Tenorikuma

The problem I have with the epistles being composed as a set of forgeries is that they're so banal. Aside from the Eucharist passage and maybe some eschatological stuff, I don't see what the point of forging it would have been.

Duvduv

Why did they have to be forged? There is reason to argue they are composites of previously existing Tanakh-friendly texts having nothing to do with Christianity WITH Christian interpolations during the creative process of the new Roman religion. They were able to avoid starting everything completely from scratch.
I have pointed this out before in the cases of Titus and Romans.

Iskander

The epistles are not a forgery. Some take the view that the epistles are only a literary creation and not the writings of a man inspired by god.

The epistles are not banal for the many who are attracted to the idea of gods and all that goes with it: vedas, koran, sutras, torah...

aa5874

The epistles are most likely NOT forgeries but are products of FRAUD.

There is no actual evidence of any Hebrew of Hebrews called Paul who wrote Epistles to a Jesus cult all over the Roman Empire before c 70 CE.

The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the end of the 1st century based on the abundance of evidence. It is virtually impossible that Paul could have met the apostle Peter and James because they NEVER existed.

1. The Pauline writer knew of the supposed post-resurrection visits of Jesus--the story of the post-resurrection visits was composed AFTER c 70 CE.

2. The Pauline writer knew of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 where a character called James had a brother called Jesus the Anointed. Antiquities of the Jews was composed c 93 CE.

The very Church writers have admitted that Jesus had NO human brother called James.

3. The author of Acts, although claiming to have traveled and prayed with Saul/Paul all over the Roman Empire wrote NOTHING at all about the Pauline letters to Churches even after c 59-63 CE.

4. Aristides, in his Apology, did NOT acknowledge, any Pauline letters and did NOT acknowledge any Hebrew called Paul who preached the gospel after the resurrection.

5. When Justin Martyr wrote about his own conversion he did NOT mention a single word about Paul and his miraculous conversion to the Jesus cult.

In fact, Justin Martyr c 150 CE specifically identified that it was Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint, the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation by John that was fundamentally his source about Jesus Christ---nothing from a Pauline Church or a Pauline letter.

6.In the writing of Minucius Felix, c 200 CE, Octavius when he converted Caecillius to the Jesus cult did NOT employ the Pauline letters at all.

7. Arnobius, c 250 CE, when writing to the heathens about the Jesus cult of Christians, did NOT mention a single word about Paul, and the Pauline letters to the Heathens of the Roman Empire.

8. In the Muratorian Canon, an Apologetic source, it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John, or AFTER c 70 CE.

9. All sources that claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 70 CE are NOT credible, are forgeries, fraudulent or manipulated.

10. Letters to place Paul in the time of Seneca have been deduced to be forgeries.

11. The very Church claimed Paul died under Nero yet also claimed he was AWARE of gLuke which was composed LONG AFTER Nero was dead.

12. No Pauline letter has ever been recovered and dated to the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

13. Pauline letters have already been deduced to be manipulated or have multiple authors.

The abundance of evidence do suggest that the Pauline letters were composed after the mid-2nd century and are products of fraud. Effectively, the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

Duvduv

I am glad to be able to say that I find myself agreeing with the summary statement of AA.
The confusion that reigns in the setup of apologetics has so many holes in it. And if the writer known as Justin Martyr knew nothing of a Book of Acts either (the first commentaries were from John Chrysostom at the end of the 4th century), then of course we see how late these texts eventually got put together and emerged. Surely had this Justin lived in the same town and time as that fellow Marcion who had something of "Paul," then Justin would have known something about it.

Iskander

forgery

NOUN

the crime of copying money, documents, etc. in order to cheat people

[COUNTABLE] something, for example a document, piece of paper money, etc, that has been copied in order to cheat people
Experts are dismissing claims that the painting is a forgery.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ionary/forgery


The Epistles are not a forgery.
The Torah is not a forgery...

avi

me too.

However, his student/colleague Tatian, is said to have respected the letter to Titus. Do we know in which extant source of Tatian, this acknowledgement of Paul's epistle occurs? Is it not curious that Tatian apparently thought the other epistles unworthy of discussion? What is there about this letter to Titus that is so meritorious?

Sheshbazzar

The Tanka, Gospels, and Epistles are not accurate actual History.
The Tanka, Gospels, and Epistles are not factual reports.
The Tanka, Gospels, and Epistles purport to be something that they are not.

What is the word that you prefer for them Iskander?

Iskander

Epistles, Torah, Vedas, Sutras, Koran ...

jakejonesiv

The book ofActs had not been written in Justin's time.
Why does Justin Martyr betray no knowledge of Paul? He knows of Marcion, and he knows of Simon Magus, but not Paul. Why is that?
Perhaps Paul was known by another name...

Jake