aa5874

Well, I will demonstrate that you do not know what are talking about,

The date of writing of the gospels, the order of authorship, the names of the authors as given by the church writers have been found to be erroneous. The events in the gospels with respect to Jesus Peter and Paul as presented by the church writers have been found to be fiction.

The church writers are fiction writers, including Tertullian.

The information about Marcion that he used Luke comes from the very sources who wrote fiction about the very God/man they worshipped, that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, was raised on the day and floated through the clouds.

I cannot accept that you are cherry-picking information that appears plausble and regard as historical from the very the sources that wrote fiction and presented implausible events as historical facts.

You must prove that Paul existed and wrote letters in the 1st century before the death of NERO whether by maths or stats.

Your very first priority is to show that Paul did exist in the 1st century. You have never even done that. You must do so immediately.


So, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius made the same elemental mistake.The fiction writers made a lot of mistakes.

But, Justin Matyrr did not. He made no mistake. He wrote nothing at all about Paul but he wrote about the gospels called memoirs of the apostles..

delusional

And how do you prove they were "fiction writers"? Well in your case it is usually by presupposing that they were fiction writers. In fact anything which doesn't support your case appears to automatically become "fiction". There really is no point in trying to conduct an argument with somebody as intellectually dishonest as you.

Dishonest and arrogant. You have got a big enough ego to think you can single handedly overturn 200 years worth of scholarship, and yet that supersized ego is apparently too fragile to risk putting its ideas up for criticism by the real experts in the field.

I'm finished.

aa5874

Let's be honest, fiction is very easily identified. You do not have to be a biblical scholar, arrogant or a rocket scientist to realise that Jesus of the NT was fiction.

On what basis are you making the false claim that I am intellectually dishonest[/b] because I show that the church writers are fiction writers?

Once it is admitted that Jesus of the NT was fiction, then the entire NT becomes a book of fiction since the NT is about the life of Jesus on earth and the post-ascension history of the followers including Paul whose conversion is fundamentally fictitious.

Why do you think a person is dishonest if they disagree with you and show that your arguments are all absurd?

I am not finished yet, honestly.

kcdad

The problem is simple. You "realise" that Jesus was fiction... Do you realize how unreasonable that statement is?

If he WAS fiction than he still IS... but you are totally wrapped up in dismissing The Bible, not history or reality that you don't see that. If he WAS fiction, then he isn't now?

Apparently you also right about not having to be a rocket scientist, biblical scholar or arrogant to realize this because many of those people, and perhaps the vast majority of them would disagree with you. So, in fact, it would be better not to be a biblical (or any kind of ) scholar, a rocket ( or any kind of ) scientist or arrogant... although you do seem rather arrogant yourself.

aa5874

But you are not dealing with the issue at hand. You have already told me I am arrogant and wrong. You seem to have bottomed out.

Now, you must proceed or perhaps go back to the original problem.

It is my view that Paul was a fiction writer since the first five books about Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul are fiction.

It was not possible or realsitic for the writer called Paul to have independently witnessed the very same fiction called Jesus in a resurrected state as written about in the Gospels where Jesus fictitiously rose from the dead after three days.
In order for the writer Paul to have gotten his chronology in harmony he must have known the Jesus story.

It may seem plausible that Paul got revelations from Jesus through some kind of hallucinations but this would imply that even the skeptics and the pagans of the Roman Empire were hallucinating that Paul was truthful at the exact moment Paul hallucinated.

Paul was absolutely aware of the gospels and wrote fiction about himself in the letters in his own name.

kcdad

I am glad you have at least admitted the problem...
"It is my view..."

There is nothing to support that view... no "sensation to have created that perception" other than the workings of your mind.

"since the first five books..." This conclusion along many others of yours are not facts but opinions stated as facts. It is not very reasonable to make conclusions based on opinions. Normally conclusions (which are themselves opinions) are based upon experience or facts... not other opinions... even if they are other people's opinions.

bacht

But isn't the traditional NT story based only on the opinions of the church fathers, which is uncorroborated by non-christian observers? Surely you agree that there was an agenda being endorsed by these early catholics based on a particular reading of 1st C history. How can we read the canonical story at face value if the writers were biased?

kcdad

You can't. I wouldn't suggest that anyone do.

Of course the writers were biased... ALL writers are biased. That is why the Japanese say "If you believe everything you read, you better not read."

aa5874

Are you implying that you do not use your mind at all?

I don't know how your mind works, but when I identify fiction in the first five books of the NT and can also do the same in the letters with the name Paul, I must declare that the NT is a book of fiction until further evidence can be found.

Your mind may not be working properly, my opnions are based on the written statements found in the NT and the church writings.

After you read your post you must understand that I don't really think too much at all of your opinion.

I only make my position clear.

Paul was a fiction writer.

The Pauline letters are backdated fiction.
The author of the Pauline letters wrote after Justin Martyr and knew the gospel, the gospel stories and using the information fabricated a post-ascension fraudulent history of Jesus believers sponsored by and in collusion with the Roman Church.

kcdad

You are qualifying your absolute statements again... at least that is a beginning.

there you go with blanket absolute statement again... did you forget what you just wrote?
Your facts are your opinion... state them as such or people will think you are making factual statements.