spin

Pseudepigrapha -- "false writing..."

(pseudo-pigrapha -- "false porcine rapper" or "false porcine wrapper"?)


spin

aa5874

But, it is also known that even in the Pauline letters that "Pauls" were created. There may be over seven different "Pauls" used to fabricate the Pauline corpus.

In Acts, Paul was aware of the Gospels and in the Pauline letters Paul had a similar awareness.

It cannot be ignored or overlooked that the Church claimed Paul was familiar with the Gospel of Luke and that Paul quoted passages found only in gLuke and made references to characters and events found only in the Gospel story.

The Church have presented the canonised Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline corpus as authentic , genuine and sacred scripture. To claim Saul/Paul in Acts is bogus and that some other Paul is the real Paul in the corpus, when some of those Pauls are bogus, is just absolute absurdity.

All the Pauls in the NT are fiction until evidence to support their true history can be found.

This Eusebius in "Church History" 17.6.2 And now look at "Church History" 3.4.7-8 The Church presented the Paul in Acts and the Paul in the Pauline letters as absolutely aware of the Gospel story.


The point is that it matters not whether Paul is fiction or not but that people do not makes false, erroneous and mis-leading claims about the Paul in Acts and the Pauls in the Pauline corpus.

It is absolutely true that the Church presented Paul as totally aware of the Gospel story. There is no claim by the Church that Paul was the first to write about Jesus. And in addition, the character Paul himself did not ever place himself first with respect to the Gospel story.

It is false to claim that Homer's Achilles was not the offspring of sea-goddesss even though the story is about a myth.

So, too it is false to claim Paul of the NT wrote before the authors of the Gospels and were not aware of their story.

Based on all the information that I have gathered so far, the writer called Paul was a backdated fiction writer who wrote after the writings of Justin Martyr fully aware of the Gospel story under the authority of the Roman Church.

Toto

Discussion of Aretas and Damascus split

aa5874

It is my position that the Pauline writer or writers were after, and were absolutely aware of the Gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 15. 3-4, the writer called Paul claimed he received certain information about Jesus Christ which was according to the “scriptures”, but up on research of the OT,no such passages or information can be found anywhere at all.

1 Corinthians 15.31. No character called Jesus Christ died for the sins of Jews and Gentiles in the OT.

In the OT, the Jews followed the Mosaic Laws for remission of sins.

However, there are scriptures in the NT where it is claimed Jesus died for sins of Jews and Gentiles.

Paul must have been making reference to scriptures in the NT.

The Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

1 Corinthians 15.4Again, there is no character called Jesus Christ who died, was buried and rose again in the OT scriptures. These events about Jesus Christ are found in the NT scriptures.

Paul must have been making reference to NT scriptures.

The Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Doug Shaver

In that case, we must infer that Paul had a way of interpreting the scriptures that was different from your way of interpreting the scriptures.

Either that, or we must infer that your way is the only way.

Between the two possibilities, it seems to me that the one presupposing the possibility that there are several ways in which the scriptures can be interpreted is by far the more plausible.

aa5874

Except for direct evidence, or if a person is not an eyewitness, then every bit of information or evidence about a supposed event can be interpreted or appear to help one side or the other.

But, in order to maintain a position or come to a conclusion it is just necessary to show that there is information or evidence to support such a position.

The Pauline writer claimed he received revelations of the activities of Jesus Christ on earth before he supposedly ascended to heaven, this can hardly be true.

It is more likely that the writer got his information from some earthly source.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day according to scriptures, but there is no scripture in the OT that mentions Jesus Christ with respect to the remission of sins, only the Mosaic laws.

However, in the NT scriptures Jesus Christ in mentioned exactly as described by the Pauline writer.

The Pauline writer was aware of the NT scriptures.

He was aware of some written source, the scriptures.

The Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke, NT scriptures.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Doug Shaver

No, the church has never claimed any such thing. It could not. The church has always claimed that Luke wrote his gospel sometime after Paul died.

Anywhere, you're being incoherent here. Have have repeatedly intimated that nothing the church has ever said should be believed. So, if the church has been saying all this time that Paul knew of Luke's gospel, you contradict yourself if you say we should believe that Paul knew of Luke's gospel.

But then, this is not by a long shot the first time you have contradicted yourself.

aa5874

The Church made no claim that Luke wrote his gospel sometime after Paul died. Your statement is just not true. And further, you cannot ever supply the source for your blatant erroneous statement.

Look at Church History 3.4.8 by Eusebius. And look at "De Viris Illusribus 7 by Jerome
The position of the Church is that Paul was absolutely aware of gLuke.

You are not making sense. You want to make stuff up about the Church and then imagine it is true or plausible.

You must truthfully present what is written in the records of antiquity. The Church records indicate that their position was that Paul was absolutely aware of gLuke.

Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess and that is a truthful representation of Homers'Achilles although Achilles is considered to be a mythical character.

If you cannot provide any source of antiquity to show that Paul was not aware of the Gospels, then you are simply wasting time.

Let's get some sources of antiquity to contradict my position.

My position is solid.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and wrote after the writings of Justin Martyr.

Doug Shaver

Your opinion as to what I must do is about as relevant as Rush Limbaugh's.

arnoldo

M.M. MANGASAIRIAN, in his book entitled, The Truth About Jesus Is He A Myth? argues that Paul was not aware of the written gospel. Ironically, just as you argue that Justin's silence on mentioning any of Paul's writings is "proof" that Paul wrote after Justin; Mangasirian argues that Paul's silence towards events in the written gospels signifies that Paul's writings predated the gospels.