FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-29-2013, 03:55 PM   #21
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. .The Pauline Corpus could NOT have been composed BEFORE c 175-180 CE since we would have expected Celsus to attack the discrepancies in the Pauline Corpus as was done by Porphyry around the early 4th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Jerome Murphy O'Conner, writes in Paul: A Critical Life (or via: amazon.co.uk) that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul and that at some time a section of it was interpolated into 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 . Jumping to the conclusion that the Pauline Corpus could NOT have been compsed BEFORE c 175-180 CE doesn't follow because there were MULTIPLE authors called Paul, IMHO. :banghead:
:huh: You are blatantly mis-representing the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that I have shown you.

I did not say that the Pauline Corpus could not have been composed before c 175-180 CE merely because there were Multiple authors.

I deliberately and SPECIFICALLY presented MULTIPLE sources that did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus up to 175-180 CE.

Again, this is some of the evidence .

1. The first known source, the author of Acts, to write a biography of Saul/Paul up to c 59-62 CE did NOT claim at all that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles and Pastorals.

2. The first known source, 1 st Clement, to mention an Epistle to Corinthians by Paul is a forgery or false attribution and was unknown up to the 4th century BASED on Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine, Rufinus and the Chronograph of 354.

3. The first known source, "Against Heresies", to mention the letters of the Pauline Corpus is a forgery because Irenaeus was a Presbyter of the Church and argued Publicly that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old or 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius---Against Heresies contradicts the Pauline Corpus.

4. Aristides did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 117-138 CE.

5. Justin did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 138-160 CE.

6. Theophilus of Antioch, a Christian, did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 175-180 CE.

7. Athenagoras, a Christian, did not mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 175-180 CE.

8. Minucius Felix an Apologetic writer did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline corpus around the late 2nd-3rd century.

9. Hippolytus admitted that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus.

10. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul C 175-180 ce.

There is an abundance of evidence to support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was fabricated AFTER c 180 CE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Given that since no one disputed the Pauline letters in the second century they didn't exist, does it follow that since Serapion, Bishop of Antioch [a.d.circa 190-200-211.], disputed the Gospel of Peter, that the earlier letters attributed to Peter existed? If so, what is the significance of 2: Peter 3:14-16 reference to Paul's epsitles?
I really glad you mention 2 Peter.

2 Peter is a forgery. It was ADMITTED by the Church that the NT Canon is compiled with a forgery called 2 Peter. See "Church History" 3.3.1.

2 Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Eusebius' Church Hstory 3.3.1
Quote:
....But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 05:30 PM   #22
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. .The Pauline Corpus could NOT have been composed BEFORE c 175-180 CE since we would have expected Celsus to attack the discrepancies in the Pauline Corpus as was done by Porphyry around the early 4th century.

:huh: You are blatantly mis-representing the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that I have shown you.

I did not say that the Pauline Corpus could not have been composed before c 175-180 CE merely because there were Multiple authors.

I deliberately and SPECIFICALLY presented MULTIPLE sources that did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus up to 175-180 CE. . .
Sorry, I should have stated that the multiple sources which do mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus before 175-180 are forgeries according to the purposes of this thread. Is Ignatius of Antioch's mention of Paul's letter another example of a forgery?

Quote:
Ye are the high-road of those that are on their way to die unto God. Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh mention of you in Christ Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 10:16 PM   #23
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Sorry, I should have stated that the multiple sources which do mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus before 175-180 are forgeries according to the purposes of this thread...
You should have stated from the start that you really have no interest in the evidence from antiquity.

It is well known that Jesus cult writings are riddled with forgeries and false attribution. The NT Canon is a prime example where virtually 100% of the authors are FAKES.

It is already accepted that the Pauline Corpus contains forgeries.

Now, is it not stated that 2nd Peter does NOT belong to the Canon?

2nd Peter was known to be a forgery for hundreds of years.

It is NOT stated that the Bishop of Rome wrote a letter in response to a Dissension of the Church of Corinth which should have happened c 95 CE?

Clement was NOT bishop of Rome 95 C E based on Tertullian, Optatuis, Augustine, Rufinus and the author of the Chronograph 354.

Any letter attributed to Clement as bishop of Rome when there was a Dissension of the Church of Corinth is a forgery or false attribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Is Ignatius of Antioch's mention of Paul's letter another example of a forgery?

Quote:
Ye are the high-road of those that are on their way to die unto God. Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation; in whose foot-steps I would fain be found treading, when I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh mention of you in Christ Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
Which Paul are you talking about? You know that there were FAKE Pauls.

Please identify which Paul Ignatius mentioned in the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Saul/Paul in Acts wrote NO Epistles and Pastorals.

May I remind you that the passage you quoted is from Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians.

May I also remind you that the letter to the Ephesians attributed to Paul is generally accepted as a forgery.

It would seem that Ignatius knew one of the Fake Pauls.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:11 PM   #24
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Because of the abundance of evidence from antiquity it is an EXTREMELY simple matter to determine within reason that the Entire Canonised Pauline Corpus is a very late invention.

As soon as it was discovered and accepted almost universally by scholars that the Pauline Corpus does contain forgeries or falsely attributed epistles then it is easily understood why multiple 2ND century Christian writers up to 175-180 CE show no influence at all of the Pauline Corpus and Pauline teachings.

The Pauline Corpus is Anti-Marcionite propaganda composed AFTER Marcion was dead.

This can be shown when Ephrem's three books "Against Marcion" are examined.

Although Ephrem wrote AFTER Tertullian's "Against Marcion", the Syrian writer did NOT corroborate a single verse from the Pauline Corpus as stated by Tertullian.

Instead, Ephrem the Syrian corroborated Justin Martyr's statements about Marcion.

Ephrem's existing three books on "Against Marcion" does NOT mention that Paul manipulated the Pauline Corpus and so does Justin NOT mention Paul.

But, there is also another serious problem for all sources which mention the Pauline Corpus.

If the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians is most like a forgery how does Ignatius know of the forgery?

Are we to expect that a forgery was actually sent to the Ephesians Church while Paul was alive?

Incredibly, the earliest recovered Epistle to an Ephesian Church is a forgery under the name of Paul.

Without the Pauline forgery we would know nothing of "Paul's" Ephesian Church.

It is clear why many Christians writers did NOT mention Paul, the Pauline teachings and the Pauline Churches--they were fabricated after c 175-180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 04:52 PM   #25
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. .It is clear why many Christians writers did NOT mention Paul, the Pauline teachings and the Pauline Churches--they were fabricated after c 175-180 CE.
Polycarp also seems to know a great deal about Paul's (fake or not) writings. JSTOR has an article called Polycarp of Smyrna's View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy which may be of interest (see quote below).

Quote:
Polycarp seems to demonstrate knowledge of many letters in our present Pauline corpus, including Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, 2 Thessalonians, and 1 and 2 Timothy. .
arnoldo is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 07:46 PM   #26
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

In a number of cases you assume that the text not mentioning Paul had been an original Christian document, whereas it is more likely to have been a non Christian tract that was simply adopted and adapted by Christians. They also didn't mention other Christian personages either.
In the case of Justin the was simply addressing prophecies he suggested related to Jesus in the Tanakh, which wasn't relevant to Paul.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 08:37 PM   #27
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. .It is clear why many Christians writers did NOT mention Paul, the Pauline teachings and the Pauline Churches--they were fabricated after c 175-180 CE.
Polycarp also seems to know a great deal about Paul's (fake or not) writings. JSTOR has an article called Polycarp of Smyrna's View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy which may be of interest (see quote below).

Quote:
Polycarp seems to demonstrate knowledge of many letters in our present Pauline corpus, including Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, 2 Thessalonians, and 1 and 2 Timothy. .
Polycarp did not establish that he knew when really Paul lived or what he really wrote.

Essentially, Polycarp is a source of fiction or has no real historical value.

The supposed Presbyter Irenaeus, who argued that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or c 49 CE also claimed to know Polycarp.

See Against Heresies.

Ploycarp should have known that Paul could NOT preached Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41CE.

Polycarp should have known that John the disciple and the Elders preached that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and NOT Tiberius.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-01-2013, 01:53 PM   #28
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The Canonised NT is extremely consistent with regards to the Pauline Corpus.

None of the authors of the NT Canon show awareness of the Pauline teachings.

In the NT, it is claimed Paul had revelations from the resurrected Jesus.

In the same NT, it is also claimed John had Revelations from Jesus.

The teachings about the Second Coming or the resurrection must have been a very significant teaching in the Jesus cult.

It will be seen that up to the 2nd century that it was the Johanine teachings of the Second Coming that was known--NOT Paul's.

The Revelations of Paul and the Revelations of John are NOT compatible.

The resurrected Jesus in John's Revelation did not know the Pauline Jesus.

In John's revelation, there would be a New Jerusalem on earth and people would reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

Revelation 21:2 KJV
Quote:
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:10 KJV
Quote:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God


Revelation 20:4 KJV
Quote:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image , neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed the Dead in Christ shall rise FIRST and meet Jesus in the AIR.

1 Thessalonians
Quote:
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

No such Pauline teaching was known in the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr.

Justin knew of John's Revelation--NOT Paul's.

Dialogue with Trypho LXXX
Quote:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXXI
Quote:
And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem...
The writings of 2nd century Jesus cult writers show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-01-2013, 06:12 PM   #29
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . The writings of 2nd century Jesus cult writers show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown.

Why would the Emperor Julian quote the Apostle Paul almost word for word in Against the Galileans?

Quote:
But that not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time, those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul, were men of this sort, is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them. For unless he actually knew that they had committed all these disgraceful acts, he was not, I think, so impudent as to write to those men themselves concerning their conduct, in language for which, even though in the same letter he included as many eulogies of them, he ought to have blushed, yes, even if those eulogies were deserved, while if they were false and fabricated, then he ought to have sunk into the ground to escape seeming to behave with wanton flattery and slavish adulation. But the following are the very words that Paul wrote concerning those who had heard his teaching, and were addressed to the men themselves: "Be not deceived: neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And of this ye are not ignorant, brethren, that such were you also; but ye washed yourselves, but ye were sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ"

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Against_the_Galileans

Maybe Julian didn't know that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 wasn't written in the first century?
arnoldo is offline  
Old 10-02-2013, 12:19 AM   #30
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . The writings of 2nd century Jesus cult writers show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Why would the Emperor Julian quote the Apostle Paul almost word for word in Against the Galileans?
Again, I am extremely happy you mention the Emperor Julian. In fact, in writings attributed to Julian the Emperor he did argue that Jesus and Paul were UNKNOWN by those who wrote about events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius wrote about events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius but never mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Why would Julian say that the fabrication of the Galileans was a Monstrous fable and a fiction of men?

Why would Julian challenge Christians to show any well known writer who mentioned Paul and Jesus?

Julian must have found out that the Jesus and Pauline stories were fiction--monstrous fables.

Julian's Against the Galileans
Quote:
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
Quote:
But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
I put the same challenge to you.

It was already known since the 4th century, precisely at the time of Julian the Emperor, that the stories of Jesus and Paul were Monstrous fables and were UNKNOWN in the well known writings about the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tascitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio corroborates Julian--Jesus, the Galileans and Paul were not mentioned by well known writers of antiquity.

Julian's Against the Galileans
Quote:
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.