Casper

Why we would never have heard of Hegesippus! Imagine!

:devil1:

aa5874

Your arguments are very weak, you have failed to produce an established known writer who wrote and was alive during the lifetime of "Paul" of the NT.

I can refer you to Justin Martyr"s "First Apology" 26 This admission by Justin indicates to me that Marcion was likely a real figure of history.


However, the history of "Paul" was written anonimously, and contains fiction, and in the so-called epistles of "Paul", even you admit that "Paul" could not have received his gospel from Jesus in heaven. And further the fictitious history of "Paul" appears to have been written many years after the so-called death of "Paul".

This has caused me to consider "Paul's" history as very doubtful.

TedM

You've failed to address many of them. Maybe you should try backing up your opinion. You don't actually have to read Acts and the epistles to address them, although that might be a good idea so that you can really know what you are talking about.


Big deal. If you have that as the criteria, then your approach is naive and simplistic.


That's reasonable.

That's not what I said. His gospel, as I explained it, certainly could have been received via "revelation" or "insight".

Just because it contains questionable elements doesn't mean it is ficticious as a whole. I've given arguments regarding its content which you have not seen fit to address.

No one really knows. Why do you think it wasn't written during Paul's life since it doesn't mention his death?


As I said, it is reasonable to consider the possibility, unreasonable to conclude it on the basis or your argumentation so far.

ted

aa5874

All you have done was pose a lot of questions, you need to present a proper argument for your position.

An interrogation is not an argument.

TedM

You don't seem to get what is going on here. YOU are the one making an argument from silence. I"ve questioned YOUR argument with reasonable questions. You evade the questions, as you did once again in your last post. Therefore I consider YOUR argument to be weak in the sense that you are declaring conclusions without showing a willingness to even discuss views which threaten your conclusions.

ted

aa5874

Silence is the ultimate proof of no history, just like Achilles and Apollo. But, even Justin Martyr was not silent on Achilles and Apollo, but the silence was deafening with "Paul". See First Apology 25, in there we have Apollo and Achilles but no "Paul".

I feel vindicated when credible writers or historians are silent on "Paul". Silence is golden.

TedM

All I"m saying aa is that if you are going to make an argument, have the balls to answer the challenges to it. Your idea that silence is "proof" is LAUGHABLE. Only in your mind aa..

I've given you plenty of opportunity to defend your view. Since you see no reason to do so, I have no reason to pay any attention to your postings (once again). What a waste of discussion this has been..

ted

aa5874

There is nothing on "Paul" from Justin or Philo, only fiction in the Epistles and Acts. The history of "Paul" appears to be fiction.