avi

In post #9 of this thread, I offered a link to purported correspondence between Paul and Seneca. This is a follow up, based upon some further inquiry. Still a lot of unanswered questions, at least in my mind:

As far as I can determine, Cicero was Seneca's most admired writer, and again, to the best of my knowledge, both Cicero and Seneca wrote in Latin, though I have no doubt that Seneca, who spent his childhood living in Rome, would also have been fluent in Greek, having lived for some years in Alexandria. Is there any reason to suppose that Jerome would not have found it absurd to encounter an exchange of letters, written three centuries earlier, in Latin, instead of Greek? Would not Jerome have been either suspicious, or contemptuous of the letters' authenticity, for having been written in Latin, if that language were deemed inappropriate for Roman literati actively participating in the government of Nero? Why doesn't Jerome challenge the veracity of these documents?

Toto's conclusion is apparently based upon the 19th century opinion of Lightfoot:
http://www.archive.org/stream/a59077...huoft_djvu.txt

Lightfoot was not the only scholar to question the veracity of the Seneca-Paul correspondence. To date, I have been unable to locate evidence supporting or refuting the widely held opinion that Lightfoot's analysis is correct, but in my humble opinion, the fact that the questionable letters had been apparently written originally in Latin does not render them suspicious, at least not to my way of thinking.

Here is a quote attributed to Seneca, translated into English:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful".

Does anyone have a reference to clarify whether this quote was originally written in Latin, or Greek? Thanks in advance.

avi

aa5874

And what group was that?

Who was the leader of that group before it became Catholic?

And what was the orthodox doctrine of that group before?

Was it the doctrine of the Trinity? Was it the doctrine of docetism?


You must realise "the group that later became the Catholic Church" is very ambiguous. It is like making reference to "the group that later became Mormons."

dog-on

Well, maybe this letter is about having Paul proof read Seneca's gospel (Mark) which Paul could use to portray Christ as crucified:

Toto

There is nothing inappropriate about using Latin for governmental relations in the Roman Empire in Rome. But there is no record of Paul speaking or knowing Latin. He wrote in Koine Greek, which was the common language in the eastern part of the Empire.

Jerome was not a noted skeptic in any case.

This is one of those good quotes that gets repeated and repeated, but can't be actually traced back to anything the originator said.

wikiquote discussion

If Seneca did write anything like that, he wrote it in Latin.

avi

Yeah, well, if Paul/Saul really existed, and I have my doubts, and if he actually traveled to Rome, supposedly to "convert" the "gentiles", then one anticipates that he must have had a crash course in Latin, how else to speak to the natives? What, you mean the local farmers in Italy spoke Greek?

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

If I am not badly in error, here, our earliest record of Paul's writings is in one of the papyri, perhaps P46.

Well, but, does your assertion then imply that Jerome was lax in his historical analysis--i.e. de viris illustribus? Is this implicit criticism of Jerome based upon some sort of comparative investigation assessing material authored by some other contemporary of Jerome? Why is it so certain that the correspondence between Paul and Seneca had been forged, if it passed muster for Jerome:
He sounds, to my ear, reading that article, as though he were a rather straight arrow, unyielding, inflexible, and tolerant of no discourse contradicting his own....Maybe that is too harsh...My point is, the article in Wiki paints a picture of a guy who is unlikely, at least as I read it, to be fooled by a forgery....He doesn't sound like much of a co-conspirator for a fraudulent enterprise, either....Maybe I am simply too naive.

avi

dog-on

Perhaps the people that Marcion castigates in Galatians.

No idea.

Probably wasn't one, before.

Docetism seems to be older than Trinitarianism.

I don't see it that way, at all.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are Anachronistic.

When writings from antiquity are examined it is becomes extremely clear that the information supplied in the Pauline writings are from some other time zone well outside or after the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline writers claimed that Jesus was raised from the dead and with his resurrection it was revealed to him by this very resurrected God/MAN that the Laws of God with respect to Salvation, including circumcision, were obsolete.

But, luckily we have the writings of Philo and Josephus.

These two Jewish writers would cover virtually the entire Pauline post conversion period and as is expected there is not one account, not one rumor, not even a fable about the disciples of Jesus, Saul/Paul or the Divine Jesus Christ movement any where in all the books of Philo and Josephus.

But, not only did they not write about the Pauline doctrine or the Divine Jesus Christ movement, they both contradicted the Pauline writer.

During the 1st century, precisely at the time of Pilate, the Jews demonstrated that they would not have worshiped a man as a God. The Jews would not have accepted the Pauline teachings as any goods news.

It must be fiction that Paul being a Jew would have gone to Jerusalem to ask Jews to worship a man as God.

During the 1st century, precisely at the time of Caius, again the Jews demonstrated that they did NOT worship even Emperors as God.

It must be fiction, that almost precisely the same time Philo was on his way to Caius to argue against worshiping a man as a God, that Paul, himself being a Jew, was actively engaged in asking Jews to abandon the Laws of God including circumcision.

If Jesus was just a man and was living in Galilee for thirty years it would be expected that very many persons knew Jesus was just human in the days of Pilate but was perhaps a bit mad.

If Jesus was just a man living in Galilee for thirty years then it would be expected that very many persons knew that Jesus was NOT raised from the dead when he died.

If Jesus was just a man living in Galilee for thirty years, Jews would NOT have expected that Jesus would have the remotest power or ability to forgive the sins of the entire human race even if he was innocently crucified, perhaps thousands of Jews were executed for no cause.

Even at the time of the very Pilate and the supposed innocent crucifixion of Jesus, this governor ordered that Jews to be massacred or at least attacked which caused many Jews to be killed by soldiers with daggers.

Many Jews were innocently killed during the very time of Pilate.

There is no historical records to show that those Jews who were caused to be massacred by Pilate were deified and given the power to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision.

All the extant records from Philo and Josephus do not allow the Pauline writings. The Pauline writings are out of place. They belong to some other time zone outside the time of Philo and Josephus or outside the 1st century.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are Anachronistic.

The Church put out information that Paul was aware of gLuke and that Paul died sometime before the death of Nero.

Now, the tentative assumed dates for gLuke are 80-130 CE. This would mean that Paul was alive from 80 CE upwards and was not dead since around 66 CE.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

This Eusebius in Church History 3.4.8 What is developing is a pattern by the Church to date the Synoptics earlier than they were actually written. Now if the Church were in the habit of dating documents earlier than they should have it must stand to reason that the very same was done to the Pauline writings in order to create harmony.

Once the Church claimed the Synoptics were early, they were forced to make the false claim that the Pauline writings were also early.

But, now that the Synoptics are all dated after the Fall of the Temple the Pauline writings must also follow.

The Pauline writer admitted that he preached the faith he once destroyed and that there were believers before him, but what faith could he have been destroying when there was no Jesus story or believers until after the Fall of the Temple?

The historical records external of the Church cannot locate a character called Jesus or Jesus believers.

The Pauline writer did not write anything before the Jesus story was written. And the Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

When the PAULINE writings are examined it can be shown that they were written after the Synoptics and after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

The Pauline writer declared that he did not lie about the things he wrote but it can be shown that he was very likely a liar.

Ga 1:20 - But, Paul how could you have met Peter/Cephas?

Peter/Cephas was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories. Jesus did not call any one the "rock", meaning Peter in Greek or Cephas in some Jewish language. Jesus was just a fictitious mythological God/Man.

And how could Paul meet Peter/Cephas in Jerusalem when the Jesus stories and characters were invented when Paul was already dead.

PAUL, YOU are a Liar.

Now, a simple way to know or reasonably deduced that writers are familiar with some other writing is to look for word-for-word copying of passages or phrases from other sources even if the writers themselves did not name their sources.

For example, it can be reasonable deduced that the authors of the Synoptics were familiar with Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint because we see signs of word-for-word copying of passages and phrases that are almost identical.

The last word of Jesus in gMark and gMatthew are from Psalms 22.1 but the last words of Jesus in gLuke is from Psalms 31.5.

So, we can look line by line, verse by verse, and phrase by phrase in the Synoptics for similar lines, verses or phrases in the Pauline writings and we will come up empty handed except for a single passage found in gLuke.

Now, gLuke is regarded as the last of the Synoptics to be written, that is gLuke is estimated to have been written after the Fall of the Jewish Temple and very likely after the writings of Josephus or gLuke was estimated to have been written after 93 CE.

Again, not a single line, verse or phrase in gMatthew or gMark matches a line, verse or phrase in the Pauline writings. It can be deduced that the authors of gMark and Matthew were not aware of the Pauline writings when they invented Jesus Christ their GOD/MAN.

Now, the Church writers claimed that Paul was familiar with gLuke and referred to gLuke as "my Gospel". The Church writers also claimed that the Pauline writers and the author of gLuke were close companions, and that these companions traveled and preached together all over the Roman Empire covering hundreds of miles.

So, the internal evidence is giving a picture where the Pauline writings are after gMatthew and gMark or after the Fall of the Temple.

And, now the Pauline writer will give another inadvertent indication that he was writing after the Fall of the Temple in Romans 11.

But, before I go to Romans 11, we can look back at the situation on the ground in Judea at around 29-36 CE. Using the NT, a man called Jesus was crucified for blasphemy claiming that he was some kind of God, he also claimed he would be raised from the dead on the third day, some his disciples ran away when he was arrested and Peter the supposed rock of his church denied any association with Jesus.

So, it is business as usual another madman/false prophet and blasphemer is dead. The Jews are continuing to do whatever they were doing. The Jews are still attending the Feast of the Passover and are being circumcised on the eight day.

According to Philo and Josephus, between the time of Tiberius and Caius, the Jews were actively campaigning against worshiping men as Gods. No man can be worshiped as a God in Judea as long as Jews were there. The Jews will have their necks chopped off first.

The God of the Jews must be delighted.

The Jews are doing exactly as their GOD commanded.

At around 30-36 CE, The Jews were not as branches broken off a tree when they caused Jesus to be crucified for blasphemy. There was no condemnation from the Sanhedrin. The Jewish Temple was still intact.

So what SEVERITY of God fell on the Jews in Paul's time?

And what natural branches did God not spare in Paul's time?

And how did Paul know that some SEVERITY fell of the Jews when he was dead long before the Fall of the Temple?

Paul must be mad or he is talking about the Jews after the Temple fell.

These are the anachronisms of the Pauline writer in Romans 11.19-23 Paul you are a liar.

The things you wrote were not the truth.

You were living and writing after the Jewish Temple fell.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

In order to develop a theory one has to find a source of antiquity to support the theory.

There is at least one source of antiquity that can help to support my theory that the Pauline writings are anachronistic and that source is Justin Martyr.

But, first I must establish that Justin Martyr is a credible source.

There is only source of antiquity that confirms the deduction by Scholars today that the Gospels were all probably written anonymously and that source is Justin Martyr.

Based on the findings of Scholars, this woulfd mean that writers like Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian. Origen and Eusebius were not credible sources with respect to the dating, chronology, and authorship of the Gospels.

Justin is spot on with his anonymous "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Next, the book called Acts of the Apostles is regarded by Scholars as a late writing and most probably non-historical accounts about the Apostles and Saul/Paul.

There is one source that is not at all hampered by this finding and it is Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr, although writing about post-ascension activities and characters like Simon Magus, Menander, and the doctrines of the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, and the Saturnilians, did not write any thing about activities of the apostles, the day of Pentecost when they were filled with the Holy Ghost and miraculously became multi-lingual. Justin Martyr did not write about Saul/Paul who, after being blinded by a bright light, traveled all over the Roman Empire persuading Jews to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision.

Justin Martyr has a 100% credibilty slate so far. His writings do not include what appears to be non-historical. Justin Matyr is spot on.

Writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and other Church writers who claimed Acts of the Apostles was authentic are all contrary to the findings of Scholars. These writers have a ZERO or next to Zero crebility rating so far.

Next, there are the Epistles and Scholars have deduced that the Epistles are extremely problematic, perhaps up to 75% of the Epistles were written after the supposed authors were already dead. A Church writer has admitted that 2 Peter does not belong to the Canon yet failed to realise that 1 Peter was probably not written by any real apostle called Peter.

And Church writers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others attribute all the Epistles under the name Paul to the character called Saul/Paul found in Acts, but Scholars differ. More than one person used the name Paul to write Epistles.

But, which Church writer is immune from these contrary findings by Scholars? There is one, it is Justin Martyr. His credibilty record is impeccable. Justin places Marcion during his time, around the middle of the 2nd century, and does not suffer from any credibilty issues with respect to Marcion.

But the credibilty of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others are heavily affected. These writers were virtually wrong about everything in the Canon with respect to the dating, authorship and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles.

So there is only one book left in the Canon, and it is called Revelations.

Justin Martyr's 100% record is on the line. What did Justin write about Revelations?

Justin wrote exactly what he saw. In Revelation a character called John claimed he wrote Revelation and that is what Justin Martyr wrote. His record is virtually 100% unblemished.

Now, Justin Martyr before his conversion decided to search for God and it is most remarkeable what Justin wrote and did not write. He did not write about any massive number of people who believed in Jesus Christ with known public places of gathering and worship, in fact according to Justin, after he had exhausted all the well known philosophical teachers he happened to meet an old man.

It appears that it was the first time that Justin heard about Jesus Christ or met some-one who talked about Jesus Christ in public.

And after his search for God culminated in his conversion after meeting the old man, Justin Martyr will tell us what was read in the places where people met for worship in the middle of the 2nd century.

"First Apology"LXVII See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Justin Martyr has given an account of the activities of believers on a typical Sunday and it did not include any hocus-pocus magic, raising the dead, as found in Acts of the Apostles or speaking in "tongues" as found in the Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr appeared to know not one thing about talking in "tongues".

In all his writings, he did not say he spoke in "tongues" or knew any one who spoke in "tongues". He did not write that any apostle of Jesus spoke in "tongues" on the Day of Pentecost..

The Day of Pentecost was to be the MOST significant post-ascension day for the apostles because that was the day they would have received their Power from Jesus Christ to perform supermiracles and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any foreign language without an interpreter.

Jesus told the twelve disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Ghost. Without the Holy Ghost, the disciples would have been powerless.

Justin Martyr did NOT write about that GLORIUS day--the day of Pentecost--the day of POWER from on high.

The author of Acts did. See Acts 2.

The Jesus in gLuke told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the POWER from on high. See Luke 24.49

A Pauline writer claimed he talked in "tongues" more than anyone else.

1 Cor.14:18 - It must be obvious by now that the Pauline writings are after Justin Martyr. The most significant post-ascension day for the apostles, the Day of Pentecost, is missing from Justin Martyr but can be found in Acts and the Pauline writings contain information about talking in tongues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

And now look at gMark 16.17, the late addition to the 16th chapter, it is compatible with the Pauline writings where people were claimed to be talking in "tongues".

Mark 16.1-8 appear to have been first written without being aware of the Pauline writings and speaking in "tongues", it was later that Mak16.17 was addded after the Pauline writings were written.

Mark 16:17 - 1 Cor.14:18 - The Pauline writings are anachronistic.