Authenticity of Paul's Works

[Primus Pilus]

So I guess most early Christians kept their faith to themselves, then?

 

For the most part yes. Most people thought of them as terribly unusual at best and as cannibals and seditionists at worst. Attitudes were likely quite different depending upon what part of the empire people lived in. For most Romans, Christians were simply Jews with some rather odd habits.

 

Additionally, if she heard Paul (Saul) of Tarsus speak directly (provided he existed in the commonly understood sense), then (in my opinion) the story we are familiar with now would've been considerably different. It would've been far more ideological and transcendental than the physical Jesus story we are so familiar with today. However, such things are hotly debated and would run completely afoul of what you are trying to do with your character in the novel.

[M. Demetrius]

So I guess most early Christians kept their faith to themselves, then?

Additionally, if she heard Paul (Saul) of Tarsus speak directly (provided he existed in the commonly understood sense), then (in my opinion) the story we are familiar with now would've been considerably different. It would've been far more ideological and transcendental than the physical Jesus story we are so familiar with today.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that, Pilus. What Paul writes in Romans, Ephesians, Philemon, Corinthians, etc., is pretty down to earth. He speaks clearly of the physical death, actual burial and amazing resurrection of Jesus Christ--not making it sound ideological or mythical at all. He gives sound advice concerning marriage, divorce, foods sacrificed to idols, obedience to God, et al., all of which are foundational to Biblical Christianity. I think he wrote about 2/3 of the New Testament, also known as the Greek portion of the Bible.

[Primus Pilus]

So I guess most early Christians kept their faith to themselves, then?

Additionally, if she heard Paul (Saul) of Tarsus speak directly (provided he existed in the commonly understood sense), then (in my opinion) the story we are familiar with now would've been considerably different. It would've been far more ideological and transcendental than the physical Jesus story we are so familiar with today.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that, Pilus. What Paul writes in Romans, Ephesians, Philemon, Corinthians, etc., is pretty down to earth. He speaks clearly of the physical death, actual burial and amazing resurrection of Jesus Christ--not making it sound ideological or mythical at all. He gives sound advice concerning marriage, divorce, foods sacrificed to idols, obedience to God, et al., all of which are foundational to Biblical Christianity. I think he wrote about 2/3 of the New Testament, also known as the Greek portion of the Bible.

 

Essentially because I doubt the authenticity of Paul's non Gnostic attributions, but forgive me for taking this off-topic. I'll split should anyone wish to discuss.

[Northern Neil]

Essentially because I doubt the authenticity of Paul's non Gnostic attributions, but forgive me for taking this off-topic. I'll split should anyone wish to discuss.

There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that much of what Paul wrote was embellished and altered in the 4th century.

[caldrail]

What Paul writes in Romans, Ephesians, Philemon, Corinthians, etc., is pretty down to earth. He speaks clearly of the physical death, actual burial and amazing resurrection of Jesus Christ--not making it sound ideological or mythical at all.

But the the whole affair is contrived. Its fiction. It was designed to take the story of Jesus (whom Paul never met) and embellish it to the point where his divinity was made clear. The problem with Jesus is that the closer you look at his story the less you find. He was certainly a real person, he certainly did preach to the masses, and he certainly did disappear in a hurry. But notice how contrived the accounts are. On the one hand Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to cheering crowds, a sell-out success story. Within a short time, those same people condemned him to death. Why? The bible explains it all away by saying that Jesus martyred himself for our sins, but since when did God need an act of this sort? According to the Old Testament, if God thought mankind was sinning excessively he did something about it. The various miracles supposedly performed by jesus are unlikely to say the least, and there's no supporting evidence that they ever took place. In fact, had Jesus performed such miracles, he would more likely have been parceled up and sent to Rome for an interview with the emperor. No, these stories are either exaggerations of real events or simply made up for the purpose. There's no guarantee these miracles were present in Pauls original draft, or perhaps his version was even more outlandish. We don't know.

 

Paul took two years out to create this mythology and it must be said, despite poor sales at the beginning its been a best seller ever since. What Paul wanted was a career in preaching religion which effectively makes him no different to those bible bashers who fill auditoriums and get interviewed on prime time tv. It was about money. It was his nine to five. As NN correctly states, the original works (not only those by Paul, there were others trying the same thing) were censored. Constantine, painfully aware how damaged his empire was by a civil war that brought him to power, shamelessly used religion to a unifying factor. Arguably he made a good choice. Roman religion was too loose and disorganised for that purpose, but christianity had a hierarchy and loyal worshippers seeking absolution for their sins. However, christianity at that time was not a single movement. It was a ployglot of individual churches saying similar things but with their own twist. What Constanitine insisted on was that the church leaders got together and sorted out exactly what christianity was. Even though he wasn't a christian, Constantine saw the value of this religion in holding his empire together. Christians of course would quote this as evidence of superior belief, but that simply isn't the case. This was an example of political expedience.

Edited February 22, 2008 by caldrail

[M. Demetrius]

What Paul writes in Romans, Ephesians, Philemon, Corinthians, etc., is pretty down to earth. He speaks clearly of the physical death, actual burial and amazing resurrection of Jesus Christ--not making it sound ideological or mythical at all.

But the the whole affair is contrived. Its fiction. It was designed to take the story of Jesus (whom Paul never met) and embellish it to the point where his divinity was made clear. The problem with Jesus is that the closer you look at his story the less you find. He was certainly a real person, he certainly did preach to the masses, and he certainly did disappear in a hurry. But notice how contrived the accounts are. On the one hand Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to cheering crowds, a sell-out success story. Within a short time, those same people condemned him to death. Why? The bible explains it all away by saying that Jesus martyred himself for our sins, but since when did God need an act of this sort? According to the Old Testament, if God thought mankind was sinning excessively he did something about it. The various miracles supposedly performed by jesus are unlikely to say the least, and there's no supporting evidence that they ever took place. In fact, had Jesus performed such miracles, he would more likely have been parceled up and sent to Rome for an interview with the emperor. No, these stories are either exaggerations of real events or simply made up for the purpose. There's no guarantee these miracles were present in Pauls original draft, or perhaps his version was even more outlandish. We don't know.

 

Paul took two years out to create this mythology and it must be said, despite poor sales at the beginning its been a best seller ever since. What Paul wanted was a career in preaching religion which effectively makes him no different to those bible bashers who fill auditoriums and get interviewed on prime time tv. It was about money. It was his nine to five. As NN correctly states, the original works (not only those by Paul, there were others trying the same thing) were censored. Constantine, painfully aware how damaged his empire was by a civil war that brought him to power, shamelessly used religion to a unifying factor. Arguably he made a good choice. Roman religion was too loose and disorganised for that purpose, but christianity had a hierarchy and loyal worshippers seeking absolution for their sins. However, christianity at that time was not a single movement. It was a ployglot of individual churches saying similar things but with their own twist. What Constanitine insisted on was that the church leaders got together and sorted out exactly what christianity was. Even though he wasn't a christian, Constantine saw the value of this religion in holding his empire together. Christians of course would quote this as evidence of superior belief, but that simply isn't the case. This was an example of political expedience.

 

Sigh. It wasn't two years, it was seven, as Acts clearly says. The people who condemned Jesus weren't the masses, they were the lawyers and priests, but you know, there's no point in going over this same information with you again. Believe what you want, sir, but if you are wrong in the end, you are in a whole lot of eternal trouble...and the worst of it is you deliberately alienate the very people who could give you the answer you will need in that day.

 

If you investigated the Gospels more carefully, you'd see that Jesus' divinity is clearly explained from four different vantage points, confirming prophecies from centuries before: from a Jewish prophetical viewpoint, from a medical doctor's views, from a spiritual man, from a Gentile tax collector.

 

It's pointless to keep saying things like "It's fiction", when it appears not to be so to over two billion people worldwide. Nuff said, I'm done. I guess I misunderstood: thinking this was more about Roman history than antiChristian dogma.

 

Moderator/owner, you may close or delete my account if you wish, because I'm tired of having to listen to the constant pagan and other anti-Christian diatribes. Fare well, all, and remember, if I'm wrong, then I've lived a life under some self-restraints in an effort to live more like I believe God wants: If I'm wrong, well, see above.

 

May the Lord God bless you all with a true knowledge of His will for your lives.

Edited February 22, 2008 by M. Demetrius