.
The Authenticity of Writings attributed to Paul has a history of discussion, even of the so-called "undisputed epistles"

For example, this from wikipedia -

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter. However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics11; 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. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_.22undisputed.22_epistles

11 A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966).

Radical_Criticism is a movement around the late 19th century that, typically, denied authentic authorship of the Pauline epistles.

The Dutch school of radical criticism started in 1878 with a publication by Allard Pierson, who denied Pauline authorship of Galatians. He was fiercely attacked by his colleague A.D. Loman, but two years later Loman also abandoned the historicity of Paul. Similarly, W.C. van Manen, who had written a doctoral thesis defending the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, wrote in 1889 that he had come to the same conclusions as Loman.
.

What exactly are you trying to discuss?

I simply put the information up for others to consider and respond to - it seems to be relevant to rational skepticism of the early Christian texts and issues about the way they became established or not, and especially as, in the case of these texts, there is nothing known about their author, "Paul", other than what has been gleaned from writings variably attributed to him.

Is there anything mythological that you can point out regarding the person of Paul as seen in Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, and the few others? He might talk up a storm, but what does he actually do, that brings suspicion? With Jesus we have miraculous births, turning water into wine, feeding multitudes, healing the blind, raising the dead, but with Paul? What makes his existence any different from Josephus or Lucian of Samosata? Are we to take his attempts to manipulate his proselytes merely fiction anachronistically aimed at some later audience? or do we see the ploys of someone in a specific context trying to keep control of what is developing?

If the authorship of the 'Pauline' documents is disputed, and there is scant information about the alleged writer, then the viability of the writer becomes an issue. Especially when the documents were copied, transcribed and translated over many decades over many generations. Therefore, there may not be a single Paul, or writings attributed to him might be by several people as has been documented above.

There is a reasonable body of work attributed to Josephus about a number of historical events.

I cannot comment on Lucian.

There are a number of articles and discussions

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

http://www.redditgadgetguide.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/flmac/paul_did_not_exist/#c1gwf7a

RealityRules wrote:If the authorship of the 'Pauline' documents is disputed, and there is scant information about the alleged writer, then the viability of the writer becomes an issue. Especially when the documents were copied, transcribed and translated over many decades over many generations. Therefore, there may not be a single Paul, or writings attributed to him might be by several people as has been documented above.

There is a reasonable body of work attributed to Josephus about a number of historical events.

I cannot comment on Lucian.

There is nothing to be found here to respond to. It seems like you're on a fishing expedition.

Even if undisputed by the Catholics; the epistles have no value to the truthful Christians who follow Jesus; they show being deviant from the truthful teachings of Jesus; and should have not been a part of the Bible which is attributed to Jesus, though wrongly.

paarsurrey wrote:Even if undisputed by the Catholics; the epistles have no value to the truthful Christians who follow Jesus; they show being deviant from the truthful teachings of Jesus; and should have not been a part of the Bible which is attributed to Jesus, though wrongly.

Welcome back paarsurrey, just in time for Christmas.

Will you be celebrating with us this year?

John

Paul was a dick.

z8000783 wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:Even if undisputed by the Catholics; the epistles have no value to the truthful Christians who follow Jesus; they show being deviant from the truthful teachings of Jesus; and should have not been a part of the Bible which is attributed to Jesus, though wrongly.

Welcome back paarsurrey, just in time for Christmas.

Will you be celebrating with us this year?

John

Thank you.

I am happy that Jesus was born; like I enjoy the birth of Buddha, Krishna,Moses, Zoroaster, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - the End Time reformer.

These were all flowers of humanity and must be remembered by following in their footsteps.

Christmas is not celebrated in the manner Jesus would like it to be.

How would Jesus like it to be?

John

Did the Jews have a winter solstice observance?

Gallstones wrote:Did the Jews have a winter solstice observance?

Not exactly. They have a lunar calendar for one thing. Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, is the closest thing. This year it overlaps the solstice, but it won't next year or the year after that.

z8000783 wrote:How would Jesus like it to be?

John

I don't think Jesus celebrated anybody's birthday. He gave no instructions to celebrate it.

Yes, but how do you know how he would like it to be?

John

paarsurrey wrote:

z8000783 wrote:How would Jesus like it to be?

John

I don't think Jesus celebrated anybody's birthday. He gave no instructions to celebrate it.

he also gave no instructions on how to wipe my ass. One sheet of paper? Or is it with a palm leaf? Do I use my left or right hand? Or should I just leave my ass crack full of shit like most of this argument?

bookmarking