The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight.

[Geezer]

I think the evidence is pretty strong that Paul only knew about Jesus through OT scripture & revelation (dreams & visions).  That reality would seem to nullify any authority his teaching would have had.  I don't believe Paul's supposed Roman cirizenship is a proven fact either, or that it really matters. 

 

The gospels & epistles have been edited, redacted, & rewritten so many times it is not possible to know what the original writings said or taught. It matters not whether Jesus was a historical figure. Jesus only matters if he was God incarnate & I am unaware of any evidence that even suggests that. 

 

I believe the consensus is that the book of Acts is fiction, so references to what Paul did, said, or taught are irrelevant because the book is almost certainly a fictional account of the early church.

 

In in any case, Christianity is definitely not the religion of Jesus, and maybe not even the religion of Paul either. It seems Marcion & Simon, in one way or another, are the architects of Christianity. 

[Geezer]

I am not nor have I ever been Catholic, but I understand why the Apostle Paul is a minor figure in the Carholic Church, but is generally a major figure in Protestant churches. Peter, of course, is the go to Apostle in the Catholic Church for obvious reasons.

[JadedAtheist]

What I am referring to specifically are these verses written by Paul in Galatians 1 discussing his conversion not what was said and done in Acts:

 

¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

 

He also mentions the twelve in 1st Corinthians 15. Price argues that these are interpolations and/or not to be taken literally. There's also passages where he's pissed at some of the apostles because they normally eat with the gentiles, but when James rocks up they quickly segregate themselves.

 

 

[Geezer]

 

 

The problem I have is that in the accepted authentic epistles he is writing to churches he has established and that are still in existence at the time reminding them of various teachings. Even the early forgers likewise to make it seem authentic, reminded those churches of the times he visited them, as he did. It seems to me that their had to have once been a Paul to give his epistles and the later forgeries weight to the people, or else they would have just brushed it off as the rubbish that it was.

     This makes me think there were people still alive at the time that had met Paul in person. I think that it is more probable that Jesus was a made up story from this man who called himself paul. And that Paul was the originator of the Christian faith who set up these small cults, which grew into churches, and eventually after Constantine took over the world with an iron fist through the Catholic Church. 

      All I see is an ancient version of what we have all seen in more modern history, concerning cults and new religions. It could even be applied to the story of moses aswell. At some point someone had to make up the character of moses. We all know here that moses most likely didn't exist and the exodus was a lie. Likewise it appears that Jesus probably didn't exist and his life was a lie, fabricated by whoever Paul was. 

      From what Geezer and everyone have said about price it just feels like he is the extreme opposite of a fanatic christian. And just like left and right politics. I usually find that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. The two extremes are usually full of bias.

      At some point someone had to dream all of this up. I would like to know who that was as well but I'm sure we will never know for sure. But like LB said all the epistles were written to counter a perceived enemy or religious dogma that was circulating in the church. Even the originals did this. And it's all religious dogma and bullshit. I'm sure on that we can all agree lol.

 

DB

 

 

If Price is correct there is no historical evidence that the Churches mentioned in Paul's letters ever received those letters or any personal visits from Paul. If true, there could be a lot of legitimate reasons for that, or it is more evidence Paul never existed in the flesh. Carrier notes there is approximately a 100 year blackout period where all the writings & documentation of the early church have been lost or destroyed. There is no way to know the importance or value of that lost historical data     or it's historical significance. 

[Geezer]

 

What I am referring to specifically are these verses written by Paul in Galatians 1 discussing his conversion not what was said and done in Acts:

 

¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

 

He also mentions the twelve in 1st Corinthians 15. Price argues that these are interpolations and/or not to be taken literally. There's also passages where he's pissed at some of the apostles because they normally eat with the gentiles, but when James rocks up they quickly segregate themselves.

 

 

 

It is well documented that Paul's epistles have been edited, redacted, & even rewritten by the early Catholic Church & that is true for the Gospels too. Paul was viewed by the orthodox community as the worst heretic on earth & an enemy of the church, so that has to be factored into Paul & his writing too. 

 

Marcion & Simon also shared the heretic label & they were hated by the orthodox community according to the scholars I've read. If that is true then it's relevant to deciphering their writings & assumed beliefs. 

[Geezer]

 

One thing to keep in mind with the theory of Paul not being a historical figure is that people like Price are somewhat backed into a corner over it. Once you reject a historical Jesus, it makes it very hard to reconcile that with what's written in the Pauline epistles. For example, Paul talks about meeting with other apostles (such as Peter), and the brothers of Jesus. You then have to then take a more allegorical interpretation of these topics and you have to try and take as you can of Paul out of concrete history. 

 

That said, I think it's important to read works by people like Price because reading such a different opinion really opens up the debate and helps you look at the biblical texts in ways you wouldn't have ever seen them before.

 

 

I am not a scholar or the son of a scholar. I have no formal training in religious studies, what I do have is a passion for history. I love reading religious historical scholars. I do not possess the knowledge or skill to accurately evaluate the truthfulness or importance of their pronouncements. And, as we all know, it is common for scholars to radically disagree with each other’s conclusions.

Laymen, like me, are left to determine which scholar presents the most plausible explanation for their position.  Like most people, with the passing of time, I’ve developed personal preferences for, and biases against, certain scholars and the positions and opinions they hold.

I enjoy reading both Bart Ehrman and Robert Price even though they often disagree. I have also developed a fondness for Richard Carrier. Some find Carrier off-putting and arrogant but I chose to interpret his haughtiness as self confidence.

My only problem with Ehrman is his apparent tendency to be overly cautious in his conclusions. I think that comes from his desire to protect his professional status. I read his book where he defended his belief that Jesus was a real person. I’m not a scholar, but I am a fan of Ehrman, that noted I still found his reasons for believing Jesus was a real person to be weak and unconvincing. I believe Price makes a far stronger case for a literary Jesus. As I’ve noted in other posts, in my opinion Jesus only matters if he was God incarnate otherwise he was just another Messianic wannabe and that got him crucified.

Much the same can be said of Paul. If God didn’t personally, through the risen Christ, give him instructions for creating another religion then Paul’s teaching is irrelevant and should never have been taken seriously. And there is historical evidence that Paul too was a literary figure that didn’t have anything to do with the creation of Christianity. The world will probably never know if that is true or not.

Maybe that is why Robert Price has risen to the top of my list of favorite scholars. He strikes me as being fearless. He seemingly allows the evidence to say what it says without fear of the potential repercussions or how unpopularity his assessment of the evidence might be. I admire that.

He also has an amazing mind and holds two PHD’s as proof of his intellect.  

I try to not express my personal opinions about the validity of any scholars’ opinions other than to agree or disagree; and then reference another scholar’s finding on the subject being discussed as my reason for favoring one or the other.

So, in other words, any opinion I express should definitely be taken with a grain of salt.