Duvduv

So the author called Irenaeus didn't really know anything about when Jesus ministered from GLuke despite claiming to know four gospels??

outhouse

LOL remember, the red ink gives him credibility ><


I think its hillarious because the gospels were in a different circle and didnt use paul, means paul is a obvious fake :deadhorse:

aa5874

My house is NOT made of "glass". It is made from the evidence, the written statements, and sources of antiquity.

I CAPITALIZE the FACTS so that everyone can see THEM.

People don't want to see the FACTS??? Only rhetoric???

It must be HIGHLIGHTED that "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a MASSIVE forgery.

It must be HIGHLIGHTED that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a MASSIVE forgery.

It must be HIGHLIGHTED the letter of Clement of Rome to Corinthians is a Massive forgery.

It must be HIGHLIGHTED that Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction.

It must be HIGHLIGHTED that even the Church claimed 2 Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Vurtually all writings that mention the character called Paul are forgeries or fiction, even some of the writings under the name Paul have already been deduced to be forgeries.

The FACTS are out.

According to Justin Martyr it was 12 ILLITERATE men that preached the Gospels to all the world.

Paul is a FRAUD.

First Apology" XXXIX

Bingo the Clown-O

Maybe you misunderstood me. The issue is if we absolutely need a solid, comprehensive, "coherent" reconstruction of early Christianity in order to evaluate the issue of if Paul and his letters are a fake. Maybe it would be better to consider Paul’s historicity before we write our reconstructions.

Here’s what I said:
I stand by every word.

Imagine that Paul described himself as a talking hedgehog. Imagine that all of the epistles portray him as a talking hedgehog. And Acts too!

Now if Paul was supposedly a talking hedgehog then there would be very little objection to charge that Paul is fiction. We would (almost) unanimously dismiss Paul as a historical character. We wouldn’t need your reconstruction of early Christianity – or anyone else’s reconstruction of early Christianity in order to arrive at our conclusion. -The evidence against his existence (the claim that he was a talking hedgehog) would be sufficient.

Your statement on Vridar (below) begs the question:

What if Paul was consistently portrayed as a talking hedgehog?

Would that be a compelling reason to remove Paul from it?

What difference would the “thorough coherency” of a reconstruction make if the reconstruction just assumed that Paul was not a hedgehog?

-------------------------------------------

I hope you get my point. Now where is your direct response to the body of evidence that aa5874 presents?

And where was it before you constructed your “thorough” reconstruction?

Will you admit that his evidence tends to support his conclusion(s)?

mountainman

The thesis that Paul was not historical, already referred to by Earl Doherty above as the "dutch radicals", might be best encapsulated in this pdf: THE FALSIFIED PAUL - EARLY CHRISTIANITY IN THE TWILIGHT by Hermann Detering.

Readers should familiarize themselves with Deterings claims.



Detering does not use the hedgehog idea, but deals with the evidence in any case, placing the fabrication of the Pauline Letters at least after the early 2nd century.



In the heretical book, "The Acts of Paul", Paul is cast as the mouse in Aesop's fables "The Lion and the Mouse". You may need to read this text to understand this point. In any event, the idea that Paul was a mouse already exists from the mysterious epoch called "Early Christian Origins".

However, IMO the heaviest slab of negative against the existence of Paul are the series of letter exchanges "Paul" had with Seneca from the 4th century. These were obviously forged and meant to be passed off with the "TF" and other forged documents in the 4th century.

Toto

How can you stand by your assertion that Doherty's leading argument is something that he has never argued? He has an explanation of early Christianity that would hold up with a fictional Paul. :huh:

And what's with the talking hedgehog? Part of the reason I think modern Christians and those trying to reconstruct early Christianity cling to Paul is that there is nothing supernatural required. The epistles give a portrait of a rather human, boastful, scolding preacher with sexual hangups. The Book of Acts gives a different portrait - possibly of an epileptic with a bad conscience because he persecuted Christians.

This is about as far from a talking hedgehog as you can get.

Toto

No.

aa5874's "evidence" consists of arguments from silence and arguments from acceptance of whatever he reads.

Let's go through this alleged evidence:

Origen is not a credible source on this.

Eusebius is not a credible source on this.

Justin is just repeating what is in the gospels. In some early Christian groups, Paul was regarded as the great heretic. There are many reasons for Justin to ignore him.

This is only true if you refuse to look at the evidence for the relation between Paul and gMark.

ditto

?

So what?

So what?

So what?

Many of us follow Robert M. Price in viewing these appearances as a later interpolation. But even so -so what?

Yes?

I have tried to explain why this is, but you refuse to listen.

Which was typical.

Except that Irenaeus mentions Paul, and discusses the letters of Paul in Book 5 of AH...

That's true, but the conclusions you draw are not.

Paul may be a fraud, and probably did not write the letters in the form we know them. But this doesn't prove that Doherty is wrong. In fact, it doesn't prove anything except that we don't know a lot about early Christianity, and anyone who claims to be as certain as aa5874 is probably confused.

maryhelena

Talking hedgehogs aside…….:hysterical:

Earl, or any other mythicists, is quite at liberty to use the writing attributed to a ‘Paul’ in order to create a non-historical JC scenario - in Earl’s case the crucifixion in the sub-lunar realm. The big problem is that once one has decided that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - then one has to present a logical reason as to why one wants to continue to use a source, for dating, that one has discredited as a basis for historical relevance.

In other words; if JC is not a historical figure, did not exist historically, as flesh and blood, then the historical time frame in which this figure has been set, the 15th year of Tiberius, has been disconnected as a marker for any reconstruction of early Christian history. Once that date cannot be used in ones reconstruction of early Christian history - then the follow-on story, Acts, likewise, has no relevance for dating early Christian history. ‘Paul’s’ epistles are not a chronological source - unless one wants to run with Aretas - and that can take one back to around 63/62 b.c when Aretas III rule over Damascus ended. Hardly a welcome date for a ‘Paul’ reconstructed storyline.

Basically, what this means is that a historical ‘Paul’ scenario that has rejected the gospel JC as being historical - taken to it’s logical conclusion - has shot itself in the foot. It has produced a ‘Paul’ scenario that is a floating abstraction - unconnected and floating free. Ideas, premises, have to be taken all the way to their logical conclusion. And if that conclusion is found to be wanting - as in this case a ‘Paul’ scenario with no feet on the ground, a purely intellectual construct - then one needs to go back and check ones premises.

There is a way out of this dead-end for such a mythicism. The gospel JC story and it’s figure of JC are, in some way, in some sense, relevant without that story and that figure being historical. In other words; the gospel pseudo-history has to be viewed as having some relevance for it’s writers. And that relevance is, basically, ‘salvation history’. That is the premise that has some possibility for retaining the setting, the historical chronological setting, of the gospel storyline - and thus retaining a possibility for recovering or understanding the origins of early Christian history. That's my reason for retaining the gospel chronology. I've yet to see Earl provide a logical reason for retaining that gospel chronology in his own reconstruction of early christian history.
----------------------------------------

Salvation history:

Yes, one can debate what on earth 'salvation history' was about for those early christian writers - but that that was what they were writing about is clearly evident. And for us in this 21st century? We might well ditch the 'salvation' element - what we can't do is ditch the history upon which it was based, history relevant to the NT time-frame. That is if we are seeking early christian origins...

aa5874

Well, now prove that Doherty is right.

As soon as you admitted that Paul may be a fraud then you have UTTERLY failed to destroy my argument.

My argument cannot be contradicted by evidence of antiquity only by UNSUBSTANTIATED imagination.

Please. Prove Doherty is right.

You don't know enough about Paul and Jesus in the NT Canon and Church writings to prove anything is right or wrong.

Paul is a fraud.

Chili

Paul is a fraud since also 'faith is a fraud' that requires understanding and so deliver Paul and not crucify him instead.

It is very common for a reader who does not understand the words he reads to study the author so he might understand, as if those very words have arrested him and will not let go untill he does and only then be free form the tyranny within. To escape from that many will destroy the author and they do that with Shakespeare all the time especially when they studied him for 40 years and then finally say that he was not real and could not just have been from Stradford as I am from Oxford [cum laude], and have the right to say 'yes or no' to him.

Now of course, if you like greeen cheese better, go for it and have my portion too, but remember well that the yellow streak will be yours as well.