On The Possible Non-Existence of "Saul/"Paul of Tarsus"

[Reality Check]

Just as scholarship in recent year has blown serious and damaging holes in the question of whether or not an historical Jesus really existed, it stands to reason that we should also be turning such critical questions on the historocity of the so-called Apostle Saul/Paul of Tarsus.

In Jewish writings of the first two centuries CE there is no mention of a rebellious student of Gamaliel named Paul or Saul. It is also very remarkable that the supposed student of Gamaliel, who certainly would have received instruction from him in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, cites passages from the Old Testament exclusively from the Greek version—as if in his life he had never learned Hebrew!• Edited by a Moderator •

http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf

Moderated By: CP

Too much Copy/Paste -- please familiarize yourself with the forum guidelines

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

BTW, a majority of Paul/Saul's letters (7/13) have already turned out to be forgeres. Given the widespread practice of forgerey in the xtian church (early and later) how can we be sure that someday we won't come to the conclusion that all were forgeries? For example the Book of Acts was once taken as literal history but is now regarded, thanks to critical inquiriy, as a late second century CE myth.

Any rational and open-minded person who has not been brainwashed by religous dogma can at the very least start to have serious doubts about Saul/Paul after examing the record with a a free and open mind.

[lilpixieofterror]

Just as scholarship in recent year has blown serious and damaging holes in the question of whether or not an historical Jesus really existed, it stands to reason that we should also be turning such critical questions on the historocity of the so-called Apostle Saul/Paul of Tarsus.



http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf

BTW, a majority of Paul/Saul's letters (7/13) have already turned out to be forgeres. Given the widespread practice of forgerey in the xtian church (early and later) how can we be sure that someday we won't come to the conclusion that all were forgeries? For example the Book of Acts was once taken as literal history but is now regarded, thanks to critical inquiriy, as a late second century CE myth.

Any rational and open-minded person who has not been brainwashed by religous dogma can at the very least start to have serious doubts about Saul/Paul after examing the record with a a free and open mind.

Ok, just out of currisority...

1. Why do atheist scholars agree that Jesus and Paul existed?
2. Why do atheist scholars agree that Paul wrote 7 letters that are contained in the Bible today?

Are these atheist really closet Christians or are you just a looney toon that no serious student of the Bible, should take seriously?

[Xru]

Hopefully no one will respond to this garbage and it will die a peaceful death.

[Sparko]

derp.

[Xru]

The link he give places the burden of proof in the wrong place. Historical documents are presumed faithful accounts unless shown to be otherwise.

I'm bored with this imbecilic.

[Challenger Grim]

[Xru]

Are these atheist really closet Christians or are you just a looney toon that no serious student of the Bible, should take seriously?

The later.

BTW, are women the same species are men? lpot? Anyone?

[jpholding]

Hopefully no one will respond to this garbage and it will die a peaceful death.

Actually, I already responded to the crap he uses (Herman Detering) in Trusting the New Testament.

[Sparko]

So basically all he has is an argument from silence? I suppose he thinks the historical record from that time is complete with nothing missing, and that they had CNN or something so that all of the world would know of some backwater preacher and would write articles about him? How does he explain the fact that the early Church spread throughout Asia in the first century if someone like Paul didn't take Christianity there?

[Xru]

Actually, I already responded to the crap he uses (Herman Detering) in Trusting the New Testament.

Ya . . . thanks for the link.

[Soyeong]

It's fine to consider the hypothetical that certain people like Jesus, Paul, or you mother didn't exist because someone didn't mention them and that all documents about them are forgeries after the fact, but then you're left explaining how the things that came about due to their supposed existence came about without it. If you don't give evidence to support a more likely scenario without resorting to more hypotheticals, then I have no reason to take you seriously.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

The later.

BTW, are women the same species are men? lpot? Anyone?

A congressional committee is investigating this question. Unfortunately it is composed mostly of men which infers that it will probably reach an erroneous conclusion.

[Soyeong]

This is kind of like trying to show someone committed a murder by suggesting a motive, but not having the opportunity or the murder weapon. If you believe something by suggested motive alone, without a full case, then you've been sold a bunch of hogwash, even if it happened to be true. So are you going to make a full case against Paul by providing evidence for how the things that came about due to his supposed existence came about without him, or are you going to admit that you're just full of bluster?