aa5874

The writer/writers that used the name "Paul" wrote after the writings of Justin Martyr or after the middle of the 2nd century.

The writer/writers that used the name "Paul" were fiction writers.

One major clue in detecting that the Pauline character was fiction can be deduced from vital information missing from Acts of the Apostles.

Martrydom is a fundamental criteria to be called a Saint.

The church writers claimed that Peter and Paul were martyred during the reign of Nero.

The author of Acts was claimed to be an inseparable companion of Paul and travelled all over the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts wrote about the so-called martyrdom of Stephen, he supposedly was stoned to death and the death of James, the brother of John, executed by Herod.

The author of Acts wrote about Peter and Paul, but did not mention one of the most critical information, he did not write about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at all.

In fact, Acts is terminated after Paul arrived in Rome and was still preaching the "kingdom of God".

Acts of the Apostles is framed as if it was written before the death of Paul and Peter, and the church writers appear to indicate such.

But, it has been deduced that Acts of the Apostles was written long after the reign of Nero and after the Fall of the Temple.

The church writers gave erroneous information about the time Acts of the Apostles was written.

If Paul and Peter were martyred before the death of Nero, and Acts was actually written after the Fall of the Temple, then the author of Acts would have knowingly omitted the martyrdom of the [b]first Saint and bishop of Rome, Peter and the martyrdom of the most-renowned evangelist of the 1st century.

Why did the church writers claim or imply that Acts was written before Peter and Paul died when it was not?

Why did not the author of Acts, if he actually wrote after Paul and Peter died give an account of their deaths as he did with Stephen and James?

Because the stories in Acts of the Apostles about Peter and Paul are fiction.

The first writter to mention a book called Acts was Irenaeus at around the end of the 1st century, and about 200 years later, the 4th century, Chrysostom claimed hardly anyone knew who wrote Acts of the Apostles or that Acts of the Apostles even exist.

Doug Shaver

OK. Offhand, I can't think of any fact that this would be inconsistent with.

Doug Shaver

What about him?

You say so, but you have no evidence.

No, Paul made no such claim. He claimed that he went to Jerusalem to see Cephas. You're the one claiming that Cephas was an invention.

Nonsense. There is no good evidence that either Peter or Paul was ever in Rome.

Just because you say so? 'Fraid not.

Doug Shaver

I'm not supposing that Paul probably existed just because early Roman Christians believed he existed.

We have copies of documents whose content clearly suggests they were written before the First Jewish War. The author claims to be someone named Paul, and he is expounding on some divine entity he calls the Christ. Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, I infer that they were written by someone who lived before the First Jewish War, who believed in a divine entity he called the Christ, and whose name was Paul.

I do not, however, infer that the Christ about whom Paul wrote had anything to do with the man called Jesus of Nazareth about whom the gospel authors told a bunch of stories several decades after Paul's lifetime.

aa5874

You have no evidence. The copies of documents are dated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple. P46, some of the Pauline letters, are dated somewhere around the third century.


You have no evidence that someone named Paul wrote anything truthful..

The evidence in the letters themselves support that of a liar.

Paul, in a written statement claimed Jesus was raised on the third day, that is fiction. Jesus could have only been human. It is certain Paul wrote fiction as found in the letters with the name Paul.

In order to say Paul did live before the First Jewish War you must provide corroborative evidence external of apologetics sources, you cannot or have never produced such a source.

Belief is not evidence. You do not understand that.


Belief or inference is not evidence. You do not know the difference.

Your notion that the Pauline Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels is patently absurd. The Pauline letters and the gospels are canonised and used as sacred scriptures about the very same Jesus Christ.

The Pauline letters were never declared to be heresy, and according to church writers were used to contradict the so-called heretic Marcion.

And, further it was said in the Pauline letters that Paul preached the faith he once destroyed.

All we have are written statments,the NT and the church writings, it is therefore far easier to tell when Paul was writing fiction.

You have no proof whatsoever that Paul is truthful about anything at all in the Pauline letters, absolutely none, with respect to Jesus, the disciples and himself.

But, I can show beyond reasonable doubt that Paul was a fiction writer.
1 Corinthians 15.3-8 Jesus could have only been human. Paul was a fiction writer.

kcdad

A combination of many things... I suppose the basis is that there are at least three different theologically based Pauls writing letters in the New Testament... how can that be resolved? The other of course, is the conflict between Paul and the early church followers of Jesus in Jerusalem. Paul has a very questionable timeline from his direct personal conversion on the way to Damascus... and that is troublesome, as well.
Also, the differences historically and politically, not to mention theologically, among the Gospels... times, dates, places, events, players... it is sufficient to me to just throw up my hands and say "Bah humbug". I don't buy a conspiracy to create this bureaucracy out of whole cloth from the beginning. I think something really did happen in Rome and Jerusalem 2000 years ago and we are still feeling the effects of it today.

Amaleq13

By someone you consider to have been writing fiction though you still appear to be assuming it is true?

Any chance you might explain how and why you can take something a fiction author wrote and use it in an argument as though it were true? I'm not holding my breath but hope springs eternal.

So you would have added that to the ending?

And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. Then he was arrested by Rome and killed.

What a horrible idea!! With all due respect, you would suck as an editor.

Yet you rely upon them as though they don't?

Yep. Would have ruined the story to include such a downer.

To avoid appearing as though the church had a grudge against Rome for killing two of their most important guys?

Relative importance to the church. Surely you can see that Paul and Peter are fundamentally important to the church even to this day while Stephen and James are little more than side notes.

I don't see how that is connected to the question, let alone how it answers it.

kcdad

Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers, or The Christian Church by Schaff and Wace...is the correct citation, I believe.

No, I see one of the many problems of Christian Theology POST Paul.

Information is not chronological... narratives are. The Gospels are definitely not narrative. The information can be arranged in such a way as it is not in error... then what?
OK... resurrection/reanimation myth... got it.

Not ever.

Is anyone who sees or describes the world differently from you a LIAR?

aa5874

What? Are you claiming claiming that there is no chronological information in the Gospels?

The Jesus story is chronologically in error based on the information in the NT itself. It is claimed Jesus born of virgin through the Holy Ghost during the time of King Herod.

No such thing happened during that time.

Solo

No, what I said was that the determination whether the Picasso signature is genuine or not is made by experts. You are free to challenge their methods, or the individual verdict of genuineness but you cannot - if you are rational - invoke some parsimony lookalike which says that by default experts cannot make the determination of genuineness because there have been Picasso fakes, whether in the same shop or not.

Jiri