Duvduv

What's modern about a question related to logical inference? Why would Paul be offered a major place in a biography written by someone who already wrote about the historical Christ without even the slightest example of this new character who is a major player having anything to say about that historical Jesus?

Toto

What is modern is the concern with the historical Jesus, based on a modern concept of history. Early Christianity was not all about the historical Jesus.

Duvduv, you seem to be unwilling to read about the area in any depth, but you demand answers to your naively formulated questions. We're not getting anywhere.

Duvduv

Well, I guess you are saying that I am not familiar enough with the laws of academic analysis about such things, the "Torah " of what are permissible questions.

Chili

He is just trying to tell the reader that the historical Jesus was not as historic as they think he is.

That is easy to follow, I think, and just confirms that Jesus left and Christ stayed and Jesus would come back and already did come back to lead Paul as 'a Jesus' himself, who later became knowns Jesuits, which is a very special order of the Church itself.

Chili

Toto is trying to tell you that not everybody wears diapers here, and I think Paul wrote about that too.

Toto

No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that your questions don't make a lot of sense and you don't seem to want to understand my attempts to answer.

aa5874

Let us NOT get side-tracked.

There is SIMPLY no corroborative non-apologetic evidence for the existence of a character called Saul or Paul in the 1st century who wrote letters to Churches all over the Roman Empire.

And even more devastating is that NOT one author of the NT Canon mentioned the Pauline Revealed Teachings of the resurrected Jesus as found in Pauline so-called letters.

The History of the Church of the 1st century Church was COMPLETELY fabricated using the INVENTED character called Paul because the author of the Short-Ending gMark showS that there was NO new religion under the name of a resurrected Jesus Christ up to the time the Short-Ending gMark was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Toto

That's true. The letters themselves are the only evidence, and their origin is uncertain.

Except, of course, Paul

It may or may not be true that the history of the church was completely fabricated, but you cannot demonstrate this just by looking at what was not included in various books of the NT and assuming that the author would have written about something if he knew about it.

Duvduv

You are being unfair. I don't know what you mean by "early Christianity" and in any case we aren't talking about that, we are talking about the guy who wrote the Gospel of Luke and then went on allegedly to write the Book of Acts, and what his agenda was. You are telling me it is wrong for me to assume that the same author who wrote a gospel about a historical Jesus who then went ahead to promote someone named Paul should have shown that the Paul figure shared ideas about the historical Jesus of the gospel he wrote earlier.

If that's wrong, then the author of the gospel could have just as well written a book about the emergence of Gautama as Buddha or a biography of Krishna.

aa5874

It is NOT at all logical that the Canonized letters attributed to a character called Paul are evidence that letters were actually written during the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

You very well know that the letters attributed to Paul can be evidence of fraud, fiction and lies.
You very well know that Paul of the NT is the character under investigation so it is rather illogical or of no real significance to say that he was mentioned in the NT.


Your statement is illogical and Contradictory.

You assume the Pauline writings are early and Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple when the author did NOT EVER MAKE SUCH A CLAIM.

Let us go through all the so-called letters one by one and you will see that your PRESUMPTIONS about the Pauline writings are INDEED baseless and unsubstantiated.

Please refrain from telling me about assumptions when you are a "victim" of presumptions about Paul or is it SAUL?