Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#81  Postby quas » Jan 17, 2012 3:10 pm

proudfootz wrote:Given the propensity of people to write things and attribute them to some supposed authority of the past (Moses being a prime example) there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of claims about these epistles.


I am not that familiar with history, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but we now know that, the documents we used to attribute to being written by Moses, were not written by Moses. I guess the reason we know is because textual scrutiny reveals them to come from 5 different sources? Is that right? Do you think there's a similar thing going on here? Do you have proof that Paul's letters were written by more than 1 person?
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently. -Nietzsche
User avatar
quas
 
Posts: 2764

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#82  Postby proudfootz » Jan 17, 2012 3:37 pm

quas wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Given the propensity of people to write things and attribute them to some supposed authority of the past (Moses being a prime example) there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of claims about these epistles.


I am not that familiar with history, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but we now know that, the documents we used to attribute to being written by Moses, were not written by Moses. I guess the reason we know is because textual scrutiny reveals them to come from 5 different sources? Is that right? Do you think there's a similar thing going on here? Do you have proof that Paul's letters were written by more than 1 person?


I have no 'proof' as such.

However it is widely accepted among scholars that half of the material attributed to Paul is bogus.

And the other half isn't quite safe either:

"However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics; Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity..."

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


So it seems there is good reason to be skeptical of the Pauline materials.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#83  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 17, 2012 3:40 pm

Not just Pauline materials.

What I am always amazed at is the amount of materials that did not make to the bible.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#84  Postby dejuror » Jan 17, 2012 4:31 pm

dejuror wrote:Well, please explain how Paul managed to write BLATANT Fiction about Jesus and then still was able to have his Fiction Fable Canonoized.


paarsurrey wrote:It was canonized much later; by the people who followed his line...


Please SHOW ME the SOURCE of Antiquity for your claims that the Pauline writings were Canonized much later by "people who followed his line".

There is ZERO non-apologetic source that have IDENTIFIED a Pauline writer and None that have identified his followers at any time.

You seem to be INVENTING your own story WITHOUT any actual evidence from antiquity.

dejuror wrote:The mother of Jesus must have thought Paul was a LIAR if Jesus did actually exist.


paarsurrey wrote:[Jesus took Mary along when he went on self-exile from Judea.


You seem to be INVENTING your own story without any actual written evidence from antiquity. Please IDENTIFY the Source of Antiquity that shows Jesus did actually exist and that he had a mother named Mary and went into self-exile with her from Judea.

Now, tell me about the Father of Jesus. He did NOT go into EXILE???? What is in the Source that you have??

dejuror wrote:Please state why Jesus, if he did live, did NOT tell people that Paul was Lying?


paarsurrey wrote:Jesus did not visit Judea again; he was away a thousand kilometers; there were no modern communications.


Can I have a look at your SOURCE of antiquity for the distance?? I would like to EXAMINE the credibility of your Source.

You say Jesus was a thousand kilometers away but you did NOT say in which direction.

I suggest that your Jesus was ONE thousand kilometers above Judea in a CLOUD on his way to heaven. [See Acts 1]

If you don't have any credible sources of antiquity for your Jesus and Paul stories then it is completely useless to INVENT.

I deal with WRITTEN EVIDENCE--WRITTEN STATEMENTS from Antiquity NOT INVENTED stories.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#86  Postby Blood » Feb 05, 2012 3:29 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:At best if Paul did exist he was no better than a snake-oil salesman making a quick buck flogging xtianity.


That's the opinion of the Ebionites, who were second century Jewish Christians. That's why the pro-Pauline Catholics branded them a "heresy." It's also the opinion of modern Jewish scholars. Jesus was supposedly a righteous, Torah abiding Jew in this model, but it was Paul who "corrupted" his message and turned it into something else.

The story of Paul receiving a "vision" of Jesus telling him to join the new religion is remarkably similar to Joseph Smith 1800 years later talking to the angel Moroni. This "I've seen a vision of a god/angel/whatever so now follow me" con trick has been going on since the beginning of time.
"One absurdity having been granted, the rest follows. Nothing difficult about that."
- Aristotle, Physics I, 185a
User avatar
Blood
 
Posts: 1506
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#87  Postby willhud9 » Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm

The direction that this thread has gone is of course down the shitter.

:nono:
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19330
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#88  Postby Scot Dutchy » Feb 05, 2012 5:24 pm

willhud9 wrote:The direction that this thread has gone is of course down the shitter.

:nono:



Was it going anywhere else?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#89  Postby willhud9 » Feb 05, 2012 5:26 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
willhud9 wrote:The direction that this thread has gone is of course down the shitter.

:nono:



Was it going anywhere else?


I actually thought dejuror and I had a pretty good discussion going on. I just got tired and needed a break (also 2 projects I'm working on for college) but now it's like the thread that never ceases to end junior.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19330
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#90  Postby dejuror » Feb 06, 2012 1:07 am

Virtually ALL the markers that the Pauline letters were written before the Fall of the Jewish Temple are Missing.

An examination of the Pauline writings for Textual Variations also show that they are compatible with ALL LATE writings.

The contents of each book and letter of the Canonised NT have many Textual Variations and there is a Predominant Pattern.

The earlier compositions have MORE Texual Variants than LATER texts.

It is expected Earlier Texts would show more transmission Degradation by the the time they were Canonised.

For example, The earliest Jesus story, gMark, only 45.1% is free of Textual variations, that is, 54.9% of gMark, more than half of gMark, shows some form of Transmission degradation, whether by interpolation or error.

There is an average of 10.3 Variants per page of Greek versions of gMark.


Now, Examine the Pastorals, which are considered to be AFTER the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Examine 1 Timothy--81.4% is FREE of Variants, free of transmission Degradation, that is ONLY 18.6% have textual variations.

There is an average of 2.9 variants per page of Greek versions of 1 Timothy.

Now when we examine and compare the Pauline letters to the Churches, all the letters have very high percentages of Variant Free Verses, or very low tramnsmission degradation.

Mark ---45.1 % Free of Variants and 10.8 variants per page.

Romans--- 75.5% Free of Variants and Only 2.9 variants per page.

1 Corinthians--- 75.7 % Free of Variants and Only 3.5 variants per page

2 Corinthians--- 78.1 % Free of Variants and Only 2.8 variants per page

Galatians--- 76.5 % Free of Variants and Only 3.3 variants per page

Ephesians--- 76.1 % Free of Variants and Only 2.9 variants per page

Philippians --70.2 % Free of Variants and Only 2.5 variants per page

Colossians-- 72.6 % Free of Variants and ONLY 3.4 variants per page

1 Thessalonians--- 68.5 % Free of Variants and Only 4.1 variants per page

2 Thessalonians--- 72.3 % Free of Variants and Only 3.1 variants per page

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Test ... _Testament

The Pauline letters to the Churches show NO signs of being early or that they were written BEFORE gMark.

The Pauline letters to the Churches show NO signs that they were MUTILATED by Marcion or that there were MULTIPLE altered versions of the Pauline letters to the Churches in circulation.

Remarkably, although Tertullian and Irenaeus claimed that Marcion mutilated the Pauline writings and that the Pauline letters were written Before the Fall of the Temple, the Pauline letters have LESS variants per page than the Epistles of 1 Peter, and James, which are considered to be AFTER the Pauline letters and were NOT claimed to have been mutilated.

James-- 61.6 % Free of Variants and 5.6 variants per page.

1 Peter--- 66.6 % Free of Variants and 5.7 variants per page.

The Pauline writings are NOT Authentic based on the Abudance of evidence---the textual variants per page of the Pauline letters MATCH those of writings composed AFTER gMark and about the same time as the Pastorals and Hebrews.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#91  Postby proudfootz » Feb 06, 2012 1:38 am

dejuror wrote:Virtually ALL the markers that the Pauline letters were written before the Fall of the Jewish Temple are Missing.

An examination of the Pauline writings for Textual Variations also show that they are compatible with ALL LATE writings.

The contents of each book and letter of the Canonised NT have many Textual Variations and there is a Predominant Pattern.

The earlier compositions have MORE Texual Variants than LATER texts.

It is expected Earlier Texts would show more transmission Degradation by the the time they were Canonised.

For example, The earliest Jesus story, gMark, only 45.1% is free of Textual variations, that is, 54.9% of gMark, more than half of gMark, shows some form of Transmission degradation, whether by interpolation or error.

There is an average of 10.3 Variants per page of Greek versions of gMark.


Now, Examine the Pastorals, which are considered to be AFTER the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Examine 1 Timothy--81.4% is FREE of Variants, free of transmission Degradation, that is ONLY 18.6% have textual variations.

There is an average of 2.9 variants per page of Greek versions of 1 Timothy.

Now when we examine and compare the Pauline letters to the Churches, all the letters have very high percentages of Variant Free Verses, or very low tramnsmission degradation.

Mark ---45.1 % Free of Variants and 10.8 variants per page.

Romans--- 75.5% Free of Variants and Only 2.9 variants per page.

1 Corinthians--- 75.7 % Free of Variants and Only 3.5 variants per page

2 Corinthians--- 78.1 % Free of Variants and Only 2.8 variants per page

Galatians--- 76.5 % Free of Variants and Only 3.3 variants per page

Ephesians--- 76.1 % Free of Variants and Only 2.9 variants per page

Philippians --70.2 % Free of Variants and Only 2.5 variants per page

Colossians-- 72.6 % Free of Variants and ONLY 3.4 variants per page

1 Thessalonians--- 68.5 % Free of Variants and Only 4.1 variants per page

2 Thessalonians--- 72.3 % Free of Variants and Only 3.1 variants per page

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Test ... _Testament

The Pauline letters to the Churches show NO signs of being early or that they were written BEFORE gMark.

The Pauline letters to the Churches show NO signs that they were MUTILATED by Marcion or that there were MULTIPLE altered versions of the Pauline letters to the Churches in circulation.

Remarkably, although Tertullian and Irenaeus claimed that Marcion mutilated the Pauline writings and that the Pauline letters were written Before the Fall of the Temple, the Pauline letters have LESS variants per page than the Epistles of 1 Peter, and James, which are considered to be AFTER the Pauline letters and were NOT claimed to have been mutilated.

James-- 61.6 % Free of Variants and 5.6 variants per page.

1 Peter--- 66.6 % Free of Variants and 5.7 variants per page.

The Pauline writings are NOT Authentic based on the Abudance of evidence---the textual variants per page of the Pauline letters MATCH those of writings composed AFTER gMark and about the same time as the Pastorals and Hebrews.


Very interesting evidence. :clap:

This reminds me of how DNA is used to show when two present-day species might have had a common ancestor based on amount of random mutation rates.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#92  Postby dejuror » Feb 07, 2012 1:39 am

The claim that the Pauline letters to the Churches were written Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple can be SHOWN to be spread by "Chinese Whispers" or rumors.

1. The very first FACT that has been Ignored is that NOWHERE in the Pauline letters to the Churches did the Pauline writer state when he wrote any letter.

2. The second Fact that has been Ignored is that NOWHERE in Acts of the Apostles did the author state Paule wrote any letters to the Churches.

3. The third FACT that has been Ignored is that the Pauline letters [P 46] have been dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Why are people arguing that Paul wrote BEFORE the Fall of the Temple when there IS ZERO credible data to support the claim.?
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest