aa5874

When did these things happen??? Who read the Pauline letters in the 1st century??? Who saw them??

If you say the Pauline letters are authentic and agreed by Scholars just show us the ACTUAL evidence that Corroborated their agreement. Almost all of Scholarship is supposedly solidly behind early Pauline writings but all of Scholarship whether MJ or HJ will NOT provide the actual evidence.

There is NO evidence for early Pauline writings.

For years all we really had was a Chinese Whispers agreement.

It is time for the Chinese whispers to end.

It was the short-ending gMark that is the earliest writing in the Canon. No author of the Canon used the Pauline writings or was influenced by them NOT even John who claimed he had REVELATIONS from the very same Jesus.

Sheshbazzar

???


.

aa5874

A writer under the name of Paul claimed he was a Pharisee.

Philippians 3:5 KJV When were those words written??? Who saw them??? Why are people so timid to discuss the History of the Pauline writings.

Supposedly THOUSANDS of Scholars support an early Paul but discussing the actual evidence is off-limits.

Sheshbazzar

Interesting that in Acts 23:6 'Paul' would say "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee;...!"

Not; "I was a Pharisee" or "I used to be a Pharisee".

But he is claiming that he is not simply a 'Jew', (or an 'Apostle of Christ') but that, importantly; he still IS "a Pharisee"!

Diogenes the Cynic

I have no problem believing that Paul padded his own CV, and his own importance (I doubt he seriously "persecuted" anybody - at most he might have gone and harassed some people at synagogues), but I find a blowhard apostate Pharisee easier to believe in than a Roman Gentile pretending to be a blowhard apostate Pharisee.

Sheshbazzar

Who can ever know? 'Paul' demonstrates that he is not above lying when he finds it advantageous.

aa5874

You descredit your sources and then want people to accept whatever you imagine. You NOT doing history you are story teller.

In the NT, it is claimed Paul was some how involved in the supposed stoning of Stephen in Acts of the Apostles and that he went on a house to house persecution campaign and had some sent to prison.

And in Galatians, Paul claimed he wasted the Church. Paul implies some serious persecution.

I do not want to hear your invented stories. You don't need any evidence you just want to tell people what they MUST believe

Diogenes the Cynic

I agree, Paul is not above lying. I don't think he's especially credible in his factual claims, he's definitely not credible in his scriptural claims and I wouldn't bet every nickel that he even had a genuine conversion experience. I get the feeling he was driven by some kind of grudge against the Temple authorities in Jerusalem as much as anything else.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't believe any of that horseshit about Stephen or Paul seriously "persecuting" anybody, beyond maybe haranguing them in a synagogue or two.

aa5874

Stop pretending that you don't believe the Bible. It is because you BELIEVE the Bible why you are arguing for an historical Jesus.

You believe Your Jesus was human and use the Bible for his biography.

Why can't you admit that you BELIEVE the Bible???

James the Apostle was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories yet you BELIEVE Paul met him in Jerusalem.