aa5874

You don't understand the difference between "EVIDENCE" and "TRUTH". You seem to invent your own evidence if you think Paul lied.

Everything a person says or writes can be used as EVIDENCE whether or not the written or oral statements are true.

For example, the written and oral statements of a defendant or a person under investigation MUST be taken into consideration and cannot ever be ignored simply because you think they are lying.

I use the written statements in the NT as EVIDENCE to SHOW that PAUL was a LIAR and a FRAUD who lived Long AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.


I have already did my investigation and found NO difficulties at all. ALL writings that mentioned the name Paul BEFORE the end of the 2nd century are either historically bogus or manipulated.

Every writing that mentioned Paul are questionable.

1. Ignatius---forgeries---he never existed.

2. Clement of Rome--a fabricated fraud--he never existed.

3. Polycarp-fiction and fraud--he never existed.

Bernard Muller

So now Paul existed, but well after 70! (But Jerusalem was still existing, because he claimed he went there several times. How do you explain that?)
That's news because before you said he did not: Paul was a liar and a fraud: I agree with that, for the most part.

I also agree with the above.

Even if some or all are forgeries, that does not mean these letters had to be written after AH 2:22. And you did not answer me about the Epistula Apostolorum & Ptolemy. Both mentioned Paul (the first one even got details of the Paul's story in 'Acts') and they can be fairly well dated to around 150. So do you think AH 2.22 was written before that?

And I am still waiting for your evidence about Paul visited Spain, France/Gaul, North Africa & Egypt because you wrote

Sheshbazzar

'Acts claimed Paul traveled ALL over the Roman Empire...' Well that is what Acts does.
But that doesn't mean the claims are factual.

There is no error inherent in aa stating that 'Acts claims...' what in fact Acts does claim.
It was not as statement about 'Paul' or his possible travels, but about what the text of Acts claims.

aa does not need to provide any evidence about 'Paul' traveling or visting anywhere, because that was not his statement.

Bernard Muller

to Sheshbazzar:
Provide me a quote from Acts saying "Paul traveled (and preached!) ALL over the Roman Empire".
I say Acts does not claim anything close to that.

aa5874

What is so difficult to explain?? Surely you must know what is meant by a fiction character.

The person or persons who wrote letters under the name of Paul did SO at least 120 years AFTER the reign of Gaius c 37 -41 CE.


Again, you do not understand what is meant by "ALL over the Roman Empire". I did NOT state that Paul traveled to EVERY CITY of the Roman Empire.

It is claimed Paul was in Spain, Britian, Arabia, Italy, Judea, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, Macedonia, Troas, Thyatira, Athens, Caesarea, Achaia, Asia, Miletus, Assos, and other places all over the Roman Empire

Bernard Muller

So now Paul was not Paul, but somebody who invented the Paul's character not earlier than 160! And just because Irenaeus, by zealous stupidity, extended Jesus' ministry up to twenty years (from one year, as commonly believed then), forgetting (or not having learned) Pilate's rule lasted only 10 years. BTW, Irenaeus did not pretend to report history. He was just proposing justifications (through gJohn) for a much longer ministry, preventing Christians to think Jesus, as a teacher, was just a flash in the pan.

No, Acts does not say Paul went and preached in Spain and Britain. For Italy: only Rome; not Judea (even if he went there); never in Thyatira, never in Arabia, only Damascus; never in Assos, even he went there; Troas and Caesarea, no preaching there. Asia, only Ephesus and, very briefly Miletus; Achaia, only Athens and Corinth; Macedonia, only Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea.
What other places all over the Roman empire? Please elaborate with evidence. Certainly not Spain, Britain, Italy (except Rome, which I think is dubious), Egypt, Lybia, North Africa, Gaul and Roman controlled area South of the Danube, now in Germany, Austria, Hungary, former Yougoslavia & Bulgaria. The only others I can think are Cyprus and Iconium with Barnabas.
Now look at a map: does that look like all over the Roman empire?
More like around the Aegean sea (that's where he spent most of his "apostolic" time, when he was the top dog, that is without Barnabas), with Galatia, Damascus, Cyprus and (dubiously) Rome

Sheshbazzar

Let's see, first he allegedly was born in Tarsus (Act 21:39) so he had allegedly been there. It is reported that he allegedly was in Jerusalem to persecute the saints (Acts 8:1-3) and after his alleged 'vision' (the brain damage that turned him into an uncontrollably habitual liar) traveled to Damascus (Acts 9:8) then some time latter allegedly went back and hung around Jerusalem for a while (Acts 9:26-28) from there he allegedly traveled to Caesarea, and then back to Tarsus.(Acts 9:30) then he allegedly moved to Antioch (Acts 11:26) then allegedly back to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30, 12:25) then allegedly back to Antioch (Acts 13:1-3) leaving there allegedly Saul traveled to Seleucia, and from there sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:4) then allegedly to Paphos, from there allegedly to Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13) Around this time Saul took on the alias 'Paul' (Acts 13:9) then allegedly went to Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14) being a pain in the ass there he got kicked out and allegedly went to Iconium. (Acts 13:51) after causing a riot there they allegedly moved on to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6) after experiencing trouble there he allegedly hit the road back to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:21) then he allegedly hiked on through Pisidia, Pamphylia, Perga, and Attalia (Acts 14:24-25) From there he allegedly hopped a ship back to Antioch (Acts 14:26) after some time Paul heads back to Jerusalem, allegedly passing through Phenice and Samaria (Acts 15:3) then upon leaving Jerusalem Paul allegedly return to Antioch (Acts 15:30) till Paul gets tired of that place and decides to retravel the circuit, (Acts 15:36) allegedly traveling to Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41) Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1) from there Paul allegedly travels to Phrygia and the region of Galatia (Acts 16:6) then on to Mysia and Troas (Acts 16:7-8) allegedly sailing from Troas Paul allegedly goes to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis (Acts 16:11) and then on to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia (Acts 16:12) After getting himself arrested and escaping custody (Acts 16:23-49)Paul again hits the road allegedly passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, to arrive in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1) causing trouble there Paul had to be snuck out during the night, next popping up in Berea (Acts 17:10) where there was a more gullible audience. When the irate citizens of Thessalonica found out where Paul had went he had to haul ass for Athens (Acts17:14-15) After thoroughly insulting and attacking the intelligence, religion, and culture of Athens, (Acts 17:16-31) Paul moves on to Corinth (Acts 18:1) After Paul had made a public nuisance of himself there for a good while (18:18) he went off to Cenchrea and got his head shaved bald (Acts 18:18) apparently so he could deceive the Jews into thinking he respected The Law . Allegedly Paul heads to Ephesus (Acts 18:19) and from there sails to Caesarea and heads off to Antioch. (Acts 18:22) And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order (Acts 18:23) then moved on to Ephesus (Acts 19:1) and spent the next two years preaching till all who lived in Asia had heard his line of jive (Acts 19:10) flim-flaming and playing witch-doctor magic tricks on the local yokels (Acts 19:11-12)

Ah, enough of this horse-shit. You can read all about the claimed alleged far-flung travels of Paul the Liar on a thousand different lying christian websites.


.

outhouse

lucky scholars dont use acts to much for historicity of anyone including paul.


Could be a once pupil of paul, or second or third hand information. either way enough time transpired from paul to when acts was written for it to get "way out there"

theres an obvious contradiction with pauline epistles, so we can gather the author didnt have first hand info.

Sheshbazzar

Right. Not in Acts, But in Romans it is 'Paul' himself who is the one who claims that he plans to journey to Spain.
And if he intended to travel that far there is no telling how many other areas of the Roman Empire or Europe he may have visited.
After all isn't your argument 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' Where then is your evidence or proof that 'Paul' never made this trip?

aa5874

Ok, you tell me who was writing history?? Paul alone was writing history??

Paul alone claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a Human being, that he did NOT get his gospel from a Human, and that his non-human Jesus did LIVE after he was dead and that he did SEE his resurrected Jesus.

Only the Pauline author personally made those outrageous claims.

Paul was NOT pretending to write history.

You have to look ALL OVER Acts and the Pauline Epistles to find out it was claimed Paul was ALL over the Roman Empire.

You do NOT understand the phrase "ALL OVER". Again "ALL OVER" does NOT mean every single place.

The statement that "I have traveled ALL OVER the world" does NOT mean I have been to every village, town, city and state in the world.

Now, I don't want to embarrass you but, I repeat, it is claimed in ACTS of the Apostles that Paul was in SPAIN and BRITAIN.

You need to read your Bible.