On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were not yet invented in the time of Celsus' 'True Discourse'..
Later non-apologetic writers , after Celsus, who wrote against the Christian religion did mention Paul which implies Acts of the Apostle and Epistle were written later than Celsus' True Discourse.
Before Celsus: 1 Clement, "Ignatius", Polycarp, Basilides, the Naasseenes, Marcion, Ptolemy knew Paul wrote epistles.
Note: For Basilides, the Naassenes & Ptolemy, see http://historical-jesus.info/64.html then "find" on: 2)

Are you thinking all the texts from these authors were written after 175 AD?

Also check:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical"ones
http://historical-jesus.info/66.html Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?
You are the one who must provide historical evidence for NT Paul since you argue he existed. All characters that did not exist have no evidence of their existence. I will always argue that NT Paul did not exist because you have never provided any historical evidence of his existence.
I already provided evidence Paul existed in my previous post. What additional kind of historical evidence do you expect?
How could Celsus say anything about Paul when he [Celsus] did not write about events which are found in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles?
Earlier than Celsus, Epistula Apostolorum (written some 25 years before Celsus) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html, shows it knows about Acts:
30-31 "But he [resurrected Jesus] said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel ... And unto the others also will I give my power, that they may teach the residue of the peoples.
31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected. Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven."

Argument from dead silence. How old was the brother of the Lord in 40 CE?
It's not dead silence when I give positive evidence and arguments about the dating of Paul's public life and his epistles. And do you think your Pauline & Acts writers would have known these dating details (Gallio as proconsul of Achia, Aretas, etc) some 125 years later?
How old was James in 40 CE? Why would that matter? What matters is that Paul met him. So James, the brother of Jesus was alive then.
By the time the Epistle to the Romans was written the Jewish Temple had already fallen.
We went through that earlier:
You call Ro 11:22 as evidence for the epistle being written after 70! You have a lot of imagination.
"them" stands for unbelievers according to Ro 11:20 and 23.

Yes unbelievers, not Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
And the rest of your evidence is: this author or text does not mention Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts.
That's what I call evidence from dead silence, more so because there are POSITIVE evidence to the contrary, that they are authors and texts mentioning Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts, all of that before Celsus.
Argument from silence.
You invented those dates simply because Acts of the Apostle claimed Saul/Paul preached in those cities or region
No, it is from long research, mostly from Paul epistles, with a bit of Acts. Of course, you did not read my web page I posted where I explain everything.
So, do you have positive evidence of other cities where Paul preached, other than the ones mentioned in Acts and Paul's epistles? I guess not.

Cordially, Bernard
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by davidmartin »

There is one act that is not mentioned in Acts -- Saul/Paul writing letters
True, I don't think the author of Acts knew his letters, or came from a church that used them
Like the church of Rome - which the pre-Acts Shepard of Hermas proves did not know his letters

"I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would happen, how the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to preach light both to these people and to the Gentiles"

Where does Paul ever say Jesus preached in his letters?

Maybe there was a legend that Paul was an apostle but his letters didn't come out until Marcion promoted them
Marcion therefore is the one who made his letters popular

It isn't necessary to say Paul doesn't exist to explain the problems
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to davidmartin,
True, I don't think the author of Acts knew his letters
Actually, I agree with you, that "Luke", the author of the gospel and Acts, did not know about the main letters of Paul, just like "Luke" did not know about a part of gMark (the great omission): http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
Here I argue about the author of Acts did not know about the letters of Paul, except maybe Philippians:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

davidmartin wrote:
It isn't necessary to say Paul doesn't exist to explain the problems
The opposite is true.

It isn't necessary to say Paul exist to explain the problems.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were not yet invented in the time of Celsus' 'True Discourse'..
Later non-apologetic writers , after Celsus, who wrote against the Christian religion did mention Paul which implies Acts of the Apostle and Epistle were written later than Celsus' True Discourse.
Bernard Muller wrote:Before Celsus: 1 Clement, "Ignatius", Polycarp, Basilides, the Naasseenes, Marcion, Ptolemy knew Paul wrote epistles.
Note: For Basilides, the Naassenes & Ptolemy, see http://historical-jesus.info/64.html then "find" on: 2)

Are you thinking all the texts from these authors were written after 175 AD?
None of those you mentioned stated a character called Paul wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

If multiple persons used the name Paul to write Epistles then the mention that some Paul wrote Epistles may not be evidence of NT Paul.

A Christian writing, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.

It is clear Christian writers had no idea who Paul was and what he wrote. Some writers claimed NT Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews which would imply they didn't know when Paul lived.

hakeem wrote:You are the one who must provide historical evidence for NT Paul since you argue he existed. All characters that did not exist have no evidence of their existence. I will always argue that NT Paul did not exist because you have never provided any historical evidence of his existence.
Bernard Muller wrote:I already provided evidence Paul existed in my previous post. What additional kind of historical evidence do you expect?
You could not have presented any historical evidence for Epistle Paul. It is already known there is none.
hakeem wrote:How could Celsus say anything about Paul when he [Celsus] did not write about events which are found in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles?
Bernard Muller wrote:Earlier than Celsus, Epistula Apostolorum (written some 25 years before Celsus) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html, shows it knows about Acts:
30-31 "But he [resurrected Jesus] said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel ... And unto the others also will I give my power, that they may teach the residue of the peoples.
31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected. Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven."
There is no extant manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum dated 25 years before Celsus. The Epistula Apostolorum is an anonymous writing of unknown date of authorship.
hakeem wrote:Argument from dead silence. How old was the brother of the Lord in 40 CE?
Bernard Muller wrote: It's not dead silence when I give positive evidence and arguments about the dating of Paul's public life and his epistles. And do you think your Pauline & Acts writers would have known these dating details (Gallio as proconsul of Achia, Aretas, etc) some 125 years later?
How old was James in 40 CE? Why would that matter? What matters is that Paul met him. So James, the brother of Jesus was alive then.
Of course the age of James matters!! If James was not yet born c 40 CE how could Epistle Paul have met him?

Bernard Muller wrote: And the rest of your evidence is: this author or text does not mention Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts.
That's what I call evidence from dead silence, more so because there are POSITIVE evidence to the contrary, that they are authors and texts mentioning Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts, all of that before Celsus.
Well, if Paul did not write letters the author of Acts could not have claimed he did.

The author of Acts, a supposed companion of Saul/Paul, who traveled, preached and prayed with him, did not claim anywhere that he wrote letters to anyone.

Just saying anonymous writings and forgeries mentioned Paul and Paul letters is not evidence at all that the Epistles were really written before c 70 ce.
Bernard Muller wrote:So, do you have positive evidence of other cities where Paul preached, other than the ones mentioned in Acts and Paul's epistles? I guess not.

Cordially, Bernard
I don't know why you think Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are historically credible?

You seem to have forgotten that Acts of Apostles and the NT Epistles are products of fiction with respect to resurrected and ascended Jesus, the apostles and bogus conversion of Saul/Paul.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Hakeem,
None of those you mentioned stated a character called Paul wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
Narrowing the goal posts again.
1 Clement, the Naassenes, Basilides, Marcion named Paul and quoted at least one of his epistles.
"Ignatius" in 'to the ephesians' does not quote Paul's epitle(s) but indicated Paul wrote several letters.
Polycarp indicated Paul wrote one letter to the Philippians.
Ptolemy paraphrated on segment of 1 Corinthians.
A Christian writing, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.
No, it does not: show the evidence for your claim.
Some writers claimed NT Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews which would imply they didn't know when Paul lived.
Can you explain why if some writers claimed NT Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, that implies they didn't know when Paul lived.
You could not have presented any historical evidence for Epistle Paul.
But I did. It looks first you believe there is none and next consequently there is no historical evidence: conclusion first, then deductions according to your conclusion. This sequence should be reversed.
There is no extant manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum dated 25 years before Celsus. The Epistula Apostolorum is an anonymous writing of unknown date of authorship.
The dating of the original text was at least before 150 AD (from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html):
The Coptic version in ch. 17 places the end of the world at 120 years past Pentecost, while the Ethiopic version states that 150 years would pass. A likely explanation would be that the document was originally composed shortly before 150 C.E. and was revised by a redactor when the prediction didn't come to pass.

Of course the age of James matters!! If James was not yet born c 40 CE how could Epistle Paul have met him?
According to the gospels and Tacitus, adult Jesus was executed when Pilate ruled Judea up to 36 AD (date according to Josephus' Antiquities, which also put that James, the brother of Jesus, executed in 62 AD). So you can figure a possible range of years (like from 20 BC to 62 AD) for the life of James.
I don't know why you think Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are historically credible?
Because when you examine them critically (especially for Acts), they provide a clear picture of Paul's public life:

Here is what my research led me to about the chronogy of Paul's public life (all my research is explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html):

Recapitulation of Paul's early years:

a) Winter/spring 35: Paul takes part into the persecutions against the proto-Christians starting in Jerusalem (Gal1:13,23a, Ac7:57-8:1-4a,9:1-2)
b) Late spring 35: Paul's conversion in Damascus (Gal1:15-16a, Ac9:18b)
c) Spring 38: three years later (Gal1:18a), Paul escapes from Damascus (2Co11:32-33, Ac9:25) and returns to Jerusalem for a fifteen days visit at Peter's home (Gal1:18b-19, Ac9:26).
d) Spring 38 to spring 42: Paul's exit from Jerusalem (Ac9:30) and stay in his home city, Tarsus in Cilicia (today southern Turkey)
Note: 42 is likely (according to the clue in 2Co12:2) but cannot be firmly established.
e) Spring 42: Paul is invited by Barnabas to join him in Antioch (Ac11:25-26a).
f) Spring 42 to winter 48/49: Paul is based in Antioch as the protege and companion of Barnabas, participating in missionary journeys in Syria and Cilicia (Gal1:21).
g) Spring & summer of 49: most likely time for Paul and Barnabas (westward) missionary trip ("Paul's first journey") to Cyprus, Pamphylia and "southern" Galatia. Back to Antioch for the winter (note: this trip could have happened one or a few years earlier and lasted longer)
h) Spring 50 to spring 52: Paul's second journey leading to the creation of Christian communities in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea), Athens and Corinth (where he stays one year and a half - Ac18:11)

Paul's third journey:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years (Gal2:1) after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then (See Appendix B for explanations).
b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter: Gal2:11-14) and departs (alone).
c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts (Gal4:13-15; Ac18:23,19:1a).
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment (1Co1-4).
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months (Ac19:8,10). He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians (1Co9). But, later, the situation improves greatly.
f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here: 1Co16:5-8; 2Co13:1-2), where Paul is rejected. Likely no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus (2Co1:15-24,7:5-7). Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55 (2Co8:10b-11).
i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted (2Co8:10b-11).
k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months (Ac20:3a); the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth (Ro15:26).
m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest (Ro15:25-26,31; Ac20,21)

You seem to have forgotten that Acts of Apostles and the NT Epistles are products of fiction with respect to resurrected and ascended Jesus, the apostles and bogus conversion of Saul/Paul.
Yes, it's fiction about resurrected and ascended Jesus, and partly about conversion of Saul/Paul.
But what does that have to do with Paul's non-exitence?

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

None of those you mentioned stated a character called Paul wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
Bernard Muller wrote:Narrowing the goal posts again.
1 Clement, the Naassenes, Basilides, Marcion named Paul and quoted at least one of his epistles.
"Ignatius" in 'to the ephesians' does not quote Paul's epitle(s) but indicated Paul wrote several letters.
Polycarp indicated Paul wrote one letter to the Philippians.
Ptolemy paraphrated on segment of 1 Corinthians.
Again, just saying someone named Paul wrote Epistles may not be evidence because it appears the Epistles are the product of multiple writers using the name Paul at different time periods.

Which Paul are those writing referring to? There may be many Pauls.
hakeem wrote:A Christian writing, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Epistles were written after the Revelation of John.
Bernard Mueller wrote: No, it does not: show the evidence for your claim.
You are wrong.

The author of the Muratorian Canon did state the Apostle Paul followed the rule of his predecessor John and wrote to seven Churches.

The Muratorian Canon
....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans.

hakeem wrote:Some writers claimed NT Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews which would imply they didn't know when Paul lived.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Can you explain why if some writers claimed NT Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, that implies they didn't know when Paul lived.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was most likely written after the Gospels and Acts or after c 70 CE.
hakeem wrote:You could not have presented any historical evidence for Epistle Paul.
Bernard Mueller wrote: But I did. It looks first you believe there is none and next consequently there is no historical evidence: conclusion first, then deductions according to your conclusion. This sequence should be reversed.
Acts of the Apostles is historical evidence for Paul?? Please, you must be joking.
hakeem wrote:There is no extant manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum dated 25 years before Celsus. The Epistula Apostolorum is an anonymous writing of unknown date of authorship.
Bernard Mueller wrote: The dating of the original text was at least before 150 AD (from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html):
The Coptic version in ch. 17 places the end of the world at 120 years past Pentecost, while the Ethiopic version states that 150 years would pass. A likely explanation would be that the document was originally composed shortly before 150 C.E. and was revised by a redactor when the prediction didn't come to pass.

Ok. I see the problem. Christian writers would invent their own dates for the end of the world so the Epistula Apotolorum cannot be used as a credible source.
hakeem wrote:Of course the age of James matters!! If James was not yet born c 40 CE how could Epistle Paul have met him?
Bernard Mueller wrote: According to the gospels and Tacitus, adult Jesus was executed when Pilate ruled Judea up to 36 AD (date according to Josephus' Antiquities, which also put that James, the brother of Jesus, executed in 62 AD). So you can figure a possible range of years (like from 20 BC to 62 AD) for the life of James.
Sorry you have the wrong James.

You have a problem. The Christian character called James the Lord's brother was alive c 68 CE in Christian writings. In fact, it is claimed Clement wrote to this James after the death of Peter the bishop of Rome c 68 CE.

The Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter...
hakeem wrote:I don't know why you think Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are historically credible?
Bernard Mueller wrote: Because when you examine them critically (especially for Acts), they provide a clear picture of Paul's public life...
Ok, what year did Jesus resurrect and ascend in a cloud?
What year did the ascended Jesus talk to Paul after he was blinded by a bright light?
What year did Paul raise people from the dead?
Bernard Mueller wrote:Here is what my research led me to about the chronogy of Paul's public life (all my research is explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html):

Recapitulation of Paul's early years:

a) Winter/spring 35: Paul takes part into the persecutions against the proto-Christians starting in Jerusalem (Gal1:13,23a, Ac7:57-8:1-4a,9:1-2)
b) Late spring 35: Paul's conversion in Damascus (Gal1:15-16a, Ac9:18b)
c) Spring 38: three years later (Gal1:18a), Paul escapes from Damascus (2Co11:32-33, Ac9:25) and returns to Jerusalem for a fifteen days visit at Peter's home (Gal1:18b-19, Ac9:26).
d) Spring 38 to spring 42: Paul's exit from Jerusalem (Ac9:30) and stay in his home city, Tarsus in Cilicia (today southern Turkey)
Note: 42 is likely (according to the clue in 2Co12:2) but cannot be firmly established.
e) Spring 42: Paul is invited by Barnabas to join him in Antioch (Ac11:25-26a).
f) Spring 42 to winter 48/49: Paul is based in Antioch as the protege and companion of Barnabas, participating in missionary journeys in Syria and Cilicia (Gal1:21).
g) Spring & summer of 49: most likely time for Paul and Barnabas (westward) missionary trip ("Paul's first journey") to Cyprus, Pamphylia and "southern" Galatia. Back to Antioch for the winter (note: this trip could have happened one or a few years earlier and lasted longer)
h) Spring 50 to spring 52: Paul's second journey leading to the creation of Christian communities in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea), Athens and Corinth (where he stays one year and a half - Ac18:11)

Paul's third journey:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years (Gal2:1) after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then (See Appendix B for explanations).
b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter: Gal2:11-14) and departs (alone).
c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts (Gal4:13-15; Ac18:23,19:1a).
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment (1Co1-4).
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months (Ac19:8,10). He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians (1Co9). But, later, the situation improves greatly.
f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here: 1Co16:5-8; 2Co13:1-2), where Paul is rejected. Likely no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus (2Co1:15-24,7:5-7). Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55 (2Co8:10b-11).
i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted (2Co8:10b-11).
k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months (Ac20:3a); the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth (Ro15:26).
m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest (Ro15:25-26,31; Ac20,21)

You are just repeating what you see in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. You need to find the Epistle writer in credible independent contemporary sources like Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and others.
Bernard Mueller wrote: You seem to have forgotten that Acts of Apostles and the NT Epistles are products of fiction with respect to resurrected and ascended Jesus, the apostles and bogus conversion of Saul/Paul.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Yes, it's fiction about resurrected and ascended Jesus, and partly about conversion of Saul/Paul.
But what does that have to do with Paul's non-exitence?
You don't know what fiction means? Saul/Paul was an invented Christian --no person has ever heard the voice of the ascended Jesus--a dead and resurrected Lord Jesus did not talk to Paul--no such character ever existed.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Again, just saying someone named Paul wrote Epistles may not be evidence because it appears the Epistles are the product of multiple writers using the name Paul at different time periods.

Which Paul are those writing referring to? There may be many Pauls.
I agree. Some epistles were not written by Paul, but by others, in the name of Paul, at different periods:
They are Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and the three Pastorals.
The real Paul wrote the others, but some letters (1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians) got combined three into one and almost all of them added on with interpolations (I sorted out the combinations and the interpolations, and explained why: See http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html and then "find" on: 3. The Corinthians letters). As for the authenticity of Paul, I wrote that in an earlier post:
My evidence is in the epistles themselves, where Paul is a preacher on the run, whose credentials are doubted, who has competition and had to fight to keep his converts, who is trying to solve problems with these troublesome Corinthians (and at times being rejected by them), etc.
Why would a Pauline author go into that? And why choose a non-eyewitness of Jesus to propagate Christianity in a corner of the Roman empire?
Why would this Pauline author says Paul admitted of making pious lies (http://historical-jesus.info/5.html) and trying to correct his own writing: http://historical-jesus.info/55.html?

The author of the Muratorian Canon did state the Apostle Paul followed the rule of his predecessor John and wrote to seven Churches.
Yes, you are right. I missed that. But a lot of what the Muratorian Canon postulates is BS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was most likely written after the Gospels and Acts or after c 70 CE.
That's not true according to my research.
Acts of the Apostles is historical evidence for Paul?? Please, you must be joking.
I never said that. But Acts (taking in account the bias) provides some info which fit well with the ones provided by Paul's epistles, mostly 1 & 2 Corinthians & Galatians. And if it fits, don't dismiss!
Ok. I see the problem. Christian writers would invent their own dates for the end of the world so the Epistula Apotolorum cannot be used as a credible source.
It is not a reason to dismiss the Paul's passage in the text. It is most credible the author knew about Acts.
Sorry you have the wrong James.

You have a problem. The Christian character called James the Lord's brother was alive c 68 CE in Christian writings. In fact, it is claimed Clement wrote to this James after the death of Peter the bishop of Rome c 68 CE.
That Clement of Alexandria went by what he read from one of Hegesippus texts (about James), with an ending very controversial:
And shortly after [the execution of James, the brother of Jesus] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
Ok, what year did Jesus resurrect and ascend in a cloud?
What year did the ascended Jesus talk to Paul after he was blinded by a bright light?
What year did Paul raise people from the dead?
When did Jesus was thought to have resurrected? 28 AD, in the spring.
When did Paul is said to resurrect people?
If you are referring to Acts 20:9-10, in 57 AD, spring.
When Paul is said blinded by light, on his way to Damascus? 35 AD.

All these dates are not deduced from Acts alone, but also from Paul's epistles, and a bit of the gospels.
You are just repeating what you see in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. You need to find the Epistle writer in credible independent contemporary sources like Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and others.
Paul wrote his epistles before Josephus wrote his works. Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Tacitus came much later.
However there is a lot of Philo in Paul's epistles and Hebrews, more so about the Son of God and attributes.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:]Again, just saying someone named Paul wrote Epistles may not be evidence because it appears the Epistles are the product of multiple writers using the name Paul at different time periods.

Which Paul are those writing referring to? There may be many Pauls.
Bernard Mueller wrote:I agree. Some epistles were not written by Paul, but by others, in the name of Paul, at different periods:
They are Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and the three Pastorals.
The real Paul wrote the others, but some letters (1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians) got combined three into one and almost all of them added on with interpolations (I sorted out the combinations and the interpolations, and explained why.......

Once you admit the Epistles under the name of Paul were products of multiple authors and were manipulated then it is impossible to know who wrote any Epistle--impossible-- especially when there is no independent historical evidence for Paul's existence and no contemporary corroboration of any Epistle.

You are just making stuff up. You have no historical corroborative evidence whatsoever that the character called Paul, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin ever lived and wrote anything.
The author of the Muratorian Canon did state the Apostle Paul followed the rule of his predecessor John and wrote to seven Churches.
Bernard Muller wrote: Yes, you are right. I missed that. But a lot of what the Muratorian Canon postulates is BS.
Well, there are NT manuscripts that place the so-called Pauline Epistles last in their Canon.

In manuscript 175, Revelation is after Acts and the so-called Pauline Epistles are last, after the General Epistles.
In miniscule 325 --the Pauline Epistles are last and after Revelation.
In miniscule 1424--the Pauline Epistles are last and after Revelation.

It is virtually certain that NT Pauline Epistles were composed after the Gospel stories of Jesus since there are early Christian writers who did not mention the Pauline writings but stories of Jesus but all who mention the Pauline Epistles always mention stories of Jesus found in the Gospels.

The same applies to non-apologetic writings.

The earliest non-apologetic writings against the Christian religion do not mention Paul only stories of Jesus found in the Gospels but later non-apologetic writings against Christianity mention both a character called Paul and stories of Jesus.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
(Bolding and underlining mine)
there is no independent historical evidence for Paul's existence and no contemporary corroboration of any Epistle.
Narrowing the goal posts again.
"no independent historical evidence for Paul's existence" does not mean Paul did not exist. Furthermore, Paul was a Christian preachers among others during his times, and would not attract attention of non-Christian writers.
Well, there are NT manuscripts that place the so-called Pauline Epistles last in their Canon.

In manuscript 175, Revelation is after Acts and the so-called Pauline Epistles are last, after the General Epistles.
In miniscule 325 --the Pauline Epistles are last and after Revelation.
In miniscule 1424--the Pauline Epistles are last and after Revelation.

It is virtually certain that NT Pauline Epistles were composed after the Gospel stories of Jesus since there are early Christian writers who did not mention the Pauline writings but stories of Jesus but all who mention the Pauline Epistles always mention stories of Jesus found in the Gospels.
Our bibles also put the gospels first, then the Pauline epistles & Hebrews next, then the other epistles, then Revelation.
Putting the gospels before the Pauline epistles is probably to give the impression Paul and Hebrews did not originate Christianity beliefs which appear in the gospels. And the gospels are more important for Christians than the epistles.
The same applies to non-apologetic writings.

The earliest non-apologetic writings against the Christian religion do not mention Paul only stories of Jesus found in the Gospels but later non-apologetic writings against Christianity mention both a character called Paul and stories of Jesus.
Non-apologetic writings (I prefer: non-Christian writings) came very late and have very little historical values.
Even if the earliest ones, like Celsius, do not mention Paul, that does not mean that Paul did not exist.

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply