Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
I forgot to mention that "good old Clement" in 1Clement did paraphrase a lot of material found in "to the Hebrews" epistle, sometimes verse by verse.

aa5874

You must know that people here do NOT accept the Pauline writings as historically and chronologically credible so your Presumptions are completely useless.

Everyone who reads the Pauline writings understand what he wrote but people here are ASKING for corroborative NON-Apologetic sources for Paul.

Who saw Paul? Who heard Paul? Only people in the Bible????

Nobody outside the Bible saw Paul!!!!

Nobody outside the Bible heard Paul!!!

Paul did NOT see Jesus on earth!!!

Paul did NOT hear Jesus on earth!!!

Paul is UNKNOWN.

Jesus is UNKNOWN.

I already have a Bible and I can read what is in the Pauline letters.

Paul and Jesus are MYTH characters until you can get some corroborative non-apologetic evidence.

For example, Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of man but of Jesus who was RAISED from the dead.

That must be a Myth Fable.

Bernard Muller

What do you expect? It was not modern times. No masses of written stuff such as newspapers, tweet, facebook, blogs. No video, no TV, nothing besides a few manuscripts, most of them disappeared with time. Paul was just small fry trying to start a sect. And I am quite sure there are people now starting sects in your country and you do not know nothing about, even with all the media and communication we have.

How do you know that? Were you there? Did you inquire on the spot? Don't you think that can be said of many people who were living in antiquity, when nobody is reported to have seen them?
Who saw and heard Josephus outside the ones mentioned in his works? Nobody else! Is it realistic?

Almost everybody think that, except maybe a very few. It's no news. Even if I did not see someone, that does not mean he/she did not exist.

What's the connection? Someone can preach Pauline stuff and still be a very human earthly living person, now and then.

aa5874

How in the world could Paul be a small fry and was supposedly travelling all over the Roman Empire and preaching Christ crucified in Major Cities like Rome?

In Acts of the Apostles, Paul supposedly did TWO TOURS of the Roman Empire yet NOT one single non-apologetic source mentioned him.

Do you even understand that Paul's Revealed Gospel was Unprecedented?

A Jew and a Pharisee supposedly told people in the Roman Empire that Jesus was a Sacrifice that abolished Jewish Laws for atonement of Sins and that Jesus of the seed of David was Lord and had a name above every name on earth and that every knee should BOW to the name of the Resurrected Jesus.

Paul in the NT was huge.

But NOT one non-apologetic source even mentioned the Pauline Jesus.

And far worse, even apologetic sources do NOT even say a word about Paul.

Unless you can find some non-apologetic evidence for Paul then I MUST consider the Pauline writings as Myth Fables

How do you know the Pauline writings are credible? Were you there? Did you inquire on the spot???

So, if their is NO proof that any body existed why are you trying to make me believe Paul existed.

Josephus did NOT exist. So what ???

Josephus did exist??? So what???

Just go find some evidence for Paul!!!

Tell me who see people that don't exist?? Paul did NOT EXIST and nobody saw or heard from him. If you find some evidence to contradict me then I may change my position.

Now, just tell me the names of the people of antiquity that existed of whom no-one of antiquity heard or saw???

What!!! You don't even know that Myths can be described as human.

Adam and EVE were the FIRST Mythological characters in the Bible and had two MYTH Sons called Cain and Abel.

Please read your Bible.

Paul is NO different. He was INVENTED for Religion.

Bernard Muller

Not all over the Roman empire. Paul's turf was around the Aegean sea, and a bit of Galatia. Not that big. And he was not the only one to spread some Christian gospel there also. He had to compete with quite a few, sometimes not well at all. Paul preaching in Rome is strictly legendary.

No he did not. Only the tour of the Aegean sea. That was his domain when he was on his own, with helpers: a few cities in Macedonia, Corinth and Ephesus. Anyway, it does not matter where Paul went, because very few texts survived from that period (and few were generated in the first place, as compare with nowadays). The same goes for others, like Josephus. We do not have any external evidence about him except from later Christian apologetic sources.

That was not so unprecedented. Other preachers were pretending to have seen Christ, likely the same way as Paul let believe others. Pagans also were revealed stuff from their gods through oracles in certain places like Delphi. And then, I do not see why something new would not be believed by some. Look at scientology.

So what? People can believe anything. Look at Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists and many US Christians with their young earth and creation in seven days.

Because Christianity eventually developed along Pauline lines and the later Church made him huge.

I covered that already.

I gave you a list of texts which mention Paul or/and his epistles in the first & second century. I'll add up, despite you newest discovery, Irenaeus.

Bernard Muller

I do not have to be there. I just look at the writings (they are here now, even if Paul is not), study them in a secular way, notice some irregularities on mundane stuff, reconstruct and, with some data from Acts, history jumps at you and makes a lot of sense. I do not care much about religious stuff. For the Corinthians letters, I look at travels plan, relationship of Paul with his converts, collection status, Paul's mood. I also see places where Paul tried to correct himself from either discussion going nowhere or from a booboo. And of course interpolations, some to fill critical big lack, others for "homogenisation", others for theological updating.
A bit like a puzzle. Many can say, it cannot be done, it's all crap, but if someone spend a lot of time with an open mind, after all, the puzzle can be solved.
Good night

aa5874

Where do you get your stories from?? I need the source of antiquity that support you. Too often people here INVENT their own story from their imagination and become quite angry when their Myth Fables are rejected.

If you have NO sources then don't tell me what you imagine.

No he did not. Only the tour of the Aegean sea. That was his domain when he was on his own, with helpers: a few cities in Macedonia, Corinth and Ephesus. Anyway, it does not matter where Paul went, because very few texts survived from that period (and few were generated in the first place, as compare with nowadays). The same goes for others, like Josephus. We do not have any external evidence about him except from later Christian apologetic sources.

When did these POST-Resurrection visits occur?? When did other people have POST-resurrection visits?

This is NOT Sunday School. If you have NO evidence for your Myth Fables about Paul then I will REJECT you.

I do NOT post here just to accept Myth Fables of Paul and Jesus. I need sources, evidence, written statements from non-apologetic sources. I am tired of your inventions about Paul.

When did Paul do anything in the NT?

No!! No!!! Paul was huge in the Bible but outside the Bible we cant find him. Paul was a BIBLE MYTH.

You can't cover the Pauline Jesus--NOTHING TO COVER--The Pauline Jesus is a Canonised Ghost.,

You have NOT provided the SUPPORTING evidence from NON-APOLOGETIC sources that any of those texts were written as you stated.

I have ZERO use for Presumptions.

My investigation has shown that ALL writings that mentioned the name Paul are historically and chronologically bogus.

This is the 21st century and I am dealing with LOGICS and Evidence.

Justin Martyr, the Short-Ending gMark, Against Heresies 2.22, Aristides, Tatian and Arnobius is evidence AGAINST an early Paul.

Bernard Muller

The stories come, first, from Paul's letters, and sometimes from Acts. Nothing invented. All drawn from primary evidence after analysis of these texts in order to sort out the crap, interpolations, forgeries and later editing.
May I ask you: where did you get Paul was huge in his days and tour the whole Roman empire? I think you are the one imagining things.
I can see your point. First you assume Paul was like a Roman emperor, huge and touring the empire. Then, of course, we would expect external evidence. But there is none, so the deduction is he did not exist.
I did not say they had them (I do not believe in any resurrection), but they were claiming they saw Jesus, most likely the heavenly kind. Not invented, it is in the Corinthians letters. You, as I, do not want to believe in lies, but we have to accept the facts that people can lie and they do. What they claim is bogus, but the fact they claim something is not necessarily bogus.
What do you mean? The NT describes many actions by Paul, true or not.

aa5874

1. In the Pauline writings, the author did NOT ever claim to be first to preach the Faith. See Galatians 1.

2. In the Pauline writings, the author claimed he was LAST to be visited by the Post-resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

3. In the Pauline writings, the author claimed he RECEIVED the Jesus story from WRITTEN sources. See 1 Cor.15.

4. In the Pauline writings, the author claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith he now preached. See Galatins 1

All claims that Paul was first to preach the gospel or first started the Jesus cult are INVENTIONS and are NOT supported by the Abundance of evidence from antiquity.
Paul was HUGE in the NT but outside the NT he cannot be found at all in the 1st century by non-apologetic sources.

We have 17 writings under the name of Paul and the author of Acts claimed Paul traveled ALL over the Roman Empire preaching Christ crucified.

You seem to have NO idea of the written statements from apologetic sources about Paul.
In 1 Cor.15, the Pauline writer mentioned SIX Post-Resurrection Visits of his Jesus. They are NOT visions--Paul is claiming to be a WITNESS, like the 500 people, of a LIVING Jesus who revealed some kind of Gospel to him.

You ought to know that Paul is NOT CLAIMING HE merely dreams about Jesus while he was sleeping or day-dreaming.

Well, what are you really arguing about when you don't know or can establish if Paul wrote in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century??

I place the Pauline writings NO earlier than the end of the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr, Aristides, "Against Heresies 2.22, Tatian, Munuicis Felix, and Celsus.

Bernard Muller

Where does that come from? That's not what we discussed. Anyway, your brilliant deductions would diminish quite a lot of your huge Paul.
For the record, I deducted 1Cor15:3-11 is an interpolation:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc
That would take care of your points 2 & 3. For 1 & 4, I agree with you. But that means you accept stuff from the NT as true.

So now you believe parts of Acts as true! Travel all over the Roman empire for preaching: evidence please. Where did you find he went to Spain, France/Gaul, North Africa, Egypt.

What statements are you talking about? Evidence please
Do you believe in everything from apologetic sources?

Definitively 1st century.

You are using an argument from silence and you do not want to consider positive evidence from other Christian texts (1st & 2nd century), even more numerous than the ones in your list, which acknowledge the existence of Paul. I am not going back on why those authors from your list did not mention Paul. I did that already.
I think it is rather humorous you trust some Christian apologists to give you information about (no)Paul (through silence!) (and you keep them as 2nd century (or pre-Paul!)). But you do not trust other Christian apologists about (yes)Paul (and you move them beyond the second century (or post-Paul)).
Did you notice I never mentioned your web name (but I did for Duvduv). Are you going to deduct I think you do not exist?
Maybe you should try to make a reconstruction from your theory about very late Pauline Corpus and see how it fits with the rest of Christian texts, including the ones mentioning Paul. I'll bet you are going to experience big difficulties, and propose far-fetched solutions to get out of them.
It's easy to dream up some quick theory encompassing a small part about the beginning of Christianity. But if you do not do a complete comprehensive reconstruction about it, then we will never know if the theory can fit with the whole. Or if the reconstruction in which the theory fits makes any sense.