aa5874

How can the best evidence for Paul come from what he allegedly wrote when you admit that letters are "somewhat tenuous"?

You appear to believe Paul was inerrant or was always truthful even though you have recognised that there are books in the canonical NT with fiction and that more than one person used the name Paul to write letters.

Once the Pauline letters were manipulated then you MUST produce a credible external source to corroborate anything in the Pauline letters.

You have FAILED TO PRODUCE a single credible external corroborative source for any Pauline writing.

The Clementine Recognitions are considered forgeries. Acts of the Apostles is considered fiction. The biography of Paul is found in Acts of the Apostles.

Now, if Paul did truly exist and had a true history then there would be no need to place Paul in a book filled with fiction. Everyone in the Church, relatives of his friends, family, acquaintances and converts who knew Paul would have recognised that Acts was fiction and would have strongly objected to the falsification.

Instead Acts of the Apostles became SACRED SCRIPTURE .

How did Acts of the Apostles become SACRED SCRIPTURE yet loaded with fiction?

The answer is simple. Saul/Paul was a fictitious 1st century character. These are the words of Chrysostom on Acts of the Apostles writing at the end of the 4th century, Until you can provide credible external sources for the Pauline writers, their Churches and converts, then I will regard the Pauline writers as 1st century fiction characters.

No author of the Synoptics or Revelations show any influence by any Pauline writings. The biography and events surrounding Jesus in the Synoptics was NOT influenced by any Pauline writing. No author of the Synoptics appear to have been to a Pauline Church or was converted to Christianity with Pauline doctrine.


Do YOU understand or realise that Acts of the Apostles is part of the NT and regarded as SACRED SCRIPTURE to be read in the Churches?

Do you think that Acts of the Apostles was just magically canonised?

Acts of the Apostles is to be regarded as the TRUE BIOGRAPHY of Saul/Paul. The author of Acts traveled all over the Roman Empire with Saul/Paul. If you regard Acts as fiction, then you must understand that Saul/Paul's biography or history is in serious doubt.

And there is no other history for Saul/Paul. The Church writers claimed Acts of the Apostles was authentic.

Well, based on the Church writers, the author of Acts and Saul/Paul were close companions. The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light but the Pauline writer did not deny that he was blinded by a bright light or write about his own supposed conversion.

Now, you don't know when the Pauline writings were made and we DON'T HAVE TO take Paul's words until there is a corroborative source for Paul.

Once you admit that Acts of the Apostles was written almost 100 years later then it must be realised that the history of the Pauline writer is not reliable.

And further, it is even more disturbing when you realise that Church writers claimed Acts was written 100 years earlier or before the Fall of the Temple when it appears that Acts was written no earlier than the 2nd century.

Why did the Church writers produce erroneous information about the time of writing of Acts and the biography of Saul/Paul and still manage to claim that Acts of the Apostles was authentic and written by a close companion of Paul when Acts appear to have been written by someone no earlier than 100 years after Saul/Paul supposedly lived?

It would appear the author of Acts did not really know Saul/Paul at all and was not his companion. The author did not travel and preach with Saul/Paul all over the Roman Empire.

Now, you can understand why no Synoptic writer was influenced by any Pauline writings, or doctrine. There simply was no such 1st century character, writings, churches or converts.

.1Co 15:9 - PAUL CLAIMED HE PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD.


But, there are many writers in the NT that mentioned Jesus Christ but did not write about Mary. Please, tell me who the canonical NT is about?

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke wrote about the conception and birth of Jesus Christ and the Pauline writers wrote about revelations or visions from the very same Jesus Christ after he had ascended through the clouds.

It is just not realistic to expect every writer in any book to write the same information about a character.



But, the very NT that contain information about Paul also contain information about the crucifixion of Jesus. And the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was done on earth in Jerusalem of Judea in the NT.

Please show that IN the NT, where information about PAUL and JESUS is found, that Jesus was not crucified under Pilate during the time of Tiberius.

And please show where the Pauline writer denied Jesus was ever crucified on earth and during the time of Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

It is most unrealistic to even expect that the Pauline writings, once canonised, were heretical but unknown to the Church.


Please NAME some of Jewish God/men from Judea who were was raised from the dead , asked to forgive the sins of Jews and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision from since heaven and earth was created according to the Jews up to the Fall of the Jewish Temple circa 70 CE.



This is found in the Pauline Epistles in 1 thesalonians 2.14-15 The Pauline writer clearly stated that the JEWS KILLED JESUS.


Well, if Marcion published the first collection of the Pauline material you can understand why the authors of the Synoptics could not have used any Pauline writings and showed no influence by them. And this would also explain why Justin Martyr showed no Pauline influence when writing in the middle of the 2nd century.

Once you admit that Marcion may have published the FIRST PAULINE MATERIAL then you dramatically destroyed your own arguments about taking "Paul's" words as facts.

You really have no idea who wrote one single word in the Pauline Epistles.

However, you have an idea that the biography of Saul/Paul in Acts may be fiction and written 100 years later, and that Marcion may have FIRST written the Pauline material in the 2nd century.

So, why are telling me to read LEE, KNOX AND TYSON who are 1900 years away from events of antiquity concerning Jesus and Paul?

And why do you think that your view is far better in the 21st century than Tertullian's in the third?

Now, I am discussing sources of antiquity that provide information about Jesus, the disciples and Paul and so far, based on the information I have seen, it is my view that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

kcdad

He didn't have the resources or the general knowledge of the world we have today.
He also was not allowed the objectivity of distance and critical thought available today.
We are also not under the threat of a organized Imperial Church responding to our criticisms.

Toto

I don't think this is the case for Celsus, who clearly says that Jesus was a bastard child of a Roman soldier. Check your sources.

excerpts from Contra Celsus

(At the same time, Celsus is not a good proof of the historical Jesus - he knew only second hand stories of Jesus, and his best argument against Christians at the time was that Jesus was a mere, lowly, bastard.)

There is an argument that Trypho rejected the existence of Jesus (see here) but I don't think that it is clear. Tryphy rejected the existence of a Jewish Messiah.

aa5874

You know the resources of the writer who used the name Tertullian?

You know know the general knowledge of the writer called Tertullian?

Who threatened Tertullian?

What resources did you use to make such assertions?

grog225

Um, no. You need to read beyond the accepted preferred excerpts. Where Celsus takes on the aspect of the Jew, he is clearly relating the argument between Christians and Jews, an argument he describes later as preposterous. He equates Christianity to the Egyptian practice of worshiping "goats and dogs":

During the entire section when he is talking about Jesus son of Panthera, he has taken on the voice of a Jewish critic of Christianity. He is presenting the Jewish critique.

Celsus, in his own voice, holds such views as:

He also makes it clear, at many points, that he is accepting the Christian claims for point of argument:

Source: Arguments of Celsus, Porphyry and the emperor Julian against the Christians: also extracts from Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, and Tacitus, relating to the Jews. Together with an appendix containing the oration of Libanius in defence of the temples of the heathens, tr. by dr. Lardner

I think Celsus does express considerable skepticism in regard to the Jesus story. There are times when he does sound like he accepts that the man Jesus did exist (but was pitiful), but for the most part he does so as a point of argument; to turn the Christians own words and story against them. I don't think that Celsus' reiteration of the Jewish complaints against Jesus really count as his own views, especially since he takes on the voice of a Jew and, immediately after, pours scorn on the whole exchange. That portion of Celsus has been badly abused by apologists and Jesus Questers alike.


No, he has a great deal more to say on the subject than this:

Note Celsus' use of the word "mysteries" above which seems to work against the contention that Christian was a sort of mystery cult (in fact much criticism was leveled at this time that indicates as such). While this doesn't go directly toward that argument, I also hold that the claim that Mithras worship follows the establishment of Christianity is wrong. If anything, they were contemporaneous springing for the same syncretic soil.

Jesus is the jewish messiah. I think it is even more difficult to disentangle the myth from any man in the gospel. You take away the myth there is no Jesus. But at any rate, in this case, Trypho is not arguing like a 21st century bible scholar on a quest to find the Historical Jesus. To a Trypho, Jesus would either be a false messiah or not exist.

My point in both these cases, is that the claim that no one disputes the existence of Jesus is overblown (and of course flawed considering there is no Jesus of Nazareth recorded until the end of the first century, so how could anyone in the first century dispute the existence of one so far not identified. Also, to continue this parenthetical comment-lol-by the second century, what means would ANYONE have for disputing the actual existence of a person who had up to that time escaped absolutely all notice in all records? The whole question itself is preposterous, actually).

grog225

This is what I have for Trypho:

I believe that "Christ" would be more appropriate here than Messiah, since this is a greek writing. Trypho (who may be an invention of Justin Martyr) is talking about the person Christ. It is gratuitous to use the term "Messiah" here when this is a Greek work.

grog225

First, at the ouset let me say that about 1/3 of what you say seems to me to be self-contradictory. So I will attempt to wade through this and see what happens. Also, try to be civil. I will too.

Everything we know about this period is somewhat tenuous. Still, we do the best we can with what we have. I haven't accepted yet that Paul's letters are (do you mean second century?) forgeries. So until I can be convinced (and I have read Detering who makes the best case), I still hold that at least 4 are. But I do agree that they have undergone a tug of war and to sort out what is "authentic" is yet again tenuous.

No, that isn't true. I believe Paul when he attests to his beliefs has a self-interest in being as clear as he can about them. He is promoting a particular viewpoint. If I accept that the letters are his own, then I must accept that he isn't going to lie about his own beliefs (unless he really is just a fraud and a charlatan, which is a possibility I am perfectly willing to entertain).

I think we can attempt to follow criteria that would give us warrant to make claims based on Paul's letters. But I agree that this is very tenuous. On the other hand, if we don't make the attempt then we really have nothing to attest to Christian beliefs in the first century. That is also a possiblity I am willing to entertain.

I think it is possible that Tertullian preserved Pauline works that were in a more original form. At least partially preserved. And Clement quotes Paul and refers to his letter to the Corinthians. And, yes, 1 Clement is another tenuous source. So I do grant that this is all very tenuous. Everything we could possibly know about this topic (Christianity in the first century) is very tenuous and that ought to be recognized at the outset.

Acts, in my view, following Knox and Tyson was written long after any friends, family, acquaintances or converts would have been dead and buried. At least after the first quarter of the second century, if not later. Justin Martyr seems not to know the work and it has no attestation until the late, late second century.

It became sacred scripture because it was written as a response to the Marcionites. It had a theological purpose.

Certainly, I am willing to entertain the possibility. However, you must account then for why there was a need to create the fictional Paul? Was he a creation of Marcion? While Paul may have been fictional (and I don't think so at this juncture), there was a belief in Paul well before the 4th century.

That might well be because Pauline Christianity was associated with Gnosticism.




Yes, it serves a purpose. No it's author did not travel with Paul around the Roman Empire. Being part of the canon has no bearing on its authenticity (which is a peculiar line of argument since you are claiming the Paulina, also canonical to be forgeries).

Of course they did.



Um. There's no point here, is there?

aa5874

Just saying one-third is contradictory is meaningless unless you can actually point out the contradictions.

Now, I will point out your errors

You made claims that I showed were erroneous.

You claimed Paul did not write that he persecuted the Church.

I showed that the Pauline writings do contain words where Paul persecuted the Church.

You claimed erroneously that Paul did not write who killed Jesus.

And I produce the passage where the Pauline writer claimed the Jews killed Jesus.

You claimed writings like the "Clementine Recognitions" shed light on the thoughts of Paul.

I pointed out to you that the "Clementine Recognitions" were considered forgeries.

You claimed that you have to take Paul's word.

I pointed to you that the Pauline Epistles were manipulated and that you really don't know "Paul's word".

You claimed Marcion might have written the first Pauline material.

I pointed out that such a claim destroys your OWN argument that you HAVE TO TAKE Paul's word. You really don't know Paul's words from Marcion's.

You claimed Acts of the Apostles was written about 100 years after Paul.

I pointed out that you don't even know when the Pauline writings were written since you say Marcion might have been the first to publish Pauline material.

You want me to read the opinion of people like LEE, KNOX and TYSON who are about 1900 late.

But, you refuse to read the opinion of Tertullian who wrote about Jesus, Paul and the disciples at least 1500 years before LEE, KNOX and TYSON.

Essentially, perhaps over 90% of what you wrote is filled with errors and do not help your arguments in anyway.

You don't know who really published the Pauline writings yet you take Paul's words when it could be Marcion's words.

You don't know when the Pauline writings were written yet you claim Acts was written 100 years after Paul but Marcion might have published the Pauline writings 100 years after Paul.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings might have been written about the same time then.

You have completely failed to realise and understand that the Pauline writings are part of the canonical NT and are all about the same Jesus Christ of the Gospels who was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, tempted by the Devil, instantly healed incurable diseases, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

The Pauline writer simply got or claimed he got revelations or vision from Jesus after he had ascended to heaven.

kcdad

Tertullian didn't exist as a historical person. To assert otherwise is most senseless.

aa5874

I asked you what resources you used to make your assertions about Tertullian and you answered with another baseless assertion.

Do you not understand that your assertions are irrational, of no real value, or unsubstantiated once you cannot show the basis or the sources of antiquity on which your claim was made?

My claim that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition is based on sources of antiquity not my imagination.

I can show you Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, John 1, Acts 1.9, Mark 16.6, Mark 6.48, Mark 9.2, Galatians 1.1, and Galatians 1.11-12.

Please tell me what resources you used to make your assertions about Tertullian?