Malachi151

Not really. while I don't think that we know whole story, and will never know the whole story, and while I'm not defending aa's particular claims, I think that it is possible to approach a pretty good idea of what must have happened. There is actually a whole lot of documentary evidence to go on, the problem is that 98% of the people analyzing that evidence are starting with some base assumptions that are probably wrong, and intentionally trying to make the evidence fit their pre-conceived scenario.

I don't think we'll ever be able to say for sure what happened, but we will be able to come up with reasonable most likely general scenarios that have far greater explanatory power than simply saying "I don't know, so let's just believe that traditional claims."

aa5874

I think that's the way it should be, I defend my claims and others defend theirs. But, there are some who, it seems, believe only their claim is valid and no-one else should have any other claim, or that others should be denied the right to even make a claim.

However, with regards to the Pauline letters and Luke, it is my view the the author of Luke fabricated the character called Paul. Luke appears to know more about Paul than he "knew" about Jesus, or that Paul revealed about himself in the epistles. And in effect, without the Acts of the Apostles, Paul has no history and the epistles cannot be dated.

I read the Acts of the Apostles and all the figures of history mentioned therein do not appear at all in the Pauline Epistles. Paul does not mention in any of his epistles about his appeals to Rome with regards to his trial.

It is strange to me that all of the figures of history that can be used to give an indication of the time of the writing of the epistles are completely absent.
Felix, Drusilla, Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, Annas, the high priest, Caiaphas, Herod, Gamaliel, Candace of Ethiopia and Claudius Caesar are all mentioned in Acts, yet in the Epistles, their names do not occur anywhere at all.

Now, it is even more bizarre that the persons of unknown history mentioned in Acts also appear in the Pauline Epistles. Aquilla, Priscilla, Barnabas, Timothy, Peter, Mark, James, John, Apollos, are all in the Epistles, and in fact, almost every name, in the Pauline Epistle have no history, expcept Pilate who is mentioned one single time in Timothy.

Therefore, the Pauline Epistles when examined independently give no indication, and is devoid, of any details with regards to the date of their writings. And if Mark's and Luke's Jesus are fictitious, then the date of the crucifixion and resurrection are also fictitious.

Now, if Paul got his knowledge of Jesus through revelation, ( not from man), and the epistles were written earlier than the synoptics, then this "Jesus" revealed a fictitious date and a fictitious event to Paul.

And Luke knows, in great detail, the history of this Jesus and Paul.