Diogenes the Cynic

Luke did mention Paul, but it would have been anti-Pauline to say that Paul was the first to see Jesus or preach resurrection. He represented himself as the last.

Iskander

The credibility of Paul cannot be disputed by a believer: Paul received the Gospel by special revelation directly from Jesus Christ.

If someone is not a believer there is nothing to discuss at all, The Goy? Who cares?

aa5874

Luke did not mention Paul.

gLuke was falsely attributed to some character called Luke of whom NOTHING is known in the Canon.

It cannot ever be overlooked that the NT Canon is riddled with forgeries or falsely attributed authors in order to mis-represent the history of the Jesus cult.

wordy

Is it okay to ask if this Simon of Samaria is a historic person?
is there consensus that he really existed and the words attributed to him?

oops he is more known using this name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

aa5874

The Pauline writings are most likely not credible.

Although there are 13 letters under the name of Paul virtually NONE of the added details about Jesus and himself are corroborated.

This is most astonishing.



1. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he went to Arabia and after 3 years returned to Damascus--No writer in the Canon corroborates Paul.

2. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he did not confer with Flesh and Blood when he was called to preach--the author of Acts denies the veracity of Paul and claimed Ananias and disciples in Damascus did confer with Paul.

3. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he ONLY met the Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem--the veracity of Paul is denied by Acts--Paul met ALL the disciples in Jerusalem.

4. In Galatians 1, the Pauline writer claimed he met an Apostle, James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem--No such apostle is mentioned anywhere in the ENTIRE Canon.

5. In Galatians 2, the Pauline writer claimed he went to Jerusalem after 14 years but again, the authior of Acts denies the veracity of Paul. The author of Acts claimed Paul was in and out of Jerusalem.

6. In Galatians 2, the Pauline writer claimed or implied he was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach to the uncircumcised just like Peter was to the circumcised --the veracity of the Pauline writer cannot be granted--even if Jesus did live he could NOT have commissioned Peter AFTER Jesus himself was dead.

It is clear to me that the Pauline writings are not credible and were planted by some deceptive means.

Up to the mid 2nd century and later, Apologetic writers showed that the Jesus cult was developed without a ten word phrase from the Pauline letters and without attending a Pauline Church or cult.

The Pauline letters are the Flagship of Fraud, Forgery and Fiction.

Iskander

To aa5874
I assume that you are not a believer. Am I right in assuming that?

Many believe that and more; they are the faithful servants of many different gods.


Are we here to examine what their texts appear to say or to sing our own personal credo?


Is Paul credible? Are Mohamed, Buddha, Moses... credible?

Tristan Scott

Where do you get that from? People can do whatever they want.

You do not determine what there is to discuss for anyone but yourself.

aa5874

Are you willing to answer the question?

Don't worry. Paul was a false witness.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Iskander

Paul never existed. His epistles are the work of a group of writers reshaping existing writings and particularly the scriptures pertaining to Moses, says Thomas Brodie, he adds that they chose “ letter writing and in doing so brought the composition of epistles to a new level.”. They intended to make Paul a new Moses.


The never ending controversy about Paul is continuing, going on and on, as Sheshbazzar says.

Iskander

Yes, ask your question