aa5874

I mis-understood nothing.

You are claiming that there are genuine Pauline writings but as usual WITHOUT any external corroborative source.

Once you claim that there are genuine Pauline Epistles you are implying that YOU KNOW who wrote the Pauline epistles, when they were written and what is genuine.

Now, would not both YOUR genuine and non-genuine epistles CONTRADICT your church fathers of the RCC?

Everyone should understand by now that the Pauline writers made claims that have NOT been corroborated. Please state exactly what was added to any epistle that you can confirm.

Please state what exactly makes an epistle 'genuine'.

That is right. The Pauline Epistles made the Synoptic Jesus OBSOLETE.

The Synoptic Jesus came BEFORE the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man. The Pauline writers referred to Jesus as the Creator, as equal to God and also as a man.

Did not a Pauline writer claimed he KNEW a man in Christ. See 2 Cor. 12.2

Why you ask? The Pauline writers made the Synoptic Jesus obsolete.

The Pauline Jesus was AFTER the Synoptic Jesus was DEAD.


I am not stuck. You are the one with questions and I have answers.

To get unstuck you must first realize that "Paul" was about his experiences with the LAST Jesus, the post-resurrected Jesus. "Peter" wrote about his experiences with the FIRST Jesus before the resurrection.

The Church writers will make "Peter" OBSOLETE.

The Church writers will make "Peter" OBSOLETE.

Why did the Church historian of the RCC claim 2nd Peter did NOT belong to the Canon if it was LATER and was fabricated to counter "Paul"?

And Acts of the Apostles was NOT fabricated to counter "PAUL".

Acts appears to have been written to promote Saul/Paul. The LAST 13 CHAPTERS of Acts are almost exclusively about SAUL/PAUL and the author of Acts.

"Peter" had vanished after Acts 15.

How can the admittance that one out of two epistles by Peter is a forgery, or does not belong to the Canon be a counter to "Paul" who the Church claimed wrote at least 13 epistles?

How could Acts be a counter for "Paul" when the last 13 chapters of ACTS are about Saul/Paul and "Peter" is not mentioned ONE single time from ch 16-28.

Paul is mentioned over 100 times from Acts 16-28.

Peter is mentioned ZERO times from Acts 16-28.

Why do you think that writers who claimed Jesus died was not aware that of the story that Jesus lived?

Why do you think that writers who claimed Jesus was made of a woman, was betrayed in the night after he had eaten, was crucified and died was NOT aware Jesus lived?

You think it was easy to fake "Paul".



So, the Pauline writings did [u]NOT CONTRADICT the RCC after all.

They all believe that Jesus did actually resurrect.

What you are claiming about the Epistles is false.

The Church writers of the RCC used the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels in the NT Canon to argue that Jesus was a God/man.

Do you even realise that the Pauline writings are part of the NT Canon.



All the other non-Pauline epistles, including Acts of the Apostles and Revelation do NOT have references to a human Jesus, the virgin Mary and quotes from Jesus.

What is the corroborative source for your core? What is the core? You have nothing but your imagination. You imagine that you know the core.

Now, you are making stuff up.

There is nothing in the Pauline writings about Marcion.

Doug Shaver

That just shows how much you know.

You will realize, after you've been around here a while longer, that aa5874 cannot ever misunderstand anything. To misunderstand is to make a mistake, and he can't do that.

Solo

Is this guy a born co-median, or what?

Jiri

Kent F

Well, aa5874, I have tried my best to clarify what I mean but my main point passed you by, I think.

You are claiming that people associated with the early Roman Catholic Church (RCC) wrote all of the Pauline epistles and I am claiming that they did not. I'm using the so called genuine Pauline epistles as proof and why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? The authentic core which I'm talking about is there for everyone to read. It's a voice of somebody, a real person, and not a faked one.

This is my main point: Your supposed fiction writers believed the stories of a human Jesus who did miracles, was born of virgin Mary, and was crucified and resurrected on earth were true, so why aren't these beliefs reflected in the epistles? It does'nt matter one bit if you and I believe they were not true. So, I ask you:

1. Why didn't Paul use Lazarus as an example when he wrote about the resurrection when the supposed fiction writers behind his writings believed that the story of Lazarus was true?

2. Why didn't they make Paul mention the holy places of Jesus when they believed there were such holy places?

3. Why did they allow Peter to be a second rate figure in the epistles when they founded their church on Peter's legacy?

That Peter was associated with a human Jesus and Paul was not is a lame excuse. The RCC to this day has a human Jesus born of virgin Mary, crucified on earth and ascended to heaven as their central belief.

You say that the church writers will make Peter obsolete. I don't understand that. The RCC is based on Peter, to this very day. The Popes are supposed to be the followers of his first bishopric in Rome. How's Peter obsolete?

No, I surely don't! You're the one claiming that the early RCC fabricated the epistles from scratch. So why didn't they add the phrase about the tomb? What stopped them?

Oh, please! Acts was written to promote the RCC version of Paul! Can't you see that? The Paul of Acts is a mere missionary, not a man preaching his own gospel. You say Acts don't contain anything about a human Jesus but it sure does. Read again! In Acts, Paul is aware of a human Jesus from Nazareth, of Pilate, the empty tomb, and that Jesus ascended to heaven from somewhere in Galilee, things which are not in the Epistles. And Peter is named as number one to preach the gospel among the gentiles. Acts contain everything which point to it having been written by a person or by persons associated with the early RCC. Acts is a counter, a deliberate attempt to belittle Paul.

But according to you, Acts and the Epistles were written by people from the same church, the RCC. How is that even remotely possible? Why fake Acts to counter the fake Paul?? And if so, then again, why didn't they make Paul mention a human Jesus, Pilate, the empty tomb and so forth in his epistles, just as they did in Acts?? To me, this is enough evidence that the RCC didn't write the epistles, Paul did.

Paul was associated with another church, that of Marcion, and that's why his epistles were not changed at free will by the RCC. They were too well-known at that time. The epistles have an authentic core, they are the voice of someone preaching his gospel. They were included in the NT canon because they were too good and perhaps too dangerous to be left out, as they were the foundation of another church, the Marcion church. It was also a way to make the followers of Marcion join the now strongest church, the RCC. The epistles were deliberately placed AFTER Acts so that the reader would be lured into thinking that Paul did know of a human Jesus. That's the best explanation I can come up with.

Paul is Marcion. It's only a theory, but a good one!

aa5874

This is MY CLAIM. The Pauline writings are NON-HISTORICAL with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c70 CE.

This is MY CLAIM. The Pauline writings was written WHOLLY or PARTIALLY VERY LATE by the RCC. It is not necessary for all of the Acts and the Pauline writings to be written by the RCC, just the parts that appear to DATE the writings before the Fall of the Temple.

For example, only 2 Cor.11.32-33 could have been written by the RCC since those are the ONLY 2 verses which can internally date the Pauline writings BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

But, your argument is awfully and horrendously flawed.

Your are claiming that Marcion was Paul.

Once Marcion was Paul then ALL THE PAULINE writings are FORGERIES.

You have DESTROYED your own argument for authenticity.

It is just FALSE that the Pauline Epistles do not make any claims that Jesus did live.

1. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was made of a woman. See Galatians 4.4

2. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had eaten. See 1Corinthians 1.23

3. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was crucified and shed his blood. Rom 5.9, 1 Cor 1.23

4. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus died and was buried. See Galatians 1.1, 1 Cor. 15. 3-8

Once the Pauline writers claimed Jesus had died it must be expected that they were AWARE of stories that he lived.

When was the story of Lazarus written? Justin MARTYR not write about Lazarus even though he wrote in the middle of the 2nd century.

Why did NOT Justin Martyr write about Lazarus?

Are you referring to the CAVE where Jesus was supposedly born? Or the Jewish Temple, the sea of Galilee or the river Jordan?

What holy places are you talking about?

Why did they allow "Paul" to write 13 epistles?

"Paul" wrote any epistles?

It was Marcion's epistles?


You have constantly given ONLY half of the picture. The Jesus of the RCC was a GOD/MAN.

Please do NOT misrepresent the RCC.

1. The 4th century RCC historian claimed 2 Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Peter who was supposed to have been with Jesus wrote a single epistle.

The Pauline writers wrote FOURTEEN epistles and ALL FOURTEEN were AUTHENTIC, except perhaps Hebrews, according to the 4th historian of the RCC.

"Church History" 3.3.4-5
The 4th century historian of the RCC also claimed Acts of the Apostles was UNIVERSALLY accepted as AUTHENTIC and I have told you that PAUL is mentioned over 100 times from Acts chapter 16 to chapter 28 but Peter was named [U]ZERO times.

"Church History" 2.17.6 Acts of the Apostles OBLITERATED Peter from Acts 16-28, even the author of Acts traveled ALL over the Roman Empire, NOT with Peter, but with PAUL.


But, do you not say that "Paul" was a FAKE Marcion? You mean it was difficult to Fake "Paul"?

OH, OH, OH.....Please. Please let me SEE.

Now look at your statement at the end of the very passage.

CAN YOU SEE?

You have SELF-DESTRUCT. It is ALL over.

It is my CLAIM that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were WHOLLY or in PART written under the authority of the RCC.

A 4th century historian claimed the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles were authentic but even you claim that Paul as a Fake. You think Paul was MARCION.

It is possible that it was the RCC who changed Marcion to Paul.


You have SELF-DESTRUCT. It is ALL over.

You don't know what you are talking about. Please read from ch 16-ch28 of Acts and you will see the name Paul OVER 100 Times and Peter 00000 times.

The author Acts of the Apostles OBLITERATED Peter and traveled with Paul ALL over the Roman Empire.

You have self-destruct.

So, who REMOVED MARCION from the Epistles and put PAUL INSTEAD?

It was not PAUL.

PAUL was supposed to be DEAD before MARCION.

You have self-destruct.

You are making stuff up again. You even forgot that you are claiming Paul was Marcion.

How can Paul be associated with a Marcionite Church and STILL be Marcion?

What absurdity! What convolution!

You have self-destruct. It is all over.


Well, it is not really good at all. You are putting forward a most absurd notion that Marcion himself used to FAKE that he was Paul.

You are finished. You theory has gone up in smoke.

Toto

What is aa5874's first language? In what cultural context is this a normal statement? Would it help if we knew?

aa5874

Could your post be split into another thread? This seems off topic to me.

Toto

This is the problem: you, aa5874, spend an inordinate amount of time and energy here. There are some people who appreciate your efforts, but there are times when you seem so out of touch with the communication techniques of our culture, that your message is lost. But you resist any attempt to help you improve your presentation.

What's a poor moderator to do? :huh:

stephan huller

As I said in his "Cross is Most Horrible Symbol" thread, I think he speaks the same language as the Incredible Hulk. 'Hulkese' perhaps. Is that the technical term?

aa5874

I am asking the moderator to split your post . Your post does not deal at all with the OP.