How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected?

[outhouse]

The use of the word "truth" is usually a telltale sign of someone who has pretty much made up his mind, and the little brother of "truth" is "faith". And you put pretty much of the latter in the former.

Do you deny that Paul was a Hellenistic teacher in the Diaspora of what would become Christianity in the 40's and 50's and wrote in part the 7 attributed text ????????


Who wanted nothing more then to be viewed as a real apostle to Christ with all the authority as those who were attributed to what they thought were the real Jewish apostles????


YOUR problem is you don't have a credible foundation to start from here. Maybe you could explain the Pauline evidence with credibility as I already have?

[outhouse]

Who decided that this is not up for debate? We have Paul's writings, and that is it. .

So much evidence in this communities work.


Maybe you do not understand Paul has historicity for a reason.

NO ONE has ever given a replacement hypothesis with any credibility that explains Pauline evidence, that is even partially reasonable over his current well established historicity.

[Secret Alias]

So much evidence in this communities work.

WTF does this mean? I wonder sometimes if you have an actual rational argument in your head or you just let your fingers almost randomly type out a negation.

[Secret Alias]

Or this:

Maybe you do not understand Paul has historicity for a reason.

Are you saying that Ulan has a selfish motive for not understanding Paul has historical authenticity or that Ulan hasn't fathomed some amazing reason why you know Paul has historical authenticity? Your posts are like bad jokes. You have to read them right to the end almost knowing that you will disappointed by the punchline because so little thought was put into them.

[Secret Alias]

Or this gem:

NO ONE has ever given a replacement hypothesis with any credibility that explains Pauline evidence, that is even partially reasonable over his current well established historicity.

This is so convoluted I have to break it up into pieces:

NO ONE has ever given a replacement hypothesis with any credibility

I assume this means 'scholarship' in academia doesn't give the idea that Paul was 'replaced' any credibility. I have never read a study or an effort to evaluate a 'replacement hypothesis' for Paul in all my readings. Perhaps you could direct me to a study which you use for your assessment.

But then you tack on this to the end of that 'give ... credibility' (I never knew that credibility is 'given'; it is usually earned by the credible source I would assume):

NO ONE has ever given a replacement hypothesis with any credibility that explains Pauline evidence

So know the 'replacement hypothesis' has to explain 'Pauline evidence.' What evidence? The collection of Pauline epistles that appear in our canon are almost universally acknowledged to be a mix of spurious letters (= the Pastorals) and a small group of authentic epistles which were shared in common with the Marcionite sect, the heretics possessing letters with noticeable 'reduction' of lines. How would or wouldn't a 'replacement hypothesis' explain this 'Pauline evidence'?

Then you tack on to the end of this already run-on sentence this additional qualifier:

... that is even partially reasonable over his current well established historicity

Let's examine what you've written:

'that is even partially reasonable' - so the 'replacement hypothesis' already lacks credibility and doesn't explain the 'Pauline evidence' now isn't even reasonable by the lowest standards for logic possible (= 'partially reasonable') but specifically 'partially reasonable over' - I've never heard the phrase 'partially reasonable over' before. Yet it is 'partially reasonable over' Paul's current well established historicity.

So this long winded sentence is trying to say that

1. everyone knows Paul is a real historical person
2. those who develop 'replacement hypotheses' have been fully discredited in modern scholarship, by the Pauline evidence and by demonstrating themselves to be not even 'partially reasonable'

But do 'replacement hypotheses' (a term I've never run across before) all argue that Paul never existed? Surely the main question is whether he (whoever he was) changed his name to Paul. That's the real question. Are people out there really denying that the author of the letters never existed or had a compound existence (whatever that means)?

Even Acts says that Paul wasn't his real name. The author of the epistles seems to be identified as 'Simon' in the Pseudo-Clementines. Surely it is possible that with all the name changing in antiquity ('Peter' was originally called 'Simon,' 'Thomas's real name was Judah etc) that rather than being named Saul at birth the apostle had another name. Is that by your standards a 'partially reasonable' hypothesis or possibility?

[outhouse]

Wonderful rhetoric.

I'm surprised your having so much trouble with the rhetorical prose the Pauline authors used.


Again do you deny Paul was a teacher to gentiles in the 50's who was part of a community effort ???


OR

Do you simply put the ole tinfoil hat on and imagine ?

[Secret Alias]

Again do you deny Paul was a teacher to gentiles in the 50's who was part of a community effort

Do you deny there were alternative understandings in antiquity for (a) who Paul was (his name/where he came from) (b) to whom he addressed his teachings (i.e. groups other than the Gentiles) (c) when he was active (how early or late) or (d) whether or not he was a member of the greater Church as Acts describes? Or do you think all groups agreed with the Catholic understanding from the very beginning?

[Secret Alias]

Doesn't even Acts make reference to a 'misunderstanding' among Jews that he was the Egyptian described in Josephus? Given that Josephus didn't complete his work until the end of the first century at the earliest the confusion over the identity of 'the apostle' seems to have lingered around as long as the age when the author of Acts picked up a copy of Josephus and invented this 'mis-identification' of Paul by first century Jews.

In fact, if you stop and think about it for a second, the author of Acts didn't read in Josephus that the Jews misidentified 'the apostle' as the Egyptian. No, he read an account about an Egyptian messianic figure who was active in Jerusalem and then did the identification with Paul on his own (or perhaps through some other source or tradition). The most frequent way of referencing Paul in the earliest Patristic writings was simple as 'ho apostolos' - a completely generic terminology. Surely it can't be unfair or unreasonable to conclude that the very idea that there was some confusion over Paul's actual name in the early second century is 'less than partially reasonable' as you have concluded. It would seem rather to have the support of the existing evidence.

[outhouse]

The author of the epistles seems to be identified as 'Simon' in the Pseudo-Clementines

Hey Mountain man ! is that you?


Non sequitur.

Even Acts says that Paul wasn't his real name

No it does not.

It shows the difference between multiple languages, Latin and Hebrew.


It was quite usual for the Jews of that time to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek

[Secret Alias]

So you dispute the idea that the Pseudo-Clementines portrait of Simon Magus was written as a criticism of Paul?