mountainman

I am glad to see that avi and aa5874 have lead this discussion, albeit kicking and screaming, finally into the labyrnth of 4th century history. If it is assumed for the sake of discussion only that the 4th century Constantinian church fabricated a great whole swag of documents (Skeptical readers must please digest the manuscript "The Historia Augusta") we are still left with one component of the "Early Christian Literature" for which to hypothesise an ORIGIN.

The "Early Christian Literature" has two sides (like a coin) - the Canon (plus Church Writers) and on the other hand the non Canonical NT literature which is perhaps best known today in the common language as the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc".

If the 4th century Church fabricated the Pauline writings, and Acts and possibly other pasts of the Canon and the Church history, by what means and who was it that authored the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"?

Who the the Gnostic heretics?




Could they have been the 4th century "indigenous Graeco-Roman" reaction to the fabrication of the christians?

Who authored "The Acts of Paul" and did he do it "out of love for Paul" - as this profile Tertullian would have us believe?
Will someone please answer this hypothetical question using logic and not rhetoric.
Thankyou.


I really hope everyone sees that the authenticity of the Pauline literature has logical implications on the opposite hemisphere, just like the butterfly flapping its wings in one hemisphere, leading to a storm in the other. STAND BACK from the main arena for a minute's meditative and logical breather and you will see that we not only have to explain the origins of the Pauline letters but we also have to in parallel explain the origins of this "Acts of Paul" and "The Prayer of the Apostle Paul" (Nag Hammadi and elsewhere) for examples.

Discussion in Christian Origins ends to pathologically focus on the canon while the field of ancient history requires the fuller and complete solution to focus on both the canon and the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts". At the end of the day we seek compleness.

Littlejohn

Could there be another explanation ... One to which nobody scholar in the world has yet thought of ... Obviously, those who think and reason like aa5874 never get to discover it, since for them none of these characters is ever existed!..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Kent F

Another reply to aa, who wrote:
I have never claimed that the Pauline writings are fully authentic. They have been interpolated by the RCC, and 2 Cor 11:32-33 is such an interpolation. There are more. But it's still only a partial editing. You either have to stick with your first theory that the Pauline writings are WHOLLY fabricated or admit that they have a genuine core. And once you admit that, your theory falls to pieces because, who wrote the genuine core?

.I have done no such thing. The name of the original writer does not destroy the content of what he wrote. Are the books written by say Stephen King under the name Richard Bachman not books by Stephen King once it was revealed that Bachman was a faked name? Of course not. These names are of the same author. So the real name of the author of the genuine epistles was Marcus (Marcion), and not Paul. It's a change of name of the author, not of the content in his writings.
This is not evidence that Paul talked about a human Jesus. A lot of pagan gods were born of woman, Hercules just to mention one. If the RCC wrote this epistle, then why not write born of Mary instead of born of woman?

The correct translation of the Greek word for betrayal is in fact ”delivered up”, so it does not prove anything about an earthly betrayal. And I don't understand why you quote 1 Cor 1:23 as an example as this verse reads ”but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” ?

1 Cor 1:23 is ”but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” and Rom 5:9 is ”Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!” If you can make this into a claim that Paul is talking about a human crucified on earth then you are reading these passages from a biased point, biased towards a human Jesus. Both these passages can just as likely talk about a mythical Jesus, one crucified in the lower regions of heaven.

Again, this could just as likely be about a mythical Jesus crucified in the lower regions of heaven.

Hercules died. Did he really live on earth?

Because he wasn't aware of the story of Lazarus, just like Paul wasn't aware of the same story. But your supposed fiction writers of the RCC were surely aware of the story later on and they had, according to you, every opportunity to write whatever they liked. So why isn't Lazarus mentioned by Paul? The question stands unanswered.

The place where Jesus was crucified, the empty tomb, Bethlehem. Why didn't the fabricators of Paul's epistles make him visit these places and mention them in his writings? He's totally silent about these places. Why? How's that in line with the thinking of the RCC? You will say that's because Paul only wrote about the resurrected Jesus but why not mention the empty tomb, as proof that the resurrection was possible for people on earth?

But that GOD was a human who walked this earth! You can't deny that this is what the RCC believed then and believe now. So why isn't this reflected throughout the supposed faked epistles?

Acts from chapters 1-12 mentions Peter A LOT OF TIMES but Paul 00000 times. The author of Acts did not obliterate Peter. Far from it. Acts 15:7, Peter says: ”“My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.” Paul is merely delivering Peter's message to the Gentiles in his travels around the empire. But Paul's owns words in his epistles were that his gospel was of no man, but straight from God. Acts are playing down this claim, obliterating it.
No. I'm saying that Marcion, or rather Marcus, was his real name. There's nothing fake about Marcus. He's a real person and the founder of the so called Marcion church.
Have I really self destruct? I feel very much alive, thank you. But once you admit that the RCC changed the name of the author of the epistles from Marcion, or Marcus, to Paul, then you have admitted that there was a real author, haven't you? And if the RCC wrote PARTS of the epistles, who wrote the rest?
The RCC removed Marcion's name from the epistles, and put the anonymous Paul there instead. I have said that from the beginning. And Paul was not dead before Marcion. They were one and the same person. Paul was Marcion = Marcus, the king Agrippa (see Stephan Huller's blog for more!)

What are you talking about? ”Paul” is associated with this church because he is the founder of it. What's so absurd about that?
I have never said that Marcion faked he was Paul. It was the RCC who changed the name of the author of the epistles into Paul, not Marcus himself who always called himself Marcus.

aa5874

But are you NOT agreeing that the supposed historical details in the Pauline Epistles were FABRICATED?

Once you agree that 2 Corinthians 11.32-33 was an interpolation then it is extremely difficult to date the Pauline writings.

In 2 Cor. 11.32-33, a Pauline writer claimed he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus when a governor under ARETAS tried to apprehend him and once that passage was interpolated with bogus data then the Pauline writer could have lived at some other later period.

The Pauline writers could have been written after the Fall of the Temple and interpolated with just 2 verses, 2 Cor. 11.32-33, to give the FALSE impression that the letters were written early.

Only the supposed historical information is necessary to be fabricated and inserted.

Do you understand what "forgery" means?

You obviously don't.

The Church writers claimed the Pauline writers LIVED in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple, before the death of NERO, and wrote 13 or 14 epistles.

Church writers placed MARCION in the 2nd century DURING the reign of Antoninus or about 80 years AFTER the Pauline writers died.

If you claim that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles then we have full scale forgeries.

Well, do you know of an angelic or heavenly creature called JESUS?

THE Pauline writers called their LORD and Saviour JESUS over 150 times.

The Pauline JESUS was a God/man.

Now, please tell me the "correct" Greek word for "betray or betrayed".

In gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn when Jesus was supposedly BETRAYED ON EARTH the same GREEK word was used as in the Pauline writings.

Please show that "betrayals on earth" used a different Greek word to "betrayals in heaven" in the NT Canon.

The Pauline JESUS was a God/man who was anti-DOCETIC. The Pauline JESUS GOD/MAN had FLESH and BLOOD. He was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God, yet was born of a woman, BETRAYED after he had EATEN in the NIGHT, CRUCIFIED, shed his blood, died, was buried, was RAISED from the dead and was SEEN by a Pauline writer.

If you don't understand that the Pauline Jesus was an an God/man who was anti-Docetic then you are biased towards Marcion.

A God/man is a myth.


You mean that Hercules lived with Jesus? Your logic is quite amusing.

In the Jesus stories of the NT Canon Jesus lived in Galilee for about 30 years, was arrested, was found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and was later crucified after a trial with Pilate. That is the Jesus story. You only know Hercules story?

I am dealing with JESUS right now.

But are you not claiming that Marcion wrote the Pauline Epistles?

Marcion should have known about the resurrection of Lazarus in the middle of the 2nd century.

You are ALL over the place.

Who wrote the Pauline epistles? Marcion or Paul?

Make up you mind or else you will become totally confused.


How many times do I have to show you that the Pauline writings are about the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD. The Pauline writing are based on the RESURRECTION.

The Pauline writers are telling you whether Jesus did miracles or not if he did NOT RESURRECT Mankind would STILL BE in their SINS.

According to the Pauline writers "it is the RESURRECTION stupid."

That is the PAULINE GOSPEL. THE RESURRECTION.

.

Ro 10:9 - 1Co 15:17 - The resurrection of the God/man was the Pauline gospel. Paul got his apostleship, teachings, GOSPEL and revelations from the resurrected God/man.

I have no time to PLAY GAMES.

Is NOT SAUL also known as PAUL?

What ridiculous game are you playing. Please stop wasting time.

SAUL/PAUL is mentioned from chapter 7-28 of Acts and from chapter 16 PETER was obliterated from ACTS even the author traveled with Saul/Paul all over the Roman Empire. He did not even mentioned that he and Saul/Paul met Peter anywhere in their travels.


You don't understand what "obliterate" mean? Paul made Peter useless. Peter was not needed anymore in ACTS just Paul and Luke.

Please make up your mind. Who was fake, Marcion, Mark, Paul or Saul? And when were they fakes? Who faked them?

You must be living for your arguments to self-destruct. Please tell me who wrote anything in the fake/real epistles by Marcion/Mark/Paul/Saul?

The supposed "historical" information in 2 Cor 11.32-33 appears to be fake but do you know who wrote it?

You mean they removed Mark's name and put Paul? NO!

You mean they removed King Agrippa's name and put Paul's name? What!!!???

Now, this is A MASSIVE CONVOLUTION.

When did King Agrippa live? When did Marcion live? When did Saul or Paul live?

You have entered the CONVOLUTION ZONE.

My position is rather simple and clear. The Pauline writings are non-historical with respect to Jesus, the apostles and "Paul".

Kent F

Yes, I agree with you there. The ”basket episode” is probably an interpolation. There are lots of them in the epistles but I have never denied that. You first said that the RCC wrote ALL of the epistles from scratch but then you backed down from that in your previous reply and said that the RCC perhaps only wrote PARTS of them. I ask you: if the RCC only PARTIALLY wrote the epistles, then who wrote the parts that they DIDN'T write? ”Paul” is the obvious answer.

Why? If Marcion, or Mark (as Marcion means ”little Mark”) wrote the so called seven genuine epistles, I can't see how they automatically should be called forgeries when they now have a real author, a historical person. As I have said earlier, I have the utmost respect for the writings of Stephan Huller. It's his theory that Paul is Marcion and that Marcion was the same as the king Marcus Agrippa who lived in the 1st century. I simply like this theory because it makes so much sense, much more sense than your theory that it's all forgeries! Once you believe that ”Paul” was the king and that his epistles was a new law, then the 2nd century ”Marcion of Pontus” must be a fake to hide the fact that early christianity had Alexandrian roots and that they considered Marcus to be the Messiah.

Robert Eisenmann, Earl Doherty and others have written extensively on this subject. Both (and others) claim that the correct translation of the Greek word paradidomi is ”to hand over, deliver up”, not betray. So the fact remains: Jesus was delivered up or handed over to the demons in the lower regions of heaven.

Jesus took on ”the likeness of flesh” in the lower regions of heaven. That's why he could be crucified there. It sounds odd today but that's what people believed, including ”Paul”.

I'm not the least bit confused. Marcion wrote the epistles, in the 1st century and was not familiar with the story of Lazarus. You claim that the RCC wrote the epistles in the 2nd century or later. So why didn't THEY mention Lazarus when they knew the story?

I know you're claiming this but you avoid the question. Even if the epistles are only about the resurrection, (which they aren't, they are a new law) why not mention the crucifixion and the empty tomb on earth as examples? Why keep silent on things people must have asked Paul if he believed in a God in human disguise walking this planet? Did this God have ”parents” and ”brothers and sisters” on earth? Where did he live? What did he do? Who crucified him and where? Where from did he resurrect? Do you have any sacred relics? These questions MUST HAVE been asked if Paul's Jesus was a God in human disguise. But Paul keeps his mouth shut on these matters because he believed only in a mythical Jesus who never had stepped down on earth.

I don't understand how you can say that Acts obliterated Peter when the RCC to this day is basing their legacy on Peter.

It is PETER who says in Acts he was the first one chosen by God to preach the gospel to the gentiles. Acts reflects this statement. PETER is the main character in the FIRST part of Acts. PAUL is the main character in the SECOND part of Acts. Paul is therefore merely preaching PETER'S gospel, not his own. Can't you see that? Paul is not obliterating Peter, he is spreading Peter's doctrine around the Roman Empire! But in the epistles, the same Paul said time and time again that his gospel was of no man.

The fabricators of Acts HAD TO get Paul into their story (because of the existence of the genuine epistles of a rival church) and they had to prove that Paul was a subordinate to Peter who believed what Peter believed. It wasn't a failed attempt, it was a huge success as people still believe that Paul knew of a human Jesus and was a later apostle than Peter. Acts is a load of BS to prove that early christianity was one cozy family with Peter as the patriarch. Acts softens the harsh words in the epistles and the contempt shown by Paul towards the so called pillars. Acts and the Epistles can't have the same roots.

spin

One can declare any passage one likes to be an interpolation for convenience, but, unless one has philological evidence pointing to the conclusion, such declarations are pretty vain.


spin

GakuseiDon

Out of interest: What sources suggest that people (other than Paul) believed that a being could take on "the likeness of flesh" and die and be buried (or equivalent) in the lower regions of heaven?

aa5874

You are contradicting yourself. You have already claimed that some other person or persons wrote the Epistles. It is NOT obvious to you that "Paul" wrote the Epistles.

Now, once you agree that the ONLY "historical data" (2 Cor.11.32-33) to directly DATE the Pauline writer, supposedly from his own mouth or pen, was an interpolation then it is extremely difficult to claim "Paul" wrote any Epistle when it is NOT known when any Pauline writings were made.

The Pauline writers gave no DIRECT historical data of the time he actually wrote in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Without 2 Cor 11.32-33 only Acts of the Apostles and 2 Peter, considered a forgery by the Church, are sources for Saul/Paul BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Please tell me WHO actually wrote and WHEN was 2 Corinthians 11.31 written, the verse just before the supposed interpolation of 2 Cor. 11.32-33?[/b]?

2 Corinthians 11.31 Who claimed they were not lying?
It must be Paul or the fraud.

It is NOW clearly OBVIOUS that you do not understand what "forgery" means. Once writings under ONE author's name were heavily interpolated and the name of another author inserted then we are dealing with MASSIVE forgeries and possibly deliberate fraud.


Please look at a dictionary for the definition of "BETRAY". It means " to hand over or deliver someone to the enemy".

Now, tell me what is the Greek word for "BETRAYED" on earth?

IT IS the SAME GREEK word used for "BETRAYED" IN 1 Cor 11.23, Mt 10:4, Mt 17:22 - Mt 20:18 - Mt 26:2 - Mt 26:24 - Mt 26:25 - .Mt 26:45 - Mt 26:48 - Mt 27:3 - Mt 27:4 - Mr 3:19 - Mr 14:21 - Mr 14:41 -.Mr 14:44 - Lu 21:16 - Lu 22:22 -Joh 18:2 and Joh 18:5.

You MUST admit your claim is ODD.

This a PARTIAL list of writings from antiquity that appear to AGREE that Jesus the Messiah was crucified on earth after a trial on earth when Pilate was governor on earth when Pilate wrote on the cross that was planted in the earth, Jesus of NAZARETH, the King of the jews.

The translators of the writings called gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius.

But, you appear to be confused Marcion was alive in the middle of the 2nd century, at least 150 years after the birth of Jesus, based on Justin and the Epistles you claimed Marcion wrote were supposedly written since the middle 1st century or around 100 years difference.

I don't make stuff up about "PAUL". Did I not show you the passages where "Paul" implied that "without the resurrection mankind would still be in SIN"? See Romans 10.9

Is it not in the Pauline writings where "Paul" claimed he got his GOSPEL from one who was raised from the DEAD? See Galatians 1.1

You seem not to understand that "Paul" got NOTHING, ZERO, from Jesus the Messiah while the God/man was on earth, it was the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD that SAVED "PAUL".

Saul/Paul was introduced in Acts at chapter 7 and until the very final chapter 28, and from chapter 16 to chapter 28 Peter was obliterated from Acts. The author wrote NOT one thing again about Peter only about Saul/Paul and the author himself travelling ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

Peter became OBSOLETE in Acts.

And, by simply looking at the compilation of the NT Canon it would be OBVIOUS even to CASUAL observers that the writings under the name of "Paul" outnumber every single other author.

And upon investigation the historian of the Church most unprecedentedly claimed, and ONLY for Peter, that Peter's second Epistles did NOT BELONG to the Canon.

Peter was being made OBSOLETE.

And now look at Galatians 2.11 Poor Peter!

When a person is OBLITERATED and made OBSOLETE it means someone else TAKES over. Someone else takes your place.

Examine the start of the so-called genuine Epistle of Peter he writes to STRANGERS scattered in the Roman Empire.

1 Peter 1.1 Peter wrote an Epistle that could NOT be delivered. Peter wrote to the UNKNOWN.

Peter has been made obsolete.

You will notice in Acts 15 after Peter gave his speech that it was Paul who was GIVEN CHOSEN men by the WHOLE Church, elders and the apostles. No chosen men are known to be allocated to Peter.

Acts 15.22 Paul left with the chief and chosen men of the church.

It is appears that Paul got the CREAM.

Who did Peter get? He was OBSOLETE. The author of Acts did not even bother.

Paul and the author of Acts would go on a WORLD tour of the Roman Empire.

Examine the 15th chapter of Acts again. Paul tours the Roman Empire for the SECOND time and it is not where PETER has been but where PAUL was ALREADY.

Acts 15.36 Paul did not need Peter. Paul had brethren ALL over the Roman Empire and the church, apostles and elders gave him the chief men for his SECOND Tour.

Peter was obsolete.

Kent F

Excuse me for bringing up an old thread but I must give it another shot. First off, let's at least agree upon what we are discussing. I'm only referring to the so called seven genuine epistles, but these seven have been tampered with. I have said so all along. But they have NOT been written from scratch by the early Roman Catholic Church (RCC) because the main themes of the epistles are in conflict with the RCC doctrine. You claim the epistles were all fabricated by the RCC and I'm trying my best to prove you wrong. The dating of the epistles aren't that important compared to the true origins of them. You yourself admitted that the RCC only PARTIALLY wrote the epistles, so who wrote the genuine core? I'm saying ”Paul” did, or whatever his name was.

Yes, I admit we have forgeries, but not full scale forgeries because there's still a genuine core in the epistles which were written by somebody outside the RCC.

Marcion was given a FAKE biography to show that he once was part of the Roman Church but then became a heretic when in truth, Marcion was Paul and the founder of a church EARLIER than the Roman one.

Yes, deliberate fraud by the RCC trying to get ”Paul” into their fold and to establish that the Roman church was the true heir to the apostles. They succeeded. But the important question remains: who wrote the genuine core of the epistles?

The Jesus Paul believed in was entirely mythical. He was crucified and resurrected in the lower regions of heaven. See Earl Doherty's book Jesus: Neither God nor Man for further evidence!

My claim is NOT odd. It's the same claim as several researchers arguing the mythicist case, with Earl Doherty as my main man among them. IMO, Doherty has proven without a shadow of a doubt that Paul only believed in a mythical Jesus. Your writers are all tied to the RCC, who believed in a human Jesus, which Paul DID NOT. And that's why ”Paul” is NOT originally part of the RCC. He has different roots, from a rival and earlier church.

I'm saying that Paul and Marcion are one and the same person but that Marcion is from the 1st century, not the 2nd . Marcion's biography as we know it is a FAKE by the RCC, just as Acts is a FAKE to try and hide the true origins of Paul=Marcion. The church of Marcion is the first christian church, not the one established in Rome.

Then, when I stated that even if the Pauline epistles are only about the resurrection, as you wrongly claim, why not nonetheless mention the crucifixion and the empty tomb on earth as examples? You answered:
which answers absolutely nothing. You deny the obvious problem with what people would have asked him. If he gave an anwer like ”I will not talk about Jesus' mission on earth. It meant nothing to me. I'm only talking about the resurrection.” Would people have been satisfied with such an empty answer? No, they would have countered with: ”How can a god walking this earth mean nothing to you? Tell us about him! Where did he live? Where was he crucified? Show us the tomb from where he resurrected!” Paul never adressed these burning issues in his genuine epistles and that proves he was never asked these questions because his Jesus was entirely mythical/spiritual.

Truly amazing stuff this. The very same church which supposedly made Peter obsolete have Peter as their MAIN MAN, the first bishop upon which they base their entire legacy. Peter made the original PAUL of the Marcion church obsolete. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius all talk about Peter and Paul as the founders of the Roman church, in that order. The current Pope resides in S:t PETERS Church in Rome and is a successor to Peter, not Paul. Truly amazing that you can claim that this Peter was made obsolete by Acts. Sorry, aa, but that's absolute nonsense.

Peter didn't need any chosen men because he was the one sending Paul out on his mission across the empire. Read Acts and what Peter and Paul are saying in it. Their preachings are almost identical and Paul is clearly made into a believer of a human Jesus. It's totally OPPOSITE of what he wrote in his own epistles. In his writings, his Jesus was spiritual, it was HIS gospel, HIS new law for Jews and Gentiles alike, HIM declaring that there no longer was any need for circumcision, animal sacrifices, no clean or unclean food etc. In Acts, Paul is made into an obedient servant of Peter and the Roman Catholic Church. This is clear proof that Acts and the genuine epistles have very different roots. Acts is Roman, the genuine epistles are not.

Acts, the added and faked epistles, the interpolations in the genuine ones, all served the purpose of establishing the Roman church as the one true continuation of a human Jesus and his main apostle Peter.

aa5874

First of all, I cannot agree that there are authentic Pauline Epistles without EXTERNAL corroborative sources of antiquity.

And, you MUST remember that my CLAIMS have been recorded on this very thread.

So, you MUST have known in advance that I was NOT claiming that ALL of the Pauline MUST have been written by the RCC.


Well, once YOU ADMIT or AGREE that there were forgeries in the so-called Pauline writings then you MUST understand that the forgeries may have been installed to deliberately MISLEAD people of antiquity about the actual date of composition.

Take a look at 2 Cor 11.32-33 again.

If that passage, 2 Cor. 11.32-33, is a forgery and did ORIGINALLY contain the name "Constantine the Emperor" instead of "Aretas the King" then you MUST admit that the Pauline writings could have been dated to the 4th century.

But, is NOT you? Is it NOT you that is ACTUALLY arguing that ALL of the Pauline writings are MOST likely forgeries?

You are NOT arguing that parts of the Pauline writings by an ACTUAL Paul, but ALL the so-called Pauline writings were really made by MARCION.

You are arguing for a FULL SCALE MASSIVE FRAUD and yet, most absurdly, still claim there are authentic Pauline writings

Based on your own view, when the so-called Pauline writer claimed he was in Damascus in a basket during the reign of Aretas the King in 2 Cor. 11.32-33, this writing should have stated perhaps it was MARCION who was in Damascus in a basket during the reign of ANTONINUS the Emperor c 138 to 161 CE or about 100 years AFTER the so-called Pauline writings.

But, once you claim MARCION was actually "Paul" then you are ADMITTING that the Roman Church was involved in a MASSIVE fraud and that there may NOT be a genuine core

Well, I looked at 1 Cor.15.3-4 and it is found that A Pauline writer claimed HOW Jesus DIED for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures..

According to the Scriptures Jesus was CRUCIFIED after he was betrayed in the NIGHT after he had SUPPED, ARRESTED, went BEFORE the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, and Shed his blood when his SIDE was pierced and that he was BURIED by a character called Joseph of Arimathea and was claimed to have been raised from the dead on the third day.

A Pauline writer did claimed he received information that his Jesus was BETRAYED in the night after he supped.

Now, how did the 500 brethren see the heavenly crucified, dead and resurrected Jesus?

But, you have perhaps INADVERTENTLY shown that your claim is odd. There is probably ONLY one or perhaps two writers who have a HEAVENLY crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Pauline Jesus.

Please name 5 writers who support the Mythical Jesus that propagate a heavenly crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Pauline Jesus.

I find the Jesus story to be RATHER simple to explain. One does not need be a ROCKET Scientist.

The Jesus story, including the Pauline doctrine, were INVENTED after the Fall of the Temple when there was a SERIOUS CRISIS for the Jews.

But, your claim that Marcion lived in the 1st century and BEFORE the Fall of the Temple is CONTRADICTED by Justin Martyr who wrote that Marcion was ALIVE 150 years AFTER the birth of Jesus or in the reign of Antoninus.

You cannot find any source internal or external that can show Marcion LIVED before the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century.


But my position is that No one could have asked the Pauline writers any questions before that Fall of the Temple. THere were NO Pauline writings BEFORE the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century.

Based on your OWN view, NO-ONE could have "Paul" any questions.

Based on your OWN view, It was Marcion they asked the questions.

But, you have many many problems.

1. There is NO external evidence for the Pauline Messiah called Jesus who was worshiped as a God, and the creator of heaven and earth, by Jews and Roman citizens BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

2. There is NO external or internal evidence that Marcion did exist BEFORE the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century.

3. There is NO internal or external evidence that JESUS was believed to have been crucified, died, buried and was raised from the dead in HEAVEN.

4. MARCION'S SON OF GOD had NO FLESH. Marcion's son of God did NOT need to be crucified.

5. Marcion's son of God came down from heaven he was NOT BORN of a woman.

Well, if you don't want to accept the facts then I can't help you.

Although the evidence is DOCUMENTED in the NT CANON that the Church claimed there are at least 13 AUTHENTIC Epistles written by "Paul" when it is your OWN view that such was a complete LIE you still go ahead contradict your own position and claim Peter made "Paul" obsolete.

Did not the Church try to or claim Peter's second Epistle did NOT belong to the Canon?

Did NOT "Paul" blame Peter for certain problems in the Church?

Ga 2:11 - Did NOT the author of Acts of the Apostles write 13 FULL chapters of Acts without ONCE mentioning Peter and did NOT the author claim he traveled ALL over the Roman Empire with "Paul"?

In Acts of Apostles, Peter became obsolete. The author did not NEED him AFTER the 15th chapter.

Examine some of the[b] last words of Peter in ALL of Acts of the Apostles .

Acts 15.7 In the last words of Peter, he is NOW ready to preach to the Gentiles but in the VERY SAME chapter 15, Paul would show that he had ALREADY preached to the Gentiles.

Ac 15:36 - By, the time Peter vanished in Acts 15, Paul had ALREADY preached to the Gentiles and was his SECOND TOUR.

The Roman Church under Constantine ONLY needed the so-called apostle Peter to claim that their Church was the TRUE CHURCH of God and their line of Bishops of the Church of Rome ORIGINATED from the apostles.

The Roman Church writers used the Pauline writings for DOCTRINE far MORE than they used the Epistle of Peter.

And, now why did not the Roman Church claim Peter their so-called FIRST bishop wrote ALL the so-called Pauline Epistles?

Why did they need Paul?

Why did they NOT attribute your supposed writings of MARCION to PETER?

Well, not even the Church writers can show that Peter did actually preach anywhere after ACTS 15.7-11.

Once you have AGREED that the Pauline writings are the result of a forgery and fraud then I am satisfied that my task as been accomplished.

The Pauline writings cannot be assumed to be authentic.