rlogan

I'm not so sure what kind of value there is in pointing out stuff in the Bible is not true, or a lie or whatever. Front to back it is pious fiction.

but there is no "Paul". At least not the author Paul. Possibly a legendary Paul that was utilized by Marcionite circles to give a pedigree to their beliefs.

There are scripts written as liturgical devices with weak "storylines" alleging a purpose to them. But on the face of them they are silly.

Paul writes a three-dozen papyrus page "letter" with the ostensible purpose of settling some conflict at Corinth that he does not even get around to mentioning until 44 Chapters into it, then never actually clarifies what the conflict even is about - and Paul is coming soon to see them anyways...

Just look at actual letters written at the time as opposed to books like this.

It's intention is exactly as it is used now: liturgical device.

So yea, pious fiction. Is Peter Rabbit a lie? Or the movie Terminator? There are all kinds of contexts in which "lie" does not quite fit the bill.


Detering's review article on the Dutch Radical approach to Pauline material from Journal of Higher Criticism here:


http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/a...s/Detering.htm

aa5874

There is no "Marcionite" Paul in the NT.

It needs to be pointed that there is really no corroborative source external of apologetics that Marcion used gLuke or any letters of Paul.

It appears to me that those claims are bogus and were planted in the church writings to mis-lead the readers into thinking that there were letters with the name Paul during the time of Marcion.

Now, based on Justin Martyr, the writer called Paul was unknown. The history of the writer Paul as found in Acts of the Apostles was unknown. Justin Martyr did not write a word about bishops, presbyters, or deacons.

Justin Martyr did not write anything about an evangelist called Paul in Rome, Corinth, in Galatia, Ephesus or anywhere in the Roman Empire who had written letters that became sacred scriptures.

It would appear to me that [b]all the epistles with the name Paul, were written with the deliberate intent of mis-leading the readers of the NT and was sanctioned by the Church.

It is not only that passages in the NT are lies, it is that the authors themselves, like the writer called Paul, are actually part of the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.


The letters of the writer Paul are not just pious fiction, they were not intended to be script for the "movie", the writer proclaimed, " I LIE NOT"

He wants to be taken seriously.

He wants his readers to believe or accept that he is writing history when he wrote that Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected and asecended to heaven.

The writer called Paul is part of the scheme to mislead and distort the true history of Jesus believers.

The writer Paul is a member of the Church.

Doug Shaver

Mmmm. OK. That's one. Any others?

aa5874

As I have shown so far, the writer Paul has no known history outside of apologetic sources and this writer also claimed he met other characters who witnessed and participated in fictitious events.

The writer Paul claimed he stayed with Peter for fifteen days, but Peter was a fictitious character fabricated by Jesus stories writers long after the supposed writer Paul had died.

Ga 1:18 - Peter never did exist, he is a witness and a participant in fiction.

Peter attempted to walk on water to Jesus the fictitious water-walker.

Peter was with Jesus when he transfigured and spoke to the dead prophets.

Peter was at the tomb where Jesus was supposedly buried and Peter also was with Jesus after he resurrected.

When the the Apostles received the Holy Ghost something like fire was on the Apostles' heads, including Peter.

Peter is a witness to fiction and also a participant in the very same fiction.

The writer Paul NEVER met Peter of the NT.

Paul is a fraud and a liar. The writer is part of the scheme fabricated by the Church to distort the history of Jesus believers.

Toto

This is becoming repetitive.

Was Peter the same as Cephas? Could Paul have known a man named Peter or Cephas who never attempted to walk on water? You are ignoring too many possibilities like this.

aa5874

It is not repetitive at all, except when I have to respond to some poster who repeat things without any evidence to support their post.

Anything can be assumed to be possible.

It can be assumed it is possible that Josephus or any other writer of antiquity did not write any thing or that they did not exist.

Why do you ignore the possibility that the writer Paul is a liar and a fraud?

In examining the possibility that the writer Paul may have been truthful, I have found that the writer was a fraud and a liar.

There is information in the NT and church writings about characters called Jesus, Peter and Paul and it can be shown that the information supplied about them, in many instances, is false, mis-leading and implausible.

And further, there is no historical evidence external of apologetic sources to support Jesus, Peter or the writer called Paul in the first century.

It therefore can be reasonbly deduced that these characters are in some cases fictitious, liars or frauds.

I am right now compiling more written statements of the writer called Paul to show within reason that he was a liar, a fraud and part of the scheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

If you think it is possible that the writer Paul was not a liar and a fraud then enter the discussion with your information and it will be seen if you have a reasonable position.

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure but I think you may be confusing Paul's letters to the Corinthians (16 and 13 chapters long) with the letter of Clement to the Corinthians which starts specifically discussing the conflict at Corinth in chapter 44.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

The writer Paul challenges his readers on many occasions about his veracity.



The writer Paul seems confident about his truthfulness.


But, all passages where he claimed Jesus rose from the dead are lies.
All the passages where the writer claimed that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state are lies.

So, why did the writer appear confident that his obvious lies would not be found out.

Because the letters were written long after the supposed events, not 20-30 years after the fictitious resurrection, but at least 120 years later or after the writings of Justin Martyr.

If the writer Paul wrote within 20-30 years of a real human Jesus, then all his claims that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people including himself would have been known to be lies by all the people who knew the human Jesus, including his mother and father.

It would have been disastrous to the credibility of the writer Paul to claim that there were people still living who saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

And if the writer persisted with his lies, he would have been declared a madman.

The letters with the name Paul, then must have been written when all the so-called 500 witnesses, including the so-called 1st century fictitious character Paul had died.

Now, if the letters were written before Justin Martyr and was regarded as sacred scripture and read in the churches, since the 1st century then it would be expected that Justin Martyr would have use the words of Paul to prove or help to show that Jesus did exist as a God and was indeed resurrected.

In all the writings of Justin Martyr, the sighting of the resurrected Jesus by the writer Paul and over 500 people cannot be found anywhere.

Justin appear not to know of any sacred writings from a writer called Paul.

Justin did not write about the fictitious conversion of the writer called Saul/Paul.

Justin did not write about the death, the martyrdom, of the writer Paul.

In Justin’s bid to prove Jesus did exist and resurrected as a God, Justin used the Memoirs of the Apostles, the Acts of Pontius Pilate and Revelation.

The lies of the writer called Paul has NOW shown that the letters with the name Paul are not from the 1st century and cannot be earlier than sometime after the writings of Justin Martyr.

The writer called Paul was a liar and a fraud.

IamJoseph

If veracity is based on one's view, then why did Christianity reject Mohammed? If a view is seen as with veracity - what about the veracity of the precedent Hebrew bible, which has the longest and most veracity of all writings? IMHO< veracity is never derived from inducement, enforcement and contradictions - and 99.9% of all christians and muslim's veracity occured via the rake or sword. Veracity based on belief without manifestation is wanting.

IamJoseph

Paul never met Jesus, and was cast out by the Nazerite group which did meet and follow Jesus. Paul, or what is subscribed to him - was only accepted in Europe and by non-monotheistic groups - which was already entrenched wherever Paul is advocated.

Paul never wrote - he had both an eyesight and health issues [epilepsy], and he was a 4th generation Greek citizen; there are no contemporary letters of Paul - an unpardonable anomoly considering the enormous other writings which do exist in the same space-time.

It apears Pauline christianity flurished like wild fire with the masses because it gave them what they wanted - and negated what they would never accept - and those who never accepted a pre-standing pre-paul greek/roman premise were deemed bad guys by christianity. But all cannot be right - do the maths - the pre-christian world of Europe was entrenched in the same premises as today, seen in any cursory reading of their pre-2000 year archives. Those who never excepted divine emprerors were charged with Heresy - punishable by death. Chose one:


'BETTER TO DESTROY THEIR BODIES AND SAVE THEIR SOULS' [Isabella of Spain]

'WE WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO THEIR HOMELAND BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - [Pope Pious].

'NO OTHER RELIGION CAN PREVAIL IN ARABIA' [ISLAM].

'EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE STRANGER AS THE INHABITANT; ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY; THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER' [Hebrew bible].