kcdad

When you write "fiction"... do mean fiction like US History is fiction or like Peter Rabbit is fiction?

aa5874

This is what I mean.

The Jesus stories were written first anonymously possibly sometime after Antiquities of the Jews, or after 93 CE or thereabout, and were simply called "gospels or memoirs of the apostles" up to the time of Justin Martyr.

It would appear to me that Acts of the Apostles and the general epistles, includuing those of Paul, were subsequently introduced or fabricated after it was realized that there was no post-ascension history of Jesus believers.

This fabrication of the post-ascension history of Jesus and his believers, including the authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude appears to have been used to counter and contradict the Marcionites that appear not to have any history of people who believed in the phantom Jesus until Marcion himself introduced it.

kcdad

Your "facts" are themselves fiction... You suggest that "the Jesus stories" include anything ever written about the man and the movement... that is rather ridiculous.

Your argument is itself a fabrication... why should I give any more credence to your fabrication as anyone else's?

aa5874

And, do you intend to prove my facts are fiction?

What credible non-apologetic source do you have that can show that the stories of Jesus was written before the writings of Antiquities of the Jews?

You have verified my prediction that people can only say I am wrong but cannot ever prove that they are right.

Solo

The great majority of NT scholars accepts (more or less) the seven as authentitc. They range from mainstream theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx and Raymond E.Brown, to the liberal authors like Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack. Generally, the more liberal the writer, the greater the propensity to consider Collossians and Ephesians completely forged, and Phillipians to a degree. The mythicist G.A.Wells, following the radical German scholarship of the Tuebingen school, considered only the four "main letters" (die Hauptbriefe) - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, and Galatians as authentic material.

As for methodology, the authenticity is established by complex textual analysis, which examines the consistency of language used by the letters (i.e. frequency of words, stylistic preferences, and even scaling patterns). The content of the letters is also examined in what is known of the church organization in Paul's time CE40's-60's vis-a-vis the later church. E.g. the 'monarchic episocopate' alluded in the so-called pastorals (the Timothys and Titus) is generally deemed much later than Paul's time, or at any rate not fitting with Paul's other letters and the Acts. That is why they are almost umniversally set aside as Pauline pseudepigrapha.
There are theological considerations. 2 Thessalonians and Collossians have markedly different eschatological expectations than the authentic Paul (especially 1 Thess) .
Other analytical tools may be added: e.g. habits of thought, cognitive struction, attitudes. I hope to provide a convincing psychological portrait of Paul and show that because of his condition, he truly felt he was "overwhelmed" by the Christ in his body. He dissociates his ego from the "glory" that visits in an internally consistent manner, which controls the expression of Paul's dominance ploys. From the point of view of psychological authenticity, e.g. one sees a pronounced dissociative "personna" which is omnipresentin the genuine writings: see eg Gal 5:10 (I have confidence in the Lord that you take no other view than mine, and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment). Paul is small, weak, incompetent (depressed); the Lord (who takes over the manic Paul) is almighty. Note the absence of this ego-restraining schema in a similar venting of 1 Ti 20 ....Hymenaeus and Alexander; ...I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. It is of course possible that Paul forgot in the Timothy letter that not he but the Lord was the final judge of souls, but the probability of that would be very low, IMHO.

Hope, I am helping with your query.

Jiri

Useful summary of the 13 letters and their authenticity ranking: here.

kcdad

Wow. I was right about the arrogance. This isn't about you. I don't care what you believe. I don't feel any need to persuade, convince or coerce you into anything.

I wouldn't make the pretense that I was "provably" right. I wonder if you feel the same way? Can you prove that you are right?

aa5874

You have consistently claimed I am wrong and arrogant. Now stop wasting time and prove that you are right with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I have presented evidence, written statements of antiquity, to show that the post-ascension history of Paul was not known by Justin Martyr and that the author only mentioned the gospels called memoirs of the apostles.

I have pointed out to you that Acts of the Apostles is a book of fiction, the conversion of Saul/Paul to Jesus Christ is a total implausible event where Saul/Paul blinded to reality spoke to Jesus from a mythical place called heaven and then later received his sight when someone just prayed.

Also, in Acts, Saul/Paul was converted after Peter received the gifts of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost when he spoke supposedly fluently in tongues, after Peter supposedly converted thousands to Jesus, and after Saul/Paul himself had persecuted Jesus believers.

But, there was no Jesus of the NT, Peter did convert thousands of people to Jesus and the conversion of Saul/Paul was fiction.

The real Paul was a fiction writer in collusion with the author of Acts, another fiction writer, and the Roman Church to fabricate a fraudulent post-ascension of Jesus believers.

The real Paul absolutely was aware of the gospel stories.

aa5874

But, you have not presented any evidence or information to show that if some letters appear to be written by the same person that the person was Paul and wrote in th first century.

Authentication is not really complex. All is needed is a verified writing of Paul and then to compare other unknown or questioned writings.

There is no known authentic writing of Paul. Some writings are accepted but none have been confirmed.

The earliest writings of the Pauline letters are, I think, P46 and this is dated no earlier than the third century using paleographic dating method.

Solo

Can you do me a fervour and read what spamandham asked me to do ?


Perhaps, the issues would have been simple if Paul had his letters notarized for authenticity, but even then I can see you arguing the certificates are fake because Paul did not exist because the certificates are fake.

Confirmed ? Whatever are you talking about ? What does "confirmed" mean in the academic community ?


You mean the earliest physical manuscripts of his letters ? But that does not change much on anything, does it now ? You still have to deal with Marcion's Apostolikon which was known in Rome before his excommunication in 144 CE.

Jiri

spamandham

This is always going to be the case when evidence is scant. Some ideas are going to fail because they are unsupportable, but that doesn't mean other ideas will succeed. The ones that can't be disproven, are simply put into the 'possible' category.