Transient

woops - didn't notice how far off topic I wandered - feel free to delete those posts - sorry Toto

mountainman

But in a certain sense, the postulate that there is such as thing as the ancient historical truth (perhaps unknowable in all completeness) demands that we are in fact dealing with a jig saw puzzle of the evidence. Moreover it is a four dimensional jigsaw puzzle because the major frame of reference must be chronology (time).

The postulate of the historical Jesus and the historical Paul do not appear to fit at all into the 4 dimensional jig-saw-puzzle-evidence. Thus the postulate of the mythological Jesus has been given a run, and in a more contemporary sense the mythical/fictional Jesus is being entertained as a postulate.

Brainpower on the HJ postulate appears wasted. However brainpower on other possible postulates may not necessarily be wasted and may in fact, in time, see great rewards.

aa5874

As I have stated for some time now, "Paul was a fraud".

Once the Pauline writings are examined it will become extremely CLEAR that the statements from the Pauline writings that described events before the Fall of the Temple are non-historical or blatant LIES.

1. The Pauline writers claimed they persecuted Jesus believers.

2. A Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus.

3. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was given a name above every other name BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

4. The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was a Messiah BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

5. Pauline writers claimed Jesus the Messiah was the Creator of heaven and earth and was equal to God.

6. A Pauline writer claimed he stayed with the apostle Peter for fifteen days. The apostle Peter was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories.


None of the above can be corroborate by any external historical source of antiquity. The Pauline historical accounts of his resurrected Jesus Messiah have ZERO corroboration there is not even a single rumor in any writing that there was a Jesus who PRETENDED that he was a Messiah.

It would appear that the Pauline writers simply believed or wanted people of antiquity to believe that the Jesus stories were true that there was an actual Jesus with apostles.

Once Jesus did NOT exist then Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are non-historical with respect to Jesus, the apostles and Paul.

Once Jesus did not exist then the history of Church which includes any part of the events BEFORE the Fall of the Temple as found in Acts and the Pauline writers are completely ERRONEOUS.

So far, I have found ONLY one writer who claimed to believe in Jesus who did NOT use or was NOT aware of the post-resurrection activities of the apostles and "Paul".

It is Justin Martyr.

The history from Justin Martyr of the Church appears to be compatible with external sources. Justin's history of Jesus was found ONLY in the "Memoirs of the Apostles". Justin's Jesus could NOT be found outside scripture.

After 150 years since the birth of Jesus Justin did NOT name a single external source of antiquity who PERSONALLY KNEW Jesus or his immediate family. Justin's Jesus was born of a virgin, ascended to heaven and did NOT leave any trace of his existence.

Based on Justin the entire history of Jesus and his disciples VANISHED when he ascended to heaven.

"Paul" was a fraud" based on Justin Martyr.

Jane H

Again, hardly resident or expert (but then neither is the writer, from this page). From a Xian perspective, a couple of remarks I hope will be helpful:

The term 'apostle' is a far looser one than the writer appears to appreciate. Named apostles in the N.T. include Sylvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 2:7) , Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7) and Jesus C (Heb 3:1). There is no doubt a particular group of “Twelve”, who were designated apostles (Mark 3:14) , however the term appears more to describe anyone engaged in missionary work for Christ. Luke can talk about the twelve at the Last Supper as Jesus' apostles (22:14), but then uses the same term for Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14).

Given that the term has a deal of flexibility, it would seem to render much of the writer's argument redundant.

Paul certainly struggled for acceptance to be seen as having the same apostolic role to the Gentiles that the Twelve had to the Jews. Those opposed to his campaign for a modified Torah would certainly have tried to muddy the waters on that. That his work was accepted by the the Jerusalem apostles can be seen from such things as the collection for the Jerusalem poor (1 Corinthians 16:1,2).

aa5874

You are ONLY repeating the information found in the NT as if it were true. What you need as an XIAN is to find EXTERNAL non-apologetic sources for the NT Canon.

The Pauline writers made claims about Jesus that he was a Messiah, the Creator of heaven and earth, and that he received certain information about the betrayal of Jesus but no external source can account for the Pauline writings.

Where did "Paul" get his gospel and apostleship?

Was "PAUL" a fraud?

Surely "Paul" did NOT get his apostleship and gospel from a RESURRECTED DEAD.

This is a Pauline writer talking about what he RECEIVED from the RESURRECTED dead called Jesus the first born of the DEAD.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 - A Pauline writer is claiming he received DATA from the resurrected dead but this was the least likely way.

A Church historian in the 4th century claimed "Paul" was AWARE of Luke or that there was a tradition that Paul was aware of gLuke. Now, that is a more likely way to find out about the betrayal and the Last Supper.


"Church History" 3.4.8 It is more reasonable that "Paul" was aware of the Gospels rather than Paul received DATA from a resurrected dead.

Paul appears to be a fraud. His gospel was from man.

Examine gLuke and you will see that ONLY gLuke has the words "in remembrance of me".

Did a resurrected Jesus tell Paul to do anything "in remembrance of me"? Hardly likely.

Now, look at gLuke and the author makes HIS Jesus talk.

Lu 22:19 - Paul was a fraud.

darstec

I think that would leave you with -- the Pauline letters were late and were tampered with even later.

mountainman

It leaves us having to identify Pseudo Paul in an historical sense.

aa5874

Who needed ALL the Pauline writings to appear historically accurate?

Who have benfitted directly from the appearance that ALL the Pauline writings were historically accurate?

The 4th century Roman Church.

The 4th century Roman Church must be or was most likely the fabricators of the history of their Church.

The 4th century Roman Church is the most likely candidate who authorised the fabrication and invention of the "history" in the Pauline writings.

Chili

Good move. It gives us something to worry about.

mountainman

But wait there's more to worry about first.

The tenured orthodox incumbant "historians" of 4th and 5th century Roman Church utterly twisted the ancient historical truth of the reception of the New Testament, the Bible, the imperial "Christianity" and the Nicaean reactions against the authenticity of the divinity of that Roman Church.

Eusebius builds the yellow brick road from the 1st century and we know exactly where that yellow brick road lead, despite the fact that Eusebius refers to it as a lonely and untrodden path. Eusebius' yellow brick road leads us to the doors into the council of Nicaea, on a sunny day, when everything was rosy and golden and a beautiful dawn greeted the cool air of Nicaea. However, Eusebius's death is reported to have closely followed Constantine's, and Athanasius starts preparing codex publications of the bible for the Emperor Constans. And time went by ...

Perhaps a century after Nicaea, those whom Arnaldo Momigliano calls the continuators of Eusebius (See the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates - 303 to 439 CE, of Sozomenus - 303 to 421 CE and Theodoretus - 303 to 428 CE), fraudulently harmonised the history of the political reception of the Bible in order to avoid mention of the major controversies which ensued. In the END GAME, the thug bishop of the Roman Church, Cyril of Alexandria, appropriately provided with the official name "THE SEAL OF THE FATHERS", destroyed all conflicting evidence, refuted his many opponents (including Emperor Julian and the ex-Arch Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius [who is preserved anonymously under the name of Heraclites]) and rendered an orthodox cement slab over the political and religious controversies of the 4th century, back to the authority of Constantine's agreement with the "318 Nicaean Fathers of the Roman CHURCH" (see Nicaean Creed), and then backwards down Eusebius's yellow brick road to the Early Roman Church authority of those exceedingly transcendental pre-nicaean [Eusebian] "early church fathers" like Papias et al.

Business was business.
And its still operating.