Paul--a fiction character.

The character called Paul has no known history.

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Paul--a fiction character.

#341  Postby dejuror » Aug 22, 2016 4:00 am

Scholars have already argued that Paul was not a figure of history and that the entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries or false attribution.

No Scholar today [with or without reputation/tenure/research funds] can present any historical evidence to show that the character called Paul in the NT ever existed since the time of Aretas and preached about Jesus [the Lord from heaven who was raised from the dead] before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Underlying belief is not historical evidence.

In any event, the hypothetical "Q" is useless since it is unknown and has never ever been found.

We actually have manuscripts called the NT and they depict fiction characters called Jesus and the disciples/apostles.


But what is most laughable is that Christian writers in their haste to manufacture their bogus history claimed Paul was seen of the fiction resurrected Jesus and that Paul stayed with Peter for fifteen days when he Peter was an invented fiction character in the fables called Gospels.

Christian writers forgot the resurrection of Jesus was fiction.

Paul is a witness of fiction and participated in the very same non-historical events.

The Pauline character in the NT is fiction and was manufactured by multiple unknown authors no earlier than the late 2nd century.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Paul--a fiction character.

#342  Postby tanya » Aug 30, 2016 2:34 pm

kyrani99 wrote:Paul is a rogue in my opinion and estimations. He wrote fiction and it is being kind to call it simply fiction.

No, he did not write fiction, or anything else, for "Paul" is merely a character in an exposition of mythological fiction, the Jesus story.

https://celiameyer.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... narration/
With Watson serving as a narrator, readers get a first person account of Sherlock and his character traits and habits, which somehow become more believable because they are conveyed through a real person, and not an omniscient presence.


Was Dr. Watson "a real person"? When in human history did this magical formula first appear: i.e. convey a story line "through a real person"--himself or herself, a fictional character, inserted into the story to increase plausibility? Does Lucian write in similar fashion, using fictional narrators?

On the old FRDB board, a few years ago, there was an imposter who logged in, using the moniker "Outhouse". Outhouse was a genuine person, still alive today, so far as I am aware, still posting fiction one supposes, in other words, still expressing fictional sentiments that have no bearing on the underlying, genuine human's own thoughts--to add to the aura of uniqueness, "Outhouse" would sometimes attack even himself, rather, his genuine counterpart's submissions. Somehow, the texts of this chap, kyrani99, remind me of outhouse's submissions. In other words, I doubt that kyrani99 genuinely believes the texts of his submissions to the forum. If he did, why would he not furnish evidence to support his ideas?

Here's another clue:
kyrani99 wrote: I see circumstantial evidence for the existence of some preacher, Paul or whoever.


Yet, as in almost all of his other submissions to the forum, no link, and no evidence is provided, by this poster. Meaningless palaver. goal: rile folks up, but make no effort to support, or repudiate genuine submissions to the forum.

The essential feature of "Outhouse's" posts: unwieldy tracts of nonsense, designed to derail a thread, often with an accusatory tone, directed at specific individuals, including, among others, himself (his genuine persona), dejuror, MM, duvduv, and myself. His submissions were designed not to elucidate, but to provoke reaction.

Whatever "circumstantial evidence" exists to attest to Paul as a genuine human, and not a fictional character, will surely apply with equal facility to Dr. Watson. Paul is a character in a fictional story, no different than Al Buraq, until someone comes up with a reference, i.e. a link to a reference, attesting to "Paul's" whereabouts in 33 CE, and thereafter. Dr. Watson narrated many stories of Holmes' adventures. If you seek to persuade me that Watson was not a fictional character, but a genuine human, I need someone other than A.C. Doyle to relate Dr. Watson's life story.
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Paul--a fiction character.

#343  Postby RealityRules » Sep 11, 2016 8:52 am

Produktbeschreibungen

Leseprobe. Abdruck erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung der Rechteinhaber. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

The Perils of Pauline Studies
"At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is a strange time for Pauline studies. After seemingly having run out of other ideas to beat to death, the academy has ventured into new territory. One might even say that, on analogy with the intrepid Netherlanders of old, Pauline scholars have created new territory to settle. A visit to the seminary book store or the religion aisle at Barnes & Noble will acquaint the reader with books arguing that Paul was a culture critic of Hellenistic Judaism, that he was a Jew and remained a Jew, that he wrote against U.S. foreign policy, and so on. Indeed, more than ever, he seems like a new Oracle of Delphi whose equivocal utterances may be read as conveying whatever message one most wants to hear. Like the infamous “historical Jesus,” Paul has become a reflection of the scholars studying him.

"Part of the reason for this state of affairs is that Jesus has recently been unavailable for these uses. As scholars have become more skeptical about recovering the goods on the historical Jesus (as witness the Jesus Seminar’s claim that only 18 percent of the sayings database was reliable), the less plausible it has seemed to make him the poster boy for green politics, feminism, whatever. Granted, this hasn’t stopped a number of scholars who still write books manufacturing and manicuring Jesus to look like them, since the less evidence there is, the more room is left for speculation; but some have retreated to Paul instead. Perhaps he can be the bulwark theologians once thought they had in Jesus. But great ironies lie this way.

"First, the closer scrutiny the Pauline texts receive, the clearer it becomes (and by now it seems mighty clear indeed) that the epistles present us with many of the same challenges the Gospels did. They appear to be filled with the same variety of redactional seams, non-sequiturs, and double-audience rhetorical tricks we find in the Gospels. In short, the historical Jesus problem replicates itself in the case of Paul. The epistles reveal themselves to the discerning reader to have exactly the same sort of limitations as the Gospels do: both are collections of fragments and pericopae contributed and fabricated by authors and communities of very different theological leanings. Both present barriers to the access of the individuals under whose names they appear, not open doors."

https://www.amazon.de/The-Amazing-Colos ... nskepti-21
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Paul--a fiction character.

#344  Postby RealityRules » Sep 11, 2016 8:54 am


"In 'The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul' [2012; Signature Books, Salt Lake City; 580 pages], Robert M Price suggests that Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion of Pontos, Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and [an] iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. His letters were actually written and edited by other people, including Marcion, and an early Church Father, Polycarp of Smyrna ...

"The story of Paul in the Book of Acts is not evident in Paul’s epistles. Acts contains fanciful “miracle-mongering” motifs, including a resurrected Jesus who walks through walls and people who can make earthquakes happen through prayer. In fact, only in the Book of Acts do we have twelve apostles. Paul’s letters mention more apostles, some of them female. In the early Christian church, there were other sources of information about Paul which were for a time canonical, including Acts of Paul and Acts of Paul and Thecla ...

"Some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, never even mentioned Paul in their extensive writings, so it is debatable whether or not Christians in Justin’s day had heard of Paul ...

"In the final analysis, according to Price, the canonical writings are not only infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp, as many scholars would acknowledge*, but are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives ..."

http://signaturebooks.com/new-testament ... y-existed/

    * eg. Joseph B Tyson, Matthias Klinghardt, & Markus Vinzent
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Paul--a fiction character.

#345  Postby dejuror » Sep 12, 2016 1:30 am

RealityRules wrote:

"In 'The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul' [2012; Signature Books, Salt Lake City; 580 pages], Robert M Price suggests that Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion of Pontos, Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and [an] iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. His letters were actually written and edited by other people, including Marcion, and an early Church Father, Polycarp of Smyrna ...

"The story of Paul in the Book of Acts is not evident in Paul’s epistles. Acts contains fanciful “miracle-mongering” motifs, including a resurrected Jesus who walks through walls and people who can make earthquakes happen through prayer. In fact, only in the Book of Acts do we have twelve apostles. Paul’s letters mention more apostles, some of them female. In the early Christian church, there were other sources of information about Paul which were for a time canonical, including Acts of Paul and Acts of Paul and Thecla ...

"Some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, never even mentioned Paul in their extensive writings, so it is debatable whether or not Christians in Justin’s day had heard of Paul ...

"In the final analysis, according to Price, the canonical writings are not only infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp, as many scholars would acknowledge*, but are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives ..."

http://signaturebooks.com/new-testament ... y-existed/

    * eg. Joseph B Tyson, Matthias Klinghardt, & Markus Vinzent


Marcion did not infuse anything in the NT Canon.

The NT Canon was used to argue against Marcion.


1. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the Jews killed Jesus the son of God [the Lord from heaven-- God Creator]-----Marcion did not teach such nonsense.

2. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Jesus was the son of God [God Creator] and made of a woman---Marcion did not teach such idiocy.

3. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Jesus was God Creator---Marcion did not teach such a ridiculous notion.

4. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Jesus the son of God [God Creator] resurrected after he was dead--Marcion did not teach such stupidity.

The teachings of Marcion were not and never compatible with the NT Canon.

Marcion's God was not the God of the Jews .
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4711

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest