aa5874

No, Toto.

It is NOT people who try to tie the Pauline writer to Aretas IV. The Pauline writings do contain a claim that Paul was in a basket by a wall in Damascus during the time of Aretas.

It is the PAULINE writer who TIED himself up.

2 Corinthians.12.32-33

Duvduv

Yes, in the case of this piece of the story, we have a person who is believed to have lived in the 1st century in that epistle. But we'll never know who wrote the epistles and when exactly they lived, though it does appear that the writers were not in the first century since we here nothing about the epistles for a very long time, and as I have suggested, only into the 3rd century.

aa5874

Well, not exactly. We have a writer who claimed HE WAS IN a basket by a wall in Damascus during the time of Aretas.

But, his claims about a character called Jesus a supposed Messianic ruler, is likely to be False.

Well, we know who likely authorised and Canonised them and who Benefited from the false claims about a supposed Messianic ruler called Jesus when there are NO credible historical sources of antiquity that wrote of the Pauline Messianic ruler at all.

Now, the character called Paul and a Pauline epistle was supposedly mentioned by Clement of Rome in an epistle to the Church of Corinth sometime in the 1st century according to Church writers.

This is "Clement's "First Epistle" 47.
But we will see that the very Church writers did NOT know when Clement of Rome was bishop.

Tertullian and Irenaeus differ by over 20 years.

Tertullian Places Clement of Rome as bishop BEFORE 70 CE.

Irenaeus Places Clement of Rome as bishop c 90 CE.

"Prescription Against Heretics"[ "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 The Church writers for the Roman Church cannot even properly account for Clement of Rome. They really don't know when Clement of Rome was a bishop even though they should have his epistle in their possession.

All claims that Paul, a Jew and Pharisee, was BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and preached all over the Roman Empire that there was a MESSIANIC ruler called Jesus who was the END of Jewish Law and that everyone should BOW to the name of Jesus is most likely FALSE.

Non-apologetic sources cannot account for Paul and the Pauline Messianic ruler.

Duvduv

It's funny that even according to them, the great Paul only merited a passing reference in Clement.

Duvduv

Regardless of the story of Aretas in Galatians, the fact that it was claimed to have been written in the 50s or 60s, but then did not appear until later in the 2nd century should give everyone pause. Of course the essential feature of all such epistles is the indwelling of the Christ following some personal revelation of the Christ to the author as salvation, which does not have to be tied to a specific time period. But it would make sense that through Acts those who believed in a first century Jesus wanted to link "Paul" to the same time period.

aa5874

The Pauline claim that he was by a wall in Damascus under King Aretas is found in 2 Corinthians 12.32-33 NOT Galatians and it is claimed that Clement of Rome, who supposedly was also Bishop of Rome, wrote an epistle to the Corinthians which seems to suggest that Clement of Rome knew of Paul and that he wrote an EARLIER epistle to the Corinthians.

But the epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome is UTTER Fiction and a fraudulent document.

Not even Church writers were aware of such a letter and that there was a dissension in the Church of the Corinthians.

It is clear that the character called Paul is associated with FORGERIES, FRAUD and FICTION.

Duvduv

Thank you for this correction. I am not clear now on what your point is regarding the placing of "Paul" in the first century presumably PRIOR to the placing of the Christ in the first century in the gospels, or whether the gospels were placed in the first century in relation to the epistles of Paul who never merits even a hint in the gospels??

The epistles mention the names of certain individuals who are mentioned in the gospels (Peter, Cephas, James). This must be partly why some see Mark as an allegorical development following the epistles. Or is it possible both sects had traditions regarding such individuals independent of each other?

Good old Justin had his own stories placing his Christ in the first century and did not know a Paul writer of epistles. So I am getting confused as to what came first, the chicken or the egg, in the second century or thereafter.

aa5874

There is no need for any confusion. Let us examine the NT to get the chronology of Paul.

Based on Acts of the Apostles and the writings attributed to Paul, the very author called Paul PERSECUTED the Faith BEFORE he heard the voice of Jesus AFTER the supposed resurrection.

It really does not matter when NT Paul wrote his epistles since it is claimed by the Pauline writer that there was a Christian Faith BEFORE him. In effect, there was a Jesus story that was BELIEVED and CIRCULATED before Paul. See Galatians 1.

Even better, NT Paul claimed Jesus Died for our Sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day according to the Scriptures.

And most wonderful, NT Paul claimed he was the LAST to witness the RESURRECTED Jesus out of over 500 people.

There is no need for any confusion. NT Paul is AFTER NT Jesus.

Justin Martyr's writings CONFIRMS that the Jesus story is BEFORE the Pauline writings.

The major difference is that the Church and its writers are claiming that Paul preached Jesus Crucified and Resurrected since c 37-40 CE but Justin's writings with a Jesus story have ZERO records of Paul up to the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

As you might know, the mythicist description denies that the epistles (as opposed to Acts) related to a story of a historical Jesus sect, and that there were some interpolations into the epistles. And if the writer of the epistles did not know the historical Jesus gospel stories, then of course the gospels, starting with Mark were anchored in early 1st century to follow on from the epistles.
On the other hand, Justin knew of gospel stories that were circulating before the gospels were written down as canonical documents, but knew nothing of a Paul figure. So it is unclear to me how Mark followed on from the sect of the epistles if we see that Justin didn't know about it.

aa5874

What "mythicist" are you talking about?

What historical Jesus gospel stories are you talking about?

The Jesus in gMark was a PHANTOM, and in the other Gospel stories he was the Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator that walked on water and transfigured.

The QUEST for the historical Jesus was INITIATED because the Gospel MYTH Jesus, the Jesus of FAITH, was REJECTED.

See Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.48-49 and Mark 9.2.

I don't know all what is unclear to you but it is clear to me that all mention of NT Paul as a 1st century character by Church writers is FICTION.

For example, the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Paul or Acts of the Apostles and claimed that John and other disciples did PREACH that Jesus was about 50 years old when he was crucified which is sometime in the reign of Claudius when in the Pauline writings NT Paul was preaching CHRIST CRUCIFIED since the time of Aretas.

See 2 Cor. 12.32-33 and "Against Heresies" 2.22.

The 2nd century chronology is rather easy to unravel once the evidence from antiquity is examined.

It was the Jesus story FIRST.