Chili

I agree with that, and no historcal Mary either, but the 'messianic movement' in Galilee was real, or maybe it was called Galilee because it was real in Judaism then, as Matthew and Mark project that later was addressed as the persistent evil in John 6 where manna is presented as second hand bread from heaven as passages read instead of directly from God, that to Paul here came in his native Hebrew first hand to him.

aa5874

That is the fundamental problem with the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline writers give the impression that they evangelised the Roman Empire since 37-41 CE yet we cannot find a single author of the Canon who Emulated the Pauline writings.

Not even the author of Revelations used a single revelation of Paul or implied he knew of Pauline revelations.

The authors of the earliest Gospels used no details from the Pauline Corpus for their post resurrection scenes when it would have enhanced their story.

If the author of gMatthew already knew that OVER 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus it did not make sense for the author to claim that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Matthew 28:13 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:6 KJV The gMatthean stolen body story makes absolutely no sense if it was already known that over 500 people saw the Pauline resurrected Jesus.

And up to 150 CE, Justin Martyr was still claiming that the Jews claimed the disciples stole the body of Jesus and did not state Paul contradicted them.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CVIIThe stolen body story only makes sense if there were NO post-resurrection visits by Jesus to the populace.

The Pauline post resurrection visit of over 500 people by the resurrected Jesus was fabricated AFTER the stolen body story in gMatthew and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Toto

There are those who see Pauline influence in Mark. (See Michael Turton's review.)

I don't see the problem. Paul visited Jerusalem (maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but if he did, it was before 60 CE). He meets James, who was an important person in Christian history, but who has practically vanished from the books, and Cephas, who might or might not be Peter. Then he is executed in Rome. Then the Jews declared war on the world's major superpower, who came in with armies and flattened Jerusalem. The gospels were written after this - the standard line is that they drew on oral traditions or memories of Jesus, supplemented by the Hebrew Scriptures, but maybe they were just written then to provide some comfort for the survivors of the Jewish War.

In the standard history, Paul' letters had not been collected when the gospels were first written. They were still in the libraries in the churches of Corinth, etc.

The first time a gospel is linked to Paul's letters is presumably in Marcion's gospel, which the orthodox took over and rewrote, or something along those lines.

I'm not saying any of this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is a clear time line with internal consistency that shows there is no reason to expect Paul to quote the gospels or vice versa.

Simple - the Jerusalem apostles did not write any gospels. The gospels came later, after Jerusalem was destroyed.

That's ok - but it gets boring if you just keep repeating it. If you are going to discuss these issues, you have to take other views into account.

Notice that the timeline I gave you above does not require that Jesus existed, or that Paul even existed, although someone had to write the letters.

Sheshbazzar

When I used the phrase 'Jerusalem' apostles' I do not intend it to be taken as an indication that there ever were any actual 'Jerusalem' apostles', other than characters in a totally fictional religious tale.
An existing tale that the 'Pauline' writers wished to capitalize upon, in support of their 'Doctrine of Apostolic Succession', without fully endorsing.

I do see a problem. 'Paul' according to 'Paul', having performed 'mighty signs and wonders' and 'fully preached (his) gospel in Jerusalem and surrounding area (Ro 15:18-19) preaching for decades and founding Christian churches throughout the region, and with influence all the way to Spain (Ro 15:24, 28) would certainly have been remembered.

And as I do not believe there ever was a 'Jesus', a 'St Peter' or any 'St Paul', I have no reason at all to accept the Catholic church's claims that 'Paul' and 'Peter' ever were, or were executed in Rome.


And yes, I fully agree with you that -"the Jerusalem apostles did not write any gospels. The gospels came later, after Jerusalem was destroyed."

Yes, I suppose it will be boring, but in view of the culture of this Forum, it has become a requisite qualification to any and every statement I might make.

When others raise other views or issues, I am willing to address them, but it will be in my own words, and will be clearly and as often as necessary repeated that what I reply or present reflects my own personal views, and not necessarily those of any other person or 'authority'.



.

aa5874

Your post exposes the very problems with the Pauline writings. There is NO corroboration for the Pauline activities.

You have already admitted that Acts is fiction.

Telling us what you think happen without corroborative evidence is absolutely irrelevant because we are not dealing with speculation at this time.

Your story is basically worthless because you have no evidence for what you say.

Where is the evidence for stories of Jesus before the Jewish War c 70 CE?

Where is the evidence that Paul died in Rome?

Who is the apostle called James the Lord's brother?

Where is the evidence for Apostles of Jesus before c 70 CE?

You keep on making up stuff while you ridicule others who present the supporting evidence for their arguments.

The very Church writers contradict the Pauline story and claim Jesus was crucified 48-50 CE and that Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was composed.
Toto, you have presented a most blatant fallacy. There is no standard history for Paul. You have already admitted that Acts of the Apostles is fiction.

Please, Toto!!!

There were no libraries with the Pauline letters in the time of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Celsus, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, and Arnobius.

Where is the evidence for your speculation and presumptions? Please, Toto your imaginative unsubstantiated stories are of very little use.

Again, your post is illogical. One cannot assume Paul wrote his Epistles before the Gospels when no author of Canon made such a claim.

Toto, I cannot deal with the amount of speculation and presumptions in your posts you need to go back to the drawing board and present evidence from antiquity and not just give your flawed opinion.

Even in Acts, up to c 58-62 CE there were no Pauline Corpus--None--and Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed according to Church tradition.

I must make you know that it is completely illogical that the Church mistakenly believed gLuke was written early because information found in gLuke is found in the Pauline Corpus which suggest the Pauline Corpus are AFTER gLuke.

Essentially, information found in the Pauline Corpus is later than the earliest stories of Jesus.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John which appears to be corroborated by Justin who mentioned the Apocalypse by John WITHOUT mentioning Paul.

The Pauline letters are products of fraud, forgery and false attribution based on the abundance of evidence.

Diogenes the Cynic

The historical activities of Paul are a separate question from the dating of the letters attributed to him. So is his credibility, for that matter. He could have been as pathological a liar as ever walked the Earth and still have existed.

jdboy

That's just it all we have is literature i don't see how we could take him as historical. If you consider it fiction does Paul ever lie? aa, claims he lied as if there was something historical about the story. Do you think or see where Paul lied?

aa5874

We already know anybody could have existed.

We already know anybody could have existed and did not write letters to Churches.

This thread is dealing with the credibility of Paul.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity suggest the Pauline writers were not credible. The Pauline Corpus is really a compilation of forgeries, fraud and false attribution.

If Jesus actually exist he could have only been human so it is completely false that the Pauline writers received historical data from the dead Jesus about the Last Supper.

aa5874

The persons who wrote under the name of Paul are the Liars. There were multiple writers using the name of Paul giving the notion that they were Paul who preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

spin

Where?

How ironic.

Coming from you, that says nothing. You concoct nonsense and aim for your a priori conclusion and that makes your presentations basically worthless.

What is the relevance of the question exactly?

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Ironic.

This is garbled nonsense, based on selective misuse of sources.

You're not even trying to understand. This is another stupid blunder based on language deficiency.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Ironic once again.

Obviously one can, so your statement is nonsense yet again. When you talk about logic and what is illogical, you put yourself in the firing line, given the sort of logic or lack thereof in statements like this of yours.

You are too busy presuming and making assumptions yourself.

Your assumption seems to be that Acts needs to deal with Pauline texts. You have no basis for such. You seem to assume that Acts can give a valid picture of apostolic issues in the mid 1st c. without any reason for assuming such. You assume there is some veracity in the church tradition. Your whole position is, if you cared to look, riddled with assumptions.

Must you? When you are responsible for assuming that Luke was written before Paul--for you have no tenable reason for believing so--you don't "must make you know" anything.

We all know you believe that. We also know you think you have reason to believe that. You have not demonstrated that reason. You've merely fumbled your way through a mishmash of data from different times and forced yourself into error.

The Muratorian Canon is from the 7th c. and of no use to you. Then we have the lovely assertion that Justin didn't know of Paul because he doesn't mention him Justin's available texts. You are guilty of the same sorts of things you try to accuse others of. You fabricate evidence where there is none. You misunderstand sources. You use sources that are far too late. You assume that authors must say what you think they should. All this leads you to the following sorry nonsense:

This assertion has had no support given to it. You have no way to conclude that there is fraud involved, unless you almost totally empty the term of meaning, as with "forgery".

This has been a typical post full of your nonsense. It has been a waste of time, full of logical problems and you have the audacity to make accusations against others while not showing those accusations have merit and while being guilty of false conclusions and unsupported conjecture.