle Letters (mid 50's): 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians
    • The Latest Letter (ca. 57-58 AD): Romans
  • About 95-99% of scholars today agree that all of these letters were actually written by Paul himself.
• The six "Disputed Letters" (a.k.a. the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles").
  • For two of these, the scholarly divide is about 50/50 (that is, about 50% of scholars think they were written by Paul himself, while the other 50% think they are "pseudepigraphic" or written later by some follower of Paul):
    • If 2 Thessalonians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it soon after 1 Thess (in order to correct some misunderstandings caused by 1 Thess itself), since it is so similar in form and content to 1 Thess.
    • If Colossians is authentic, Paul probably wrote it near the end of his life (after spending several years in prison), since the theology expressed in it is rather different from Paul's earlier letters.
    • If either or both of these letters are pseudepigraphic, then they were probably written in the last few decades of the first Christian century.
  • For the other four, about 80% of scholars think they were written not by Paul, but by one of his followers after his death:
    • Ephesians is almost definitely a later expansion of Colossians, since they are so similar in structure and theology, but quite different from Paul's earlier letters; Ephesians was probably written to serve as a "cover letter" for an early collection of Pauline letters.
    • 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (a.k.a. The Pastoral Epistles) were most likely written late in the first century by some member(s) of the "Pauline School" who wanted to adapt his teachings to changing circumstances.
• The so-called Epistle to the Hebrews is definitely not written by Paul, and is not even explicitly attributed to him.
  • For centuries, many Christians counted it as the fourteenth "letter" of the Pauline corpus, mainly because the epistolary ending mentions Timothy, Paul's closest associate (see Heb 13:23).
  • Contrary to all other letters and epistles, however, the opening of Hebrews does not name its author at all.
  • In literary genre, therefore, Hebrews is not really a "letter"; rather, it is a "homily" (a scripture-based sermon).

Deutero-Pauline Letters

We burn plagiarists around here, don't we?

Pseudepigraphy was an acceptable practice in ancient times. It was a way of complimenting a teacher or original author (see link for other reasons). Deception or forgery was never the intent. If Paul didn't write this or didn't write that, in no way does that diminish the inspiration of the Epistles. (inspiration had to be proven, not just assumed)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We burn plagiarists around here, don't we?

Pseudepigraphy was an acceptable practice in ancient times. It was a way of complimenting a teacher or original author. Deception or forgery was never the intent. If Paul didn't write this or didn't write that, in no way does that remove or diminish the inspiration of the Epistles.

Deutero-Pauline Letters

That really doesn't follow. If the claim to inspiration is based on its apostolic authority, and especially if it hinges on authorship by Paul, it most certainly does speak to its inspiration.

The truth is - it simply doesn't matter who wrote anything in the NT. Inspiration is vested by the church, not granted by God.

 

[logician]

Whoever Paul was did say it was all right to lie to help gain believers. Not exactly a high moral stance.

 

[Shermana]

Whoever Paul was did say it was all right to lie to help gain believers. Not exactly a high moral stance.

And this explains the attitudes and tactics of most Paulinians....

 

[Shermana]

More lazy thinking.

7/13 are genuine, BUT ONLY THREE ARE CONSIDERED INAUTHENTIC BY A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS and the rest are disputed.

Yet you said:




... which cannot be true.

Talking about consensus without reading anything is just silly.

(Maybe caps are easier for you to read)

Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Brown, the "majority" of Scholars do not consider Ephesians authentic (by 80%) which I mentioned in the last post and you ignored, and few scholars today back 2 Thes as authentic, with an assessment of a 60/40 split on Colossians. At the very least, 5/13 are clearly ruled out "by the majority", with data on 2 The that is most likely more against it if an exact count was taken today.

"

• 2 Thessalonians -- "evenly divided"
• Colossians -- 60%
• Ephesians -- 70 to 80% (with Erasmus mentioned as one)
• Titus -- 80 to 90%
• 1 Timothy -- 80 to 90%
• 2 Timothy -- 80 to 90%"

"Several scholars dispute the authenticity of Colossians. According to Raymond Brown (An Introduction, p. 610), "At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter.""

As for 2 Thes, I'd say the split would have to be thoroughly counted for modern scholars to see who still backs it.