aa5874

The history of Jesus, his disciples and Paul are clearly fictitious. And there is an indication of this fiction, when we look the extant writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

The authors of the NT claimed that Jesus, the Messiah, was on earth sometime around 4BCE to 36 CE, and that his arrival and manner of death was predicted in Isaiah, Micah, Numbers, Psalms, Exodus, Hosea, Daniel and other scriptures of the OT.

However, when we examine the writings of Josephus, the Jew, he gives a total different picture, and according to this writer, the concensus among Jews, among those in Judaea, was that the Messiah was expected sometime around 70 CE, and Suetonius and Tacitus also made the same claim in their writings.

This revelation by these writers put into question the authors of the NT, their prediction of this Jesus the Messiah really had no concensus, it was unheard of. There appears to be no tradition of this NT prediction, no oracle that was being spread around of this Jesus Messiah to appear on earth, be crucified, and be resurrected.

But even without the admission of the historians, it can be reasonably demonstrated that the verses deemed to be prophecies of this NT messiah were either mis-interpreted and out of context, but it is alarming that this Jesus of the NT was claimed by the authors to have fulfilled all the mis-interpretations and out of context scriptures.

Now, if Jesus the Messiah fulfilled false prophecies, his life on earth was a fulfillment of fiction, his disciples were selected by fiction and Paul needed this fiction to receive his gospel, not of man. The Churches received letters from Paul who preached the gospel of fiction, not of man, and no convert in any of the Churches, or the Church fathers ever detected the fiction.

The entire early history of Christianity is fiction.

Ben C Smith

Absolutely. The history of Christianity begins with Justin... no! Irenaeus... wait a minute. Tertullian! No... possibly Origen. Better yet, Eusebius! Jerome. Charlemagne. Benedictine monks. The Medici! ....

Ben.

[Sole purpose of post: To show that aa___ is not yet on my Ignore list.]

Amaleq13

Pushing for sainthood, Ben?

Ben C Smith

:angel:

aa5874

Another factor to augment the claim that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction is found with the authorship of the Gospels and the Epistles.

In the first five books of the NT, no author claimed, in the text, to be the writer, it is not known for certain who wrote them or when any of these books were written or publicly circulated for the first time.

In Church History by Eusebius, this same writer claimed that Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, wrote gMatthew, followed by gMark, a follower of Peter, then gLuke written by a follower of Paul and then gJohn written by the apostle John.

But Tertullian in Against Marcion gave another chronology of the writings of the Gospels. This writer claimed gJohn and gMatthew were first and followed by gMark and gLuke.

So Eusebius and Tertullian did not agree in the order of writing, but they both put the writings sometime after the ascension.

But this chronological confusion could have ben avoided if the authors truly identified the time they wrote. The first five authors never indicated their names, or left any means of identifying themselves, yet they wrote the names of other characters in their books, even giving a so-called genealogy of the father of Jesus, and linking some to their parents, siblings, the place where they lived and even their occupation, but these authors of the first five books never left one single positive clue so that their identity or actual time of writing would be known. And this cover-up, the concealment of their identities, appear to be deliberate, since it would have been far more beneficial and would give added credibilty to their writings, if the their names and time of writing were included in their works.

Eusebius' order is gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn.
Tertullian's is gMatthew, gJohn, gMark, gLuke.

And whether Tertullian's or Eusebius' order is used, these writings were all before the assumed death of Paul. Now, Biblical scholars have considered Tertullian and Eusebius to be in error, the Gospels were all written from around 70 CE and beyond. The writer of Church History and Tertullian had erroneous information about the Gospels.

All these problem could have been reduced if the authors identified themselves, they identified others, but never themselves.

But, now we have the Pauline Epistles, and in every letter an author called Paul claimed to be the writer. The author appear to be credible, he identified himself as Paul of Tarsus, but there has developped another major problem, Biblical scholars are now claiming more than one person was using the name Paul and it seems that the Churches and the Church fathers never knew.

The Churches and the fathers appear not know that Gospels were written after 70 CE and later and they appear not to know that at least two persons were writing epistles using the name Paul. And Justin Martyr have nothing at all in his extant writings to resolve the dilemma. Justin wrote nothing about Paul or the Churches, in his extant writings up to the middle of the 2nd century.

We have a total breakdown. The Churches and the Churches fathers are lost, something has gone very wrong both in chronology and personality.

The evidence points to fiction, the history of the early Christianity is fiction, there was no Jesus, no disciples and no Paul at all.

mountainman

Well then, the obvious question is this ............
The 14 Letters of "Paul" - Who wrote them?

to the Romans one letter
to the Corinthians two letters
to the Ephesians one letter
to the Thesalonians two letters
to the Galatians one letter
to the Philippians one letter
to the Colossians one letter
to Timothy two letters
to Titus one letter
to the Philemon one letter
to the Hebrews one letter

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Ben C Smith

There are also Laodiceans (both as Ephesians for the Marcionites and in its innocuous later orthodox form) and 3 Corinthians (from the Acts of Paul), as well as the correspondence with Seneca.

Ben.

aa5874

Some "convert" from one of the "Churches" or the one of the Church fathers must have known who all used the name of Paul. The "Christian" author who wrote the fictitious history of Paul, he must have known who wrote the letters.

I think one of those early "Christians" knew all the PAULS and may have even proof-read their epistles for mistakes.

spamandham

You can't provide any evidence of this from non-apologetic sources.

aa5874

What and where is the evidence for nothing? I cannot find any evidence for Paul in any credible non-apologetic source, you too.

Post #108