"The best evidence that Paul was a real person comes from the letters themselves. Some of “Paul’s” letters in the New Testament may have been forged – we already saw that later Christians wrote letters in his name. Yet even if all the letters are forgeries they still testify to Paul’s existence, for who would forge a letter from someone completely unknown? In fact, the scholarly consensus is that at least seven of the New Testament epistles are authentic, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. These seven share a consistent style, vocabulary, and outlook that leaves little doubt that they were written by the same man."
They have been edited by the same man, but later than the period they cover. Hence no-one would have had any recollection of a "Paul". Robert Oerter cannot see that Paul is a person without beginning of days nor end of time. He never existed. He was son of nobody.
He also cannot see Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galations etc. as edited documents which incorporated the pauline mission to Gentiles - a fabrication.
"The best evidence that Paul was a real person comes from the letters themselves. Some of “Paul’s” letters in the New Testament may have been forged – we already saw that later Christians wrote letters in his name. Yet even if all the letters are forgeries they still testify to Paul’s existence, for who would forge a letter from someone completely unknown? In fact, the scholarly consensus is that at least seven of the New Testament epistles are authentic, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. These seven share a consistent style, vocabulary, and outlook that leaves little doubt that they were written by the same man."
They have been edited by the same man, but later than the period they cover. Hence no-one would have had any recollection of a "Paul". Robert Oerter cannot see that Paul is a person without beginning of days nor end of time. He never existed. He was son of nobody.
He also cannot see Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galations etc. as edited documents which incorporated the pauline mission to Gentiles - a fabrication.
Suppose Robert Oerter were to write a valuable paper on early Christianity. With his affiliation, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, being irrelevant, would he stand any chance of getting it published in a peer reviewed NT journal? Would a typical journal editor allow it? Would his departmental dean allow him to list their department as his affiliation?
Robert Oerter has not recognised that all the original epistles were written from Rome, probably by James, to Jerusalem. They were found by the Romans in the temple, and passed to Vespasian. There was originally no mention of any mission to Gentiles in them.
You have posted here on the Forbidden Gospels blog at length about observations made by Robert Oerter on Robert Oerter's website.
That is profoundly discourteous to April, as well as being profoundly discourteous to the rest of us who are trying to engage with, and learn from, what April has to say.
These topics aren't easy, and exchanges with our fellow posters can help to clarify them.
But not many people can bring themselves to scroll through your endless diatribes in the hope of getting to a rational comment made by someone who isn't an obsessive conspiracy theorist.
it's at times like this when I long for the joys of a functioning killfile...
“Pascal, I don't see it as discourteous. I am merely expressing a completely different view.”
But your “mere” expression amounts to shoving in our faces with gusto and posting with utmost frequency your completely different view about early Christianity without apparent consideration that there might be other valid explanations to explore.
My point here is that while we can read and consider what Dr. DeConick has the right to say and present on her own blog, there is a difference between respectfully disagreeing or questioning points she and others make and outright trolling for converts on her forum.
Thank you for summarising the problem so neatly; we are navigating interestingly difficult waters, and the last thing we need is a fellow passenger hitting us over the head with his oar because he thinks he should be Captain of the ship...
14 comments:
The link seems to broken.
I had the same problem.
Here is the correct link:
http://earlychristianreligion.org/
Robert Oerter wrote:
"The best evidence that Paul was a real person comes from the letters themselves. Some of “Paul’s” letters in the New Testament may have been forged – we already saw that later Christians wrote letters in his name. Yet even if all the letters are forgeries they still testify to Paul’s existence, for who would forge a letter from someone completely unknown? In fact, the scholarly consensus is that at least seven of the New Testament epistles are authentic, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. These seven share a consistent style, vocabulary, and outlook that leaves little doubt that they were written by the same man."
They have been edited by the same man, but later than the period they cover. Hence no-one would have had any recollection of a "Paul". Robert Oerter cannot see that Paul is a person without beginning of days nor end of time. He never existed. He was son of nobody.
He also cannot see Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galations etc. as edited documents which incorporated the pauline mission to Gentiles - a fabrication.
Robert Oerter wrote:
"The best evidence that Paul was a real person comes from the letters themselves. Some of “Paul’s” letters in the New Testament may have been forged – we already saw that later Christians wrote letters in his name. Yet even if all the letters are forgeries they still testify to Paul’s existence, for who would forge a letter from someone completely unknown? In fact, the scholarly consensus is that at least seven of the New Testament epistles are authentic, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. These seven share a consistent style, vocabulary, and outlook that leaves little doubt that they were written by the same man."
They have been edited by the same man, but later than the period they cover. Hence no-one would have had any recollection of a "Paul". Robert Oerter cannot see that Paul is a person without beginning of days nor end of time. He never existed. He was son of nobody.
He also cannot see Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galations etc. as edited documents which incorporated the pauline mission to Gentiles - a fabrication.
Thanks for letting us know about this site, April.
Yes, the http:// has got doubled up, but Jared's link works.
Suppose Robert Oerter were to write a valuable paper on early Christianity. With his affiliation, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, being irrelevant, would he stand any chance of getting it published in a peer reviewed NT journal? Would a typical journal editor allow it? Would his departmental dean allow him to list their department as his affiliation?
Peer review! What does that matter in this game?
Robert Oerter has not recognised that all the original epistles were written from Rome, probably by James, to Jerusalem. They were found by the Romans in the temple, and passed to Vespasian. There was originally no mention of any mission to Gentiles in them.
Geoff
You have posted here on the Forbidden Gospels blog at length about observations made by Robert Oerter on Robert Oerter's website.
That is profoundly discourteous to April, as well as being profoundly discourteous to the rest of us who are trying to engage with, and learn from, what April has to say.
These topics aren't easy, and exchanges with our fellow posters can help to clarify them.
But not many people can bring themselves to scroll through your endless diatribes in the hope of getting to a rational comment made by someone who isn't an obsessive conspiracy theorist.
it's at times like this when I long for the joys of a functioning killfile...
Pascal, I don't see it as discourteous. I am merely expressing a completely different view. Would you agree:
1. That it is possible that the epistles are edited versions of real original documents?
2.They could have been edited by the same man, but later than the period they cover.
3.It is possible that no-one would have had any recollection of a "Paul".
4.Paul is a person without beginning of days nor end of time. He was the son of nobody. thus in Jewish terms, he never existed.
Geoff said:
“Pascal, I don't see it as discourteous. I am merely expressing a completely different view.”
But your “mere” expression amounts to shoving in our faces with gusto and posting with utmost frequency your completely different view about early Christianity without apparent consideration that there might be other valid explanations to explore.
My point here is that while we can read and consider what Dr. DeConick has the right to say and present on her own blog, there is a difference between respectfully disagreeing or questioning points she and others make and outright trolling for converts on her forum.
Pearl
Thank you for summarising the problem so neatly; we are navigating interestingly difficult waters, and the last thing we need is a fellow passenger hitting us over the head with his oar because he thinks he should be Captain of the ship...
You're welcome, pascal.
It’s difficult enough dealing with a head sea without additional opposed surges onboard.
Post a Comment