aa5874

So, you must agree that the writer may have gotten it from the Gospels.

Please, show me where in Isaiah you can find the name Jesus Christ, the son of God, son of David, the Messiah, the Lord and Saviour, born of a virgin, Holy Ghost baptiser, crucified, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

These things are ONLY found in the NT, the church writings, and even those non-canonised.

And the writer claimed there were apostles before him, there were churches in Christ before him, he persecuted the faith before he preached the same faith, and that he was the LAST[ to see Jesus after he rose from the dead.

The writer Paul himself claimed he was Last, why do say he was first?

The author of Acts has a chronology of Saul/Paul and put him after the apostles, including Peter, were filled with the Holy Ghost and had converted thousands of people.

Why do you think the writer called Paul was first?

The church writers claimed Acts of the Apostles is authentic and that all the letters with the name Paul are genuine.

The church writers, Acts of the Apostles and the writer called Paul himself placed the writer LAST.

Who told you the writer called Paul was first?

bacht

We've had close to two millenia of the Christian view of the Jewish scriptures, so it may be difficult to imagine how pre-Christians might have seen them.

"Joshua" and "messiah" are certainly words found in the Tanakh. But Paul's Christ seems more like personified Wisdom or Logos, a heavenly being of some sort.

Maybe after the Septuagint there were new interpretations of scripture all over the diaspora. Maybe people like Paul took the "son" passages in the OT (which had referred to Israel poetically) and re-thought them as describing an emanation of God.

If Paul really was some kind of apocalypticist then it's fair to question his mental balance.

Maybe Paul was some kind of gnostic, used by Marcion to supercede the Jewish God, and proto-catholics used what they could from the epistles to retain the god of the OT.

aa5874

So, why did the writer called Paul place Jesus Christ on earth?

1 Cor.15 I don't think people are buried in heaven.

1 COR.11.23-24 I don't think the betrayal took place in heaven.

Maybe this and maybe that, but in the letter with the name Paul, it is written that Jesus Christ was crucified, died and resurrected the third day and that he was the last to see Jesus Christ.

The writer called Paul was not crazy, it is just that his lies knot him up and made him seem mad.

How could that be? Tertullian used the letters of the writer called Paul AGAINST Marcion.

Based on church writers, the letters of the writer called Paul are authentic and sacred perhaps as much as 100 years before Marcion.

The Jesus of Paul was crucified, died and resurrected.

Marcion must have thought the writer called Paul was a crazy liar.

bacht

Is there a consensus on which parts (if any) of the epistles were written by a pre-Marcion Paul, and which parts weren't? Isn't it unwise to pick out passages from the letters as proof of anything? Does anyone really know what the "original" Paul was teaching, before his letters passed through later editors?

Jayrok

He may have. If he did he didn't acknowledge it.

Paul said there were Apostles before him but he didn't get any info from them. He got all his gospel info from revelation and used the Hebrew Scriptures as his support.

First to what?

First to what?

aa5874

So, if you cannot use passages that are seen what passages can be used then?

Whatever we guess? Whatever we speculate?

Now, does anyone really know what the original of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews contained, or Tacitus, Suetonius, Eusebius or Tertullian or any writing of antiquity?

We can only deal with what we have extant today. And the written statement from the writer called Paul is that he was LAST to see Jesus.

And if you think it unwise to accept the written statements of the letter writer called Paul, why do you think it is wise to accept what others write about Marcion?

aa5874

I don't expect a liar to acknowledge that he is lying.

Well look at Romans 1.1-3 Can you show me where in the Hebrew scriptures there is the name or creature called Jesus Christ, son of God, made of the seed of David?

Now, I will show where it can be found in the NT.

Revelation 22:16 -
The writer called Paul got his information from man, from the Jesus stories.

aa5874

The major problem with the letters of the writer called Paul is the exact problem with the Jesus stories, the Gospels.

And the problem is that the creature called Jesus Christ must be or believed to be a God for the events to be plausible. If Jesus was just a man, and the stories about Jesus as found in the NT were written, it would have been a disaster, the authors would have been found to be fiction writers by close associates, family, relatives, friends, or anyone who knew of the real Jesus.

It is the same with the letters from the writer called Paul, the Jesus Christ in the letters must also be or believed to be a God. The revelations of events while Jesus was on earth by the writer called Paul is directly dependent on a belief that Jesus was a God.

The gospel of the writer is directly and fundamentally tied to a belief that Jesus Christ was divine and did resurrect.

1Cor 15:14 - 1Co 15:17 - But, no such creature existed, offspring of the Holy Ghost, resurrected and ascended. The creature in the Jesus stories and the letters of the writer called Paul is implausible with no history whatsoever.

The creature is a myth.

There was no resurrection.

The gospel of Paul is based on fiction.

The salvation of the Jews and Gentiles is based on a non-event, fiction.

It is highly unlikely to me that these stories and letters with such fiction could have been written within 20-30 years of the supposed events, the authors and letter writers would have been deemed to be fiction writers, fraudsters and liars.

These stories and letters appear to me to have been written many many deacades after the supposed events and at a far distance from the supposed region of Judaea.

The writings of Justin Martyr seems to confirm that the letter writer called Paul was unknown and that his letters were not regarded as Sacred Scripture up to or around the middle of the 2nd century.

This is Justin Martyr in First Apology …

Justin Martyr did not mention Acts of the Apostles or the letters of the writer at all or called them Scripture, however the “Memoirs of the Apostles” were regarded as Scriptures and read in the churches on Sundays.

Paul's lies knot him up.

Doug Shaver

True but irrelevant. We all believe a bunch of things that we do not know to be true, and for a lot of those things we have good reasons to believe them.

I am not denying the existence of liars, including religious liars. I am denying the intellectual propriety of assuming anyone to be a liar without good evidence.

For him, my jury is still out.

Doug Shaver

Prove it. Show me the evidence that he did not actually think Jesus had appeared to him.