aa5874

You have ADMITTED your OWN Jokes.

You are definitely Joking. I asked you for corroboration but you give me COMIC RELIEF.
:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

mountainman

Gold.


Gold.



With a writing implement and some papyrus.

aa5874

It is so painfully obvious that people here who support the theory that a character called Paul did exist BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE have NOTHING but rhetoric and logical fallacies to support them but yet display disdain to those who POINT out that their arguments are baseless.

It would seem people here always resort to the FALLACY that the Majority is always right.

Well, it is the EVIDENCE that matters, NOT numbers.

Virtually all the evidence from antiquity suggest that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the Earliest Jesus stories found in the Codices.

ALL the Pauline Theological teachings from his Resurrected Jesus are NOT ONLY missing in gMark and gMatthew--they are CONTRADICTED.

This is MOST significant.

It was to be EXPECTED that if the Pauline letters were INDEED sent, collected and read in the Churches that the authors of the Jesus stories would have been INFLUENCED by the LETTERS in the churches.

Amazingly, the authors of the earliest Jesus stories claim that BAPTISM was the basis for SALVATION and wrote NOTHING about SALVATION by the Resurrection.

This is found in a Pauline letter.

Romans 10:9 NIV This passage is EXTREMELY significant.

The RESURRECTION of Jesus is a Fundamental Element in SALVATION.

But, now LOOK and EXAMINE even the INTERPOLATED gMark, the LATE gMark.

Mark 16

The Pauline letters were NOT known or circulated when gMark, the Interpolated gMark and gMatthew were composed.

Those very authors appear NOT have been ever in a Pauline church at all.

Their Jesus was NOT a SAVIOR to the Jews, did NOT start a new religion under the name of Christ, did NOT even want the Jews to know he was Christ, did NOT even tell his OWN supposed disciples he was Christ, it was PETER who did so, and he immediately BARRED his OWN supposed disciples from telling anyone.

The Jesus of gMark and gMatthew, the Earliest Canonised Jesus stories, did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to REMAIN in SIN and DELIBERATELY spoke in Parables to CONFUSE the OUTSIDERS and the JEWS.

It is IMPERATIVE that we UNDERSTAND that the supposed Jesus of gMark and gMatthew wanted to CONFUSE the OUTSIDERS, not only Jews, by speaking in Parables.

Jesus would ONLY Privately reveal the secret meaning of the Parables to his OWN disciples.

The Pauline letters were UNKNOWN to the authors of gMark, the INTERPOLATED gMark and gMatthew.

But, Apologetic sources have stated that the LETTER WRITER called Paul was AWARE of gLuke and it is CORROBORATED.

Information found ONLY in gLuke is FOUND in a PAULINE letter alone.

And further, in the Muratorian Canon, we have MORE CORROBORATION from an Apologetic source--The Pauline writer IMITATED the author of Revelation.

1. Apologetic sources PLACE Paul AFTER gLuke and Revelation by John was written.

2. Apologetic sources of the EARLIEST Jesus story were UNAWARE of Paul's letters.

3. Letters to place Paul BEFORE c 70 CE turn out to be Forgeries.

4. Letters within the Pauline Corpus are forgeries.

5. Acts of the Apostles, an Apologetic source, did NOT even write that Paul wrote letters to churches.

6. No author of the Gospel used the Pauline gospel of Universal Salvation by the RESURRECTION of Jesus.

The character called Paul was a FRAUD--HE LIVED in some other century under some other name and did NOT write letters to churches before c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are LAST in the Canon.

People who BELIEVE Paul was a figure of history have UTTERLY FAILED to present anything except BLIND FAITH in the veracity and historical accuracy of a writer ENGULFED in fraud, fogeries, deception and lies.

Even the very so-called conversion story of Paul, the very way, he supposedly met his LORD and SAVIOR Jesus is FICTION in Acts of the Apostles.

LegionOnomaMoi

But these are sources which contain "EVIDENCE of mythology" and are thus (by your standards) to be excluded. After all, they talk about a god-man and other mythic figures. How can they be trusted as sources for anything historical? Why, we might as well include acts as evidence for the historicity of Paul!

I'm "attempting" (read, engaging in an effort I know to be a waste of energy and time and which will ultimately prove fruitless, but what the hell)) to demonstrate what your methodology amounts to. You concentrate on applying certain criteria on particular sources, but ignore what applying these same criteria mean. If you wish to be extremely skeptical, then by all means do so. But to disregard Acts as roughly contemporary evidence that Paul exists, while simultaneously claiming that Irenaeus or Origen provide corroborating evidence for Josephus, is to apply different standards just because it suits you.

aa5874

Once you introduce Acts of the Apostles as Evidence for the historicity of Paul then the credibility, veracity and historical accuracy of Acts MUST, MUST, MUST be taken into consideration.

In any event, the author of Acts does NOT even claim Paul wrote letters to churrches. In Acts, the Pauline letters are WITHOUT corroboration.

You very well know that sources which contain Myth characters may also contain figures of history.

You very well know that gMark characters called Satan, Jesus, Peter, John the Baptist, Herod and Pilate however all of which are corroborated as figures of history in other sources of antiquity EXCEPT Peter, Jesus and Satan.

Acts of the Apostles contains characters called Saul/Paul, and Claudius Caesar but as EXPECTED only Claudius is corroborated as a figure of history.

The Pauline letters themselves are attributed to a character called Paul but even Scholars have deduced that there were really MULTIPLE writers using the name Paul.

Apologetic sources also place Paul AFTER gLuke was written and claimed he composed his letters AFTER Revelation by John.

Please, you must know that Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian and Irenaeus claimed Josephus wrote books on the Antiquities of the Jews which appears to be credible.

On the other hand apologetic sources do NOT agree about the time of existence of Paul and the Pauline writings.

It would appear that Justin Martyr did NOT know of Paul and the Pauline letters.

The author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote letters.

Origen, Tertullian and Irenaeus did NOT know that there were MULTIPLE authors of the Pauline letters.

Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLUKE but Paul was supposed to be dead before gLuke was written.

The Muratorian Canon, an Apologetic source, claimed Paul wrote his epistles to the Churces AFTER Revelation by John was written.

The Pauline writer is a FRAUD based on Apologetic sources. The Pauline letters were written AFTER Revelation.

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes. Just as with Irenaeus, Origen, etc.

That's irrelevant. If we are concerned with the historicity of Paul, then it doesn't matter if the author of Acts was aware that Paul wrote letters, or whether he mentions them. What the author does do is narrate events which have parallels in Paul's letters some don't. However, this is standard with modern eyewitness court testimony. Two eyewitnesses will differ in their accounts. So if eyewitness testimony differs when it comes to historical events, why does it matter (with respect to Paul's historicity) if Acts' accounts which find parallels in Paul's letters do not always agree?

Yes. Which is why I don't discount acts, the gospels, etc., completely. They record myth and legend, and ascribe mythic powers to Jesus. However, Plutarch does this with Caesar, Herodotus uses myths throughout as if they were historical, and our "biography" of Alexander is likewise filled with myth, rumor, and legend. We can discount them all, or we can try to employ methods to seperate (to the extent possible) what is probably historical.

John the Baptist is "corroborated" in Josephus' testimony, but he describes Moses as a historical person and YHWH as a real, existing, god. Likewise, Jesus is "corroborated" in the testimony of various gospels and a contemproary Paul (whose very letters we have, and who is corroborated by the author of Acts, as well as the same sources you claim corroborate Josephus' existence).

Corroborated by what? Where's your consistent methodology? We have sources which corroborate Jesus and Paul. All of the sources contain myth/legend/rumor/etc. The same is true for the historical existence of Caesar, Josephus, Philo, and on and on. You're simply picking and choosing what you decide to be valid "corroborating" evidence based on whether you want it to be.

That's true. But how, and why? Under what circumstances were fictional letters written which were not attributed to a historical person?

You are relying on those sources for you "corroboration" of Josephus.


But they are the "apologetic" sources we can't trust. You just said so. Or is it that you can trust them when it suits you, but disregard them when it doesn't?

They don't agree about Josephus either. Eusebius quotes the Testimonium Flavianum. But Origen states that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the messiah. Yet you have no problem using such disagreeing sources as "corroborating evidence" for Josephus.
And ancient historians in general often had trouble using spurious sources. But you still use them when it suits you.

aa5874

Yes, once a person uses a source of antiquity to support the ACTUAL Physical existence of Paul then that source Must, Must, Must be Scrutinized for its integrity, veracity and historical accuracy.

You CANNOT show that any statement about Paul in Apologetic sources are historical accurate and that the very apologetic sources are themselves reliable.

Your statement is completely absurd, baseless, without a shred of logic. It Must be relevant, it Must be of UTMOST significance that a source introduced as a witness for the historicity of Paul did NOT state that Paul wrote letters but DELIVERED letters WRITTEN by the Jerusalem Church.

It is extremely relevant that a source which has been deduced to have been written AFTER Paul was supposedly dead did NOT even state how Paul died when Apologetic sources claimed he was MARTYRED.

It is EXTREMELY relevant when a source is introduced as a witness for an historical Paul presented a Conversion story of Paul that is Total Fiction.

The veracity, integrity and historical accuracy of Acts is extremely low so I cannot accept Acts of the Apostles as corroboration for Paul.

Well, I certainly do NOT ignore, cannot ignore, do NOT Tamper, do NOT alter the Existing Codices and Apologetic sources.

The Existing Codices and Apologetic sources are EVIDENCE of the BELIEFS of Antiquity.

People of Antiquity did BELIEVE the Myth Fables of Jesus, which likely includes Paul.

Again, you really don't seem to understand my position. I have CHALLENGED the veracity, integrity and historical accuracy of the Existing Codices and Apologetic sources. I do NOT presume that the Codices and Apologetic sources are historically accurate. Sources that state Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected, and ascended in a cloud MUST, MUST, MUST FIRST be corroborated BEFORE I can accept any event or character found in them.

If Paul cannot be found OUTSIDE the Codices and Apologetic sources then, sorry to say, I cannot accept such a character when Paul comes across as a Blatant Liar fully immersed in forgeries, fraud and confusion.

I have CONSISTENTLY used NON-Apologetic sources to CORROBORATE characters found in the Codices like Pontius Pilate the Governor, King Herod the Great, Tiberius the Emperor, Caiaphas the High Priest and John the Baptist.

Those very Non-Apologetic sources do NOT corroborate Gabriel the Angel, Peter the Apostle, James the Apostle, Paul the Apostle and Jesus the Son of a Ghost.

I have SEARCHED for the PRECISE description of each character exactly as they are described in the Codices--Paul, the Apostles and Jesus cannot be found in non-apologetic sources.

Your questions are extremely odd. You claimed that you are not defending the historicity of anyone but your line of questioning has BETRAYED you. Please why can't you be FAIR and state you are PROUDLY defending the historicity of Paul???

Now, it is just mind-boggling, inexplicable, that someone of your supposed intellect do NOT understand the implications of forged letters.

Do you not understand why letters are forged???

Do you NOT understand that letters between Paul and Seneca were forged??

Well, let me explain.

The Pauline writers had NO HISTORY before the Fall of the Temple and letters were Manufactured giving the Fasle and Fraudulent Impression that the Pauline writer lived BEFORE c 70 CE and did meet with Apostles of Jesus none of whom did exist.

ALL the Pauline letters, every single one, just like those between Seneca and Paul, are historically and chronologically BOGUS.

Apologetic sources claimed that there is a document called the Muratorian Canon and the author did state Paul IMITATED his PREDECESSOR and wrote SEVEN Epistles.

If it is true then the Pauline writer lived long AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

If it is FALSE then the Pauline writer is STILL without Credible support even from Apologetic sources.


Again, your statement is wholly absurd.

ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN ANY SOURCE OF ANTIQUITY CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE HISTORY OF PAUL.

ONLY APOLOGETIC SOURCES MENTIONED PAUL and it can be shown that their statements about Paul are CONTRADICTORY and filled with fiction.

I cannot use IMAGINARY evidence, IMAGINARY STATEMENTS or PRESUMPTIONS to determine Paul's historicity. ONLY the WRITTEN STATEMENTS of ANTIQUITY.

Origen claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and I accept THAT. What is your problem now?? Origen CORROBORATED Josephus and also Jesus as a Son of a Ghost found in the Codices.

Well, how does that help those who claim that Paul did live before the Fall of the Temple and wrote letter when historians have problems with spurious sources???

How can ancient historians determine the veracity and historical accuracy of a character that claimed he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus??? How can ancient historians determine the credibility of a writer who claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a HUMAN BEING, and that his Jesus was the Resurrected Son of God???

The Pauline letters are NO different to those between Seneca and Paul--they are historically and chronologically bogus and the Pauline writers LIVED well AFTER the fall of the Temple based on the very Apologetic sources.

If the Apologetic sources are NOT credible then the Pauline writers are STILL uncorroborated.