aa5874

The presumption that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed before the story of Jesus in the Canon was known and composed was utterly baseless from the start.

Itis clear that the author of the so-called short ending gMark did NOT know of or was the influenced by the Pauline Post-Resurrection visits by over 500 people . And this is also reflected in all the Canonised Jesus stories.

In the Pauline letters to Churches, it is claimed the Pauline writer went up to Jerusalem to visit the Apostles.

These claims of Pauline Jerusalem visits are extremely significant. See Galatians 1-2

So, if we presume that the Pauline letters were composed before the Canonised stories of Jesus and presume the authors used the "data" in the Pauline letters then the authors of the Gospels should have placed the Jesus story in Jerusalem and that hundreds of people SAW the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer did NOT claim Jesus was of Nazareth or that Jesus lived in Galilee or performed miracles there.

The Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem on more than one occasion to visit the Apostles.

However, it is the complete reverse in the earliest Canonised Gospels.

The authors of the Canonised stories placed virtually all the Activities of Jesus in Galilee and it is even claimed that the disciples met Jesus in Galilee AFTER the Resurrection and that the soldiers claimed the dead body of Jesus was stolen by the disciples which IMPLIES Jesus was NEVER seen alive again.

1. Matthew 26:32 KJV2. Matthew 28:16 KJV3. Matthew 28:13 KJV The authors of the earliest Canonised Jesus stories knew Nothing of the activities of the so-called disciples in Jerusalem.

Jesus of Nazareth and the disciples lived in Galilee, he performed miracles in Galilee and AFTER the crucifixion returned back to Galilee up in a mountain where they met Jesus after the Resurrection.

The authors of the short gMark and gMatthew were NOT aware of the Pauline letters--they were NOT aware that over 500 persons SAW the Resurrected Jesus, they were NOT aware that the disciples of Jesus were in Jerusalem AFTER the Resurrection.

It was the Later writer of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles who claimed the Apostles must TARRY in Jerusalem--Not Galilee--to receive the Power of the Ghost.

Galatians 1
Luke 24 It was the Later gLuke that matched the Pauline claims the Apostles were preaching repentance and remission of sins by the name of Jesus in Jerusalem AFTER the Resurrection.

Even Apologetic writers claimed Paul was aware of gLuke which is evident.

Luke 22:19 KJV1 Corinthians 11:24 KJV The abundance of evidence do show that the presumption that the Pauline writings to Churches predated the earliest Jesus stories in the Canon is completely without basis.

The Pauline writings to Churches were unknown up to the writing of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.

Duvduv

I did not say there was external evidence about the existence of rabbis of the Talmud. All I was saying was that there is no evidence for the existence of Justin or Irenaeus in the 2nd century that is stronger than the evidence for a Paul in the 1st century.

aa5874

1. I did not say there were actual recovered dated evidence for Justin or Irenaeus.

2. I said I examined the CONTENTS of writings attributed to Justin, Irenaeus and Paul

3. I said or argued that the writings attributed to Justin are corroborated by Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources.

4. I said or implied that I will use the writings attributed to Justin as a credible source until it can be shown his writings were not corroborated.

5. I said or argued that writings attributed Irenaeus are internally inconsistent and that "Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

6. I said that even the Church and its writers contradicted writings attributed Irenaeus.

7. I said or have deduced that it is virtually impossible for the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 to have known of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline wtitings to Churches when it was argued that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

8. I said that NOT even the Church and its writers, including the supposed Irenaeus, knew when Paul really lived, when he really died, what he really wrote and when he wrote them.

9. I said and argued that writers like Origen, the author of the Muratorian Canon, and Eusebius all implied that Paul was ALIVE long after 68 CE, perhaps by 100 years, or after gLuke or Revelation was already composed.

10. I said the Church however still maintain Paul was executed before Nero was dead c 68 CE and simnultaneously claim he was aware of gLuke.

Apologetic writers who mentioned the time of Justin ALWAYS claim that he wrote during the time of Antoninus Emperor of Rome c 138-160 CE.

Church History 4 Justin's First Apology I said that the CONTENTS of the writings of Justin Martyr are corroborated.

I said and successfully argued the writings attributed to Paul are a Pack of Lies --a Pack of Forgeries--a Pack of chronologically and historically bogus documents comnposed no earlier than c 180 CE.

Duvduv

AA, neither you nor anyone else knows when the CONTENTS were written, interpolated, altered or changed. The text itself and the context is the giveaway as to its poor production and creation after the second century. Unless you can check everything with the 14th century monk who had a single copy.

aa5874

I do not know of anyone who can say that every word attributed to any writer was actually composed by the named author.

Who wrote every word in Duvduv's posts?

Who really is Duvduv?

How is it possible for you to say "The text itself and the context is the giveaway as to its poor production and creation after the second century" when " neither you nor anyone else knows when the CONTENTS were written, interpolated, altered or changed."?

I don't really know who is Duvduv and if he wrote every word in his posts but the present contents of his posts are contradictory.

Duvduv

So let me be more precise. We don't know when precisely it was written, but all indications of content and context and lack of other evidence indicate to me at least that they were NOT written in the 2nd century. Does that help?

aa5874

Well I will also be precise. Posts under the name of Duvduv are self contradictory.

The poster using the name Duvduv boasts that " neither you nor anyone else knows when the CONTENTS were written, interpolated, altered or changed" but somehow without a shred of actual recovered dated manuscripts declares in opposition to himself that the SAME UNKNOWN Contents whose date of authorship is unknown by everyone is an indication to him that they were not written in the 2nd century.

I am not sure if you wrote every word in your posts but what is presented is not at all logical or reasonable.

For example, May I remind you, if one gives evidence in a court and makes statements that are contradictory such a character may be deemed a false witness even if some of the statements are truthful.

I really cannot comprehend why you would admit that no-one knows when writings of antiquity were composed and then immediately stated that certain writings were not composed in the 2nd century.

Your post is most astonishing.


I have stated that the contents of the Pauline letters and those attributed to Irenaeus are contradictory and are massive forgeries, or a pack of lies or a combination of the two.

It is virtually impossible that the Church of Lyons, Irenaeus, the supposed Heretics, the disciple John, the people of Asia and the Elders knew of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters if Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

aa5874

Once an investigation is carried out on writings that mentioned Paul it becomes extremely clear that the Pauline character and letters are all part of a massive fraud and forgery.

1. Examine Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul is mentioned more times than Jesus Christ the Son of God and/or Peter the supposed first bishop of Rome.

However, there is no mention whatsoever of a Pauline letter to any Church in the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts showed that the Jesus cult DEVELOPED without Paul and even SURVIVED when Paul persecuted the cult.

In Acts of the Apostles, it is shown that Saul/Paul was attempting to stop the spread of the Jesus cult.

In fact, it is claimed Saul/Paul received letters to bound people in Jesus cult in Damascus and bring them to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:2 KJV In Acts, the Jesus cult was developed WITHOUT Paul and WITHOUT Jesus.

In Acts, the Jesus cult was developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters.

Also, In the mid-2nd century, the Jesus cult did NOT use the Pauline letters

Who needed the Pauline letters??

Surely, if Jesus did exist and had disciples then we would expect that Jesus would have TAUGHT them while he was alive.

Surely, we would NOT expect that Jesus would have waited till AFTER he was resurrected to TEACH them.

However, the Pauline writer after admitting he Persecuted the Faith claimed he received his Gospel from Jesus AFTER he was dead and AFTER he was Resurrected.

The Pauline writings must be a pack of Lies or a Pack of Fiction.

It is clear that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Jesus cult was already established and the Pauline writer LIED or INVENTED his communication with the supposed dead and resurrected Jesus to give authority to his so-called Gospel.

Not one writer in the Canon showed any influence by the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

Not one writer in the Canon showed they attended a Pauline Church.

It would appear that writers of the Canon attended Markan Churches.

It would appear that the Markan Jesus story was known in the Roman Empire.

It was in the 3rd century or later that non-Apologetic writers began to show influence by the Pauline lettters.

The Pauline letters are not earlier than c 180 CE or not earlier than writings attributed to Irenaeus.

Duvduv

The poster known as aa5874 doesn't understand my point. I have simply argued that the content and context of such writings suggests that they were written with the agenda of a regime that had the motive, means and opportunity to produce a religion and its apologetics. Such literature does not ring true as springing out in the desert of the 2nd century.

aa5874

You hardly make any arguments. You either ask questions or make assertions.

Where is the supporting sources for your arguments?

You are merely making presumptions.

Please, we have writings attributed to Julian the Emperor of Rome in which it is claimed the story of the Galileans was a monstrous fable.

Surely, "Against the Galileans" was not a product of the Roman Church or Apologetic sources.

Well, there are many many writings that were also not products of the Church which mentioned Jesus.

Against the Galileans 2. The Roman Church did NOT composed writings attributed to Macarius Magnes.

This author agrees with me that Paul was a Liar over 1600 hundred years ago.

Magnes' "Apocritus"
It is not logical at all that all writings of antiquity that mentioned Jesus was produced by the Roman Church.

It can easily be deduced which writings were NOT composed by the Church.

We have "Church History", "Against Heresies" and "First Clement"-- the Flagships of Forgeries and prototype of Fraud.

We have the recovered dated manuscripts. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and NT manuscripts.

The Pauline writings were composed after c 180 CE---After the Jesus cult of Christians were already established.