aa5874

1. Letters between Seneca and Paul have been deduced to be forgeries. See the Paul/Seneca letters

2. Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Paul, his supposed letters, his Gospel and his churches. See writings of Justian Martyr and Aristides

3. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written. See writings attributed to Eusebius and Origen

4. Paul claimed he was a Witness of the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor 15.

5. Apologetic sources claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER "Revelation" was composed. See the Muratorian Canon

6. No NT maniscript has been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE. See the List of Dated NT Manuscripts.

7. The author of the short-ending gMark did NOT USE any supposed details found in the Pauline writings.

8. In the short ending Mark NO-one was told Jesus was resurrected but OVER 500 people was visited by Jesus in the Pauline writings.

9. Philo wrote NOTHING of Paul or a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

10. Josephus wrote NOTHING of Paul or a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

11. Apologetic sources which mentioned Paul are forgeries or questionable.

12. Clement of Rome is a fictitious character but it is claimed he wrote about Paul.

13. The conversion of Paul in Acts is Fiction.

This is just the TIP of the Iceburg. The evidence is overwhelming that the Pauline writers are LIARS.

Toto

Much later forgeries. Not relevant.

Why would you expect them to write about a different faction of the church?

But these sources claim that Acts was written very early.

He could have had these visions at any time.

?? The Muratorian Canon is generally dated to the fourth century. Why is it relevant?

No original manuscripts from that era have survived. That doesn't show when the later copies were written.

So?
The 500 people in 1 Corinthians are probably a later interpolation.

Philo died about 50 CE, before the earliest estimate of a date for the letters of Paul.

Why would Josephus notice Paul?

All apologetic sources are questionable.

That doesn't prove that Paul was fictional.

We know it is fictional because it is at such a variance with the letters.

Everything you say may be true, and it may be true that the Pauline letters really were written after 70 CE, but that conclusion does not follow from what you have written.

Duvduv

In such a context one would want to know why the author of Galatians would advocate for an exclusivist gospel revelation for Paul if the same author knew about any of the four written gospels.

aa5874

What a big joke. You come Empty-handed to the discussion and already PRESUME you know when the Pauline letters were written WITHOUT a shred of evidence.

Please state the ACTUAL DATED evidence, by Paleography or C 14, for the Pauline letters and the Seneca/Paul letters???

Toto, why do you think the Pauline letters were written BEFORE C 70 CE when Paul NEVER SAID SO????

Who told you Paul wrote letters BEFORE c 70 CE???? Eusebius??? Irenaeus???

Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul as one of the Early Apostles and that he preached the Gospels to the Gentiles.

If Paul was a LIAR then that is PRECISELY what I would expect--No acknowledgment of Paul's as an evangelist.


That is PRECISELY what I would expext if Pauline writings are a Pack of lies. There would be MASSIVE holes. At one time they claim Paul died under Nero and then still claim he was ALIVE after gLuke was written.

One or both statements are LIES.

You ought to know that Toto.

Toto, be very careful with what you say. You very well know Paul claimed he would be a FALSE WITNESS if Jesus did NOT resurrect.

Why don't you even accept what Paul wrote???

Because you don't want to ADMIT Paul was a LIAR when he Testified that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Toto Why is it relevant for you to argue 1600 later years that Paul wrote before c 70 CE????

21 st century TOTO is relevant but the 4th century Muratorian Canon is NOT??
Toto, you are NOT making much sense. You very well know the the Pauline writings may have been composed in the 3rd century based on Paleography.

Josephus wrote about Alexander the great in Antiquities of the Jews and you very well do not think his claims about Alexander are irrelevant.

It is IMPERATIVE that we learn what sources of antiquity stated about Paul.
Why do you PRESUME that there are originals to be found from the 1st century??? Who told you that there are Originals from the 1st century???

IRENAEUS and EUSEBIUS???

Remarkably if Pauline writings were a Pack of Lies then we would NOT find any 1 st century Pauline originals and that is PRECISELY what has happened.

So, you ask???? This is PRECISELY what I EXPECT if Paul LIED.NO Canonised author would use details from the Pauline writings because he LIED about his ACTIVITIES.
No, No, No!!! Your PRESUMPTIONS are worthless. The OVER 500 people that Witnessed the resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul ARE OVER 500 Massive LIES Because there is NO Pauline writings WITHOUT 1 Cor 15. and dated to the 1st century.

Philo was a contemporary of KING ARETAS, and Pontius Pilate and Paul claimed he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus during the reign of Aretas and it is claimed the WELL -KNOWN Jesus Christ was crucified during the time of Pilate

Philo claimed that the Jews did NOT worship men as Gods which was Corroborated by the Emperor Gaius.,

Up to the time of Pihilo it was NOT claimed Jews worshiped men as Gods and that Jesus ABOLISHE the LAW

This is expected when Paul was a LIAR.


Why would Josephus notice Jesus Son of Ananus??

Why would Josephus notice a mad man??

Paul was supposed to be a PHARISEE like Josephus.

Paul was supposed to be a Persecutor of Jews who worshiped a man as a God.

Paul was supposed to have claimed that Jesus was the Christ of the Jews, the Son of God and Unuversal Savior by his resurrection.

Paul was supposed to have claimed Jesus was the END of the Law

Paul was BEATEN by the Jews Multiple times.

Why would Josephus notice Jesus Son of Ananus and NOT Paul???


This is EXPECTED when Paul LIED aout his Activities

But not all LIED and claimed they WITNESSED A RESURRECTED Jesus. The Pauline writer may be the ONLY author of the Canon who personally LIED when he claimed that he TESTIFIED that God raised Jesus from the dead and that he would be a FALSE Witness ifJesus did not rise.

Paul was a FALSE WITNESS, A LIAR--Jesus did NOT resurrect whether or not he lived. Paul is an ABSOLUTE LIAR.

Do you understand that the PREPONDERANCE of evidence suggests the Pauline writings are a Pack of Lies???

The character called Paul is associated with Fiction, Fraud and Forgeries. If Paul lied about his Activities I would EXPECT that any writer who mentioned those Activities to have provided Bogus information.

Clement of Rome appears to corroborate Paul but he NEVER did exist this suggest that the Pauline writings are a Pack of LIES.

We already know Paul was a false witness.

No, No, NO. We know it is fiction by EMPIRICISM. Whether or not the conversion in Acts is at variance with the letters it is still FICTION.

Toto you don't make much sense. You cannot show that your conclusion is valid or reasonable. You presented NOTHING, Established Nothing, and seemed to have NO idea how to present a proper argument.

Now, Toto what is YOUR evidence, your sources for your conclusion that the Pauline writings were composed BEFORE c 70 CE.???

STATE YOUR PROOF??? I do NOT accept presumptions. Present your argument. You have all the Scholarly Advantage. You know the Methodologies for an early Paul.

You asked me for PROOF so I expect that you HAVE PROOF for an early Paul.

You can WIN the argument if you have PROOF and Evidence

You will NOT respond. You will go into hiding.

angelo

aa, the consensus is that the Pauline writings are the very first christian writings about the myth known as Jesus Christ. That's the reason this author knew nothing about a virgin birth, about a baptism by John the Baptist, or anything about the birth place, these myths were added later as the tale evolved. Your version throws all this scholarship in the dustbin. You may be correct and all the others wrong, but one must be correct, not both. You add some intrigue into the story.

tanya

In other words, where is the evidence to support the hypothesis that "Paul" wrote in 2nd century, or later?

I am willing to accept on faith, the idea that these letters were forged. When, I have no idea. How do we know that they were forged, again, I have no idea, but I do accept the premise, much as I accept magnetic field theory, without genuinely comprehending Maxwell's equations.

But, even so, given the "fact" of their forgery, why is this datum deemed "not relevant" to an argument regarding a potential date for the very first epistle written by "Paul", subsequent to Seneca's departure from planet Earth? We do not know the date of Paul's writings. We do not know the date of the forgery. The point, then, it seems to me, is that the forgery cannot be used to date Paul's writings. The claim that Paul wrote in the first century, based in part, upon the existence of forged letters, is discredited, in my opinion. This particular bit of evidence, accordingly, then, is relevant, because that explanation for a first century date of authorship, has been refuted.

I do not find fault with your argument here, but would add that there are also "apologetic sources", like Clement of Rome, living at the beginning of the second century, CE, who did identify Paul. Perhaps our only extant manuscripts of Clement of Rome are suspect?

This particular idea, absence of mention, is also difficult to argue, in my opinion. Does failure to mention Paul, mean that Paul's writings did not exist, or simply that one or two figures in ancient times, had not yet encountered those writings, or did possess them, but found them wanting in some manner, and therefore ignored them, much the same way that certain forum members ignore other forum member's writings?

Moreover, I would invoke, as I had, in another thread, Epiphanius' inclusion of Paul with the heretical group called Nazoreans. Though he mentioned this in passing, as a sort of farce, it seems pertinent, to me, because the Nazoreans were thought of as related to Peter, not Paul. Why mention Paul's presumptive membership in an heretical group, in the Panarion, if it were irrelevant? Why wouldn't Epiphanius simply ignore the accusation, instead of repeating it?

So, on the one hand, aa5874 invokes two 2nd century authors who failed to identify Paul's epistles, whereas, I point to a 4th century author, Epiphanius, who did mention Paul, the apostle, but in a semi-derogatory fashion, by linking him, even if in jest, with an heretical sect--a sect which, as far as I know, did not exist during the first century CE. The fact that Paul is "linked" in this way, by Epiphanius, to a second century sect, suggests to me, if no one else, that "Paul" was alive and well, in the second century, CE. One can easily discredit my argument, by simply demonstrating that the Nazoreans were already in existence in the mid first century, CE, when "Paul", the apostle, was supposedly executed by beheading in Rome, in 68CE. Absent evidence of the existence of that specific sect, the Nazoreans, prior to 68CE, I will continue to argue that the evidence from Panarion, supports aa5874's hypothesis.

Πράξεις ἀποστόλων, so far as I am aware, was first mentioned by Irenaeus, late second century.

Does not Bart Ehrman claim that the author of Acts did not have access to Paul's letters? How do we ascertain whether the author of Acts, did not have access to the epistles, because the epistles had not yet been composed, or whether he/she did possess the epistles, but deemed them insignificant? How do we know whether or not Paul's letters had been composed early, but, remained hidden in obscure churches, in only single manuscripts, until much later, when they were copied and widely distributed?

In my view, some of aa5874's statements are both logical, credible, and reasonable. What strikes me as unreasonable, is a claim that Paul wrote in the first century. Where's the evidence? I am not writing to dispute the absence of evidence in Josephus, I am asking for affirmation of the existence of any epistle written by Paul, before the mid second century. As far as I am aware, the earliest document, in our possession, unequivocally reproducing one or more of these epistles, is P46, created in late second or early third century. The writings of Irenaeus, non-extant in the original Greek, except in fragments, composed about 185 CE, represent the earliest apologetic source for Paul's epistles.

Even if every one of aa5874's numerous arguments, were demonstrated to be logically incorrect, that fact would not change the problem: WHERE'S the evidence for a first century date of composition of Paul's epistles? There's no evidence for Paul's writings in the four gospels....That fact alone, should trigger some concern. (Yes, I know, Jiri claims, contrarily, that the gospels do contain veiled reference to Paul's epistles.) I am very unpersuaded by those arguments.

Sheshbazzar

There is some weird shit going on with all of those NT and 'Early Christian' writings. Ain't nothing what it appears to be.
Can't trust a single damn thing they say, no way, no how.

Duvduv

From the context of the use of the term "gospel" it appears that it has two different meanings. In the four canonical gospels (without the Great Commissions) it merely appears to mean a story, or the story of the hero, the holy man, the messiah. In the context of the way it is used in the epistles the term gospel indicates a doctrine, i.e. the doctrine or teaching of salvation in the Christ as expressed in 2 Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1.

Debate always rages as to whether the Pauline author of the epistles knew about the canonical gospel(s). His description of his own teaching, the only true gospel, would seem to preclude his acceptance of any gospel story.

This would only be true IF there were complete written gospel stories were considered "gospels." But if the epistles were written BEFORE any canonical gospels were written, including GMark, when there were merely bits and pieces of still undeveloped stories about the Christ floating around then added to the epistles, then it can be argued that the writer (or interpolater or composite-writer) knew of these bits and pieces which were not known as gospels at all, a term reserved exclusively for a set of teachings or doctrines. Indeed, from this perspective the canonical gospels (or apocryphal ones for that matter) would not actually be gospels at all.

Of course whenever the Great Commission element was added, it stands in stark contradiction to the job assigned to Saul/Paul by the risen Christ to have the one-man operation of preaching to the gentiles compared with the directives indicated in Mark 16:16, and Matthew 28:19 and very differently in Luke 2:27.

Toto

The "letters" between Seneca and Paul are universally considered to be forged because the style of writing does not match the other, earlier letters of Paul, and are not evidence for or against anything regarding either Paul or Seneca. They are only evidence that some later Christians wanted to connect Paul to Seneca.


Why trust Epiphanius as to events in the first or second century?


We don't know any of this. Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether the author of Acts did not have copies of Paul's letters, or whether he had copies and intended to refute them and counteract them. You can construct various hypotheses and decide for yourself which explanation is the most satisfactory. There is an old thread in the archives where a Christian apologist argued that the author of Acts did not know of the letters, but that there were so many common points that the two sources were independent verification of the events. I argued there that the author of Acts must have known of the letters, and incorporated various elements in order to counter Paul or Marcion. Some of the Dutch Radicals have argued that parts of the Pauline letters were written to counter the version of history in Acts. It might be that both Acts and the letters were fluid compositions that did not take their final form until late in the second century.

There is no hard evidence. You will look in vain. But you will need to construct a theory of Christian origins that can explain the contradictions and disparities in the NT.

sotto voce

Or, they are evidence that some antichrists wanted to do so.

It's scholarly to use the word 'authors'.