aa5874

What possibility are you talking about??? You have NO evidence--No Source for your ASSUMPTIONS about possibilities.

Possibilities have NO weight. Anything is possible. I really don't have time to waste with your ASSUMED possibility.

I EXAMINE WRITTEN STATEMENTS of antiquity and make logical deductions or INFRERENCES.

It is actually found WRITTEN that in "Against Marcion" 5.21 that Marcion Mutilated the Pauline writings EXCEPT Philemon.

Again, you have NO idea what "assumption" means. I did NOT invent the DATA.

I made INFERENCES based on an INDEPENDENT analysis of Greek New Testaments.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Please, your ASSUMPTIONS are worthless. You are wasting my time. You have no idea how to EXTRAPOLATE. You seem to want the DATA to match the Presumption that the Pauline writings were early.

I have NOT ASSUMED the Pauline writings are early or late. I used the DATA to EXTRAPOLATE that the Pauline writings are LATER than the Canonised Gospels.

Have you ever heard of Markan Priority??? Have you no idea that gMark is considered the Earliest Canonised Gospel.

Please EXAMINE the DATA.

gMark has the LOWEST variant-Free verses of ALL the NT--45.1%

Acts of the Apostles is considered to be LATER than gMark.

Examine the DATA.

The Variant-Free verses have Increased in Acts of the Apostles and is found to be 67.3%.

Now read Acts of the Apostles, it does NOT mention that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

Examine the DATA.

The Pastorals are considered Later than gMark and Later than the Pauline letters to the Churches.

The Variant-Free verses of the Pastorals are:

1 Timothy 81.4%, 2 Timothy 79.5%, Titus Philemon is 76%.

The DATA clearly shows that the Pauline writings are VERY LATE based on the FACT that the percentage Variant-Free Verses MATCHES those of the PASTORALS.

Most remarkably, the Pauline Epistles FIT almost Exactly betweeen Acts of the Apostles and the Pastorals in an almost perfect linear fashion..


Acts 67.3%

1 Thess. 68.5%

2.Thess 72.3%

Philippians 72.6%

Romans 75.5%

1 Cor. 75.7%

Ephesians 76.1%

Galatians 76.5%

2. Cor. 78.1 %

The Pastorals
Titus 71.7%

Philemon 76.0 %

1 Timoththy 79.5%

2 Timothy 81.4%

Again, we can EXTRAPOLATE from the DATA that the Pauline letters to the Churches are LATE especially when other statements from Apologetic sources are taken into consideration.

1. Letters to place Paul in the 1st century are considered forgeries--the Paul/Seneca letters.

2. An Apologetic Source the Mutatorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation.

3. Justin Martyr also mentioned Revelation but did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters.

4. Apolgetic Sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke in "Commentary on Matthew" 1 and "Church History" 6.25.

5. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Paule wrote letters to Churches.

6. Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline writings.

7. Celsus in "Against Celsus" did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline letters to Churches.

8. Arnobius did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline writings.

9. The author of the Short gMark did NOT use the Pauline writings to the Churches.

10. The Pauline writer claimed that there were WRITTEN Sources with a story of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day.


The Preponderance of Evidence suggest the the Pauline writings are LATE and AFTER the Jesus story was already WRITTEN, and BELIEVED .

The Pauline writings are historically bogus and was NOT known before gMark in the Canon.

My argument is that Galatians is NOT Credible and the claim that Paul met the Apostle James the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.19 is Fiction.

No Apologetic source that used Galatians claim the Jesus character was human with a human father.

TedM

I hear you aa. If you mention all the semi-early sources that don't reference Paul's writings, you have to deal with all the semi-early sources that do. Here they are, for easy reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/ You have to deal with the various works scholars say were written in Paul's name after Paul. You have to deal with the supposed interpolations written into the epistles. You have to deal with the need for a Paul to exist, and the silences and differences in the epistles regarding interesting things mentioned in Acts (his name, his conversion experience, his routes). You have to deal with the hugeness of Paul, who wasn't even a disciple! You have to deal with the relative lack of interest by a later Paul in a historical Jesus. You have to deal with the content of the material--and the apparent nonsensical idea that someone would write all of that as forged material--for what purpose is all that minutia? I could go on and on with things that need to be considered that you appear to be oblivious to.

The problem, aa, is that you are hanging on to arguments by silence and flawed reliance on textual variance. Sure you are making inferences, but how in the world do you reject ALL of the other information/evidence and common sense that goes against you?

aa5874

You have not heard a word I said. You are LOCKED into the Presumption that the Pauline writings were early.


I have NOT mentioned all sources.


Please, you are making PRESUMPTIONS. You just talk, talk, talk and do NOT present any evidence for an early Paul.

Paul was huge??? Paul needed to exist???So how is it that NOT one author of the NT claimed over 500 saw the resurrected Jesus???

How is it NO author of the NT mentioned the Pauline Gospel of Salvation by the Resurrection???

The Gospel of SHORT gMark was MASSIVE.

The author of the Long gMark copied the Short gMark virtually word-for-word for the Entire book except for 12 verses.

The author of gMatthew did almost the same thing with almost all of gMark word-for-word.

The author of gLuke also used gMark.

It would appear that NO Gospel writer attended a Pauline Church or was NOT converted by those who preached the Pauline Gospel.

If we were to remove ALL the writings under the name of Paul from the NT we would NOT have lost any fundamental part of the Jesus story.

On the other hand, if we remove the gMark Jesus story line from the NT then we would lose almost 100% of the Jesus story in the Synoptics.

What we have is an EXTREMELY odd scenario with the Pauline writings.

Half of the NT are writings attributed to Paul--the other Half did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters to Churches Except 2 Peter.

The Church itself claimed 2 Peter did NOT belong in the Canon-it is NOT authentic. See Church History.

If it is assumed the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century before c 68 CE then it cannot be explained how the Pauline letters and Gospel which should have been ALREADY circulated in the Churches had NO influence on the other authors of the Canon.

Amazingly NONE of the Non-Pauline authors appear to have attended a Pauline Church or was converted by those who preached the Pauline Gospel.

But authors of the NT appear to have ATTENDED the gMark Church or was converted by those who preached the gMark Gospel.

Remarkably, it took about 120 years BEFORE the Pauline letters supposedly became huge.

Astonishingly, No author, Not even Paul stated when any Pauline letter was composed.

What happened between 60 CE and 180 CE??

Why did it take about 120 years for LETTERS ALREADY circulated in the Church to become Huge??

Why is it that NO Gospel writer ATTENDED a Pauline Church???

The answer is simply.

There was NO Pauline Church--the Churches were Non-Pauline up to the mid 2nd century preaching the Synoptic Gospel.

Authors of NT Attended The Synoptic Churches and then Later the Johanine Churches.

There WAS NEVER any 1st century Pauline Church and No letters.


You assertion is just absurd. I actually presented the DATA and you say I am arguing from silence.

Please, please, don't you even realise other people can see what you write??

Extrapolation is NOT an argument from Silence.

Now, tell me what is your argument based on??

Surely you ZERO evidence in the Canon that the Pauline writings were composed before c 62 CE.

TedM

Of course it can. The purposes of the writings were totally different.


Why should John, Peter, Jude, and James--have 'attended a Pauline Church'? Paul was not part of the Jerusalem group aa. Geez.. Paul's gospel was all about salvation for all men through faith in Jesus, with no need for adhering to Jewish law. Paul was mostly an outsider.

Because their biographies were similar? Paul wasn't writing biographies aa! Context, aa, context.


The gospels are still much preferred over Paul's writings, aa. The concepts are higher level so do not appeal as much to the masses--then or now... no surprises here.


That's not 'astonishing' aa.


Yes, your arguments are full of claims of silence while ignoring/dismissing references that do exist. On the surface that looks to be a very unscientific and illogical approach aa. Why are you doing that?

Have you read Paul's works from beginning to end, or only myther articles dismissing them as being historical? I ask because you seem to not appreciate how little need there would have been for them at a later date, nor all the unnecessary minutia which adds little to a conspiracy. I'm sorry but it is hard to imagine anyone forging these works as late as you claim, because they surely would have done a much better job, and have added in more references to Jesus' historicity to support the various points he made. Why, for example, if it was a later forgery, did the reference to the Last Supper in his letter to the Corinthians, not mention the disciples, betrayal by Judas, Pilate, the trial, etc.? Why didn't he mention JTB when he talked about baptisms he performed? On and on. Wouldn't the so-called forgers have been very familiar with those accounts? If so, and they rejected them, why didn't they clearly present Paul's Jesus in a way that distinguished him from the gospels accounts then? The same problems mythers have with Paul's writings assuming 1st century authorship are greatly magnified when set in the mid 2nd century. There are huge implications to what you are saying--that the facts simply don't support.

Funny. I haven't made an argument here. You're assuming again. I'm just pointing out what looks like large deficits in your argument. I suggest looking over the e-catena references I provided, which provide many sources that quote Paul at a much earlier date than you suggest.

aa5874

You seem to be right. It can be easily explained

The purpose of the Pauline writings were totally different. We now know they were written to Deceive--they are historically bogus.

It has already been deduced that some of the writings under the name of Paul were NOT written before the death of Nero.


Please, those are FALSELY Attributed authors. Come on, TedM. You are living in the 2nd century.

There is simply NO emulation of Pauline theology by Non-Pauline writers in the NT.

It was the Synoptic type theology that was IMITATED. It was the Synoptic theology that was preached and taught in the Churches up to the mid 2nd century based on Justin Martyr.

That's strange!!! Paul claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being and that he did NOT get his Gospel from any man but from one who was resurrected from the dead--a character called Jesus--A Quickening Spirit, God's Own Son made of a woman who was crucified, was buried, and resurrected on the Third DAY.

The Pauline writer also claimed the resurrected Jesus revealed to him that he was betrayed in the Night AFTER the Last Supper and that he personally witnessed Jesus after the resurrection.

The Pauline writer is a FALSE Witness whether or not he was writing biographies.

Paul preached Jesus was dead but that he SAW Jesus Alive.

Paul was NOT writing biographies???---Well, he wrote a Pack of Lies.

So, we had a higher Pauline level BEFORE a low Synoptic level. Paul wrote about the AFTER Life of Jesus Before the story of his supposed Life in the Synoptics. Paul wrote to Churches that NO NT author attended.

Please, TedM.

It was the Synoptic Theology--the Synoptic type Jesus story that was First, the Pauline letters are FAKES and LAST.

It was the Memoirs of the Apostles--A Synoptic type Jesus story that was READ and TAUGHT in the Churches.

First Apology Again, I actually showed you the DATA. You are engaged in propaganda.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Have you ever read the Short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James, John, Jude, Peter and the book of Revelation from beginning to end??

They did NOT use the Pauline writings or revealed Gospel which was supposedly known and circulated in the Churches.

ALL TWELVE Non-Pauline authors in the NT did NOT account for early Pauline letters or the Pauline revealed Gospel--NONE.

The author of Acts even claimed it was the Holy Ghost, NOT the Pauline resurrected Jesus, that actually gave the disciples the Power to start the Jesus cult. See Acts 2.

The Pauline Resurrected Jesus was NOT even needed in Acts of the Apostles.

The disciples were FILLED with a Ghost--they did NOT need any revelations from Paul.

That is EXACTLY what I said before. You are Driven by your imagination and will NOT accept any DATA that contradicts what you have imagined.


Your statement is so absurd. You claim that you have NOT made an argument yet IMMEDIATELY make reference to a source which you think support your ARGUMENT that the Pauline letters are early.

This is what I find so disturbing with you.

You make blatant mis-leading statements without fear even when they contradict your own position.

TedM

You just agreed with me that such 'forgeries' probably were not later, as you have been claiming.


No, I'm giving you a reference to help you do a better job formulating your own arguments. It has nothing to do with my position. YOU are the one making claims, yet you are ignoring vital pieces of information.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your response.

aa5874

No, No, No!!!! You deliberately did NOT post what I wrote. Your ARGUMENT that the Pauline writings are early are based on Your Imagination.

It was easy for you to imagine that the Pauline letters were early.

Instead of providing Corroborative Evidence from antiquity that the Pauline letters were early you presented Rhetorical Questions for which you yourself have NO answer.


What Nonsense!!! You are giving me references so that I can ARGUE against myself???

You are making self look real bad.

You are ACTIVELY arguing against my position and declare that you are NOT.

There is something strangely pathological going on here.

TedM

no, so that you can do a better job in making inferences, by looking at the quotations of Paul's writings that DO exist, as opposed to those that do not exist.

Nah, that's just in your imagination.

aa5874

You are not making much sense. I presented DATA that shows that gMark has the Lowest percentage of variant free verses 45.1% and that the Pastoral [the Epistle to Timothy] has the Highest 81.4%..

It is most reasonable to INFER that Sources which show a comparable amount of variant free verses were composed LATE especially when other DATA or Sources are taken into consideration.

May I remind you that the author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation and that Justin Martyr did Mention Revelation and never acknowledge the Pauline writings.

Amazingly, the percentage of variant free verse of Revelation, 52 %, MATCHES those of the Gospels.

gMark------45.1%

Revelation 52%

Galatians 76.5%

1 Timothy 81.4%

The DATA clearly shows that Galatians MATCHES LATE writings.

The author of the Muratorian Canon and Justin Martyr appear to have been Corroborated by the DATA.

The Gospels and Revelation PREDATED the Pauline letters.

anethema

i have question for aa. if you put philemon and galations on the same footing (historically speaking) , do you attempt to put them on the same footing formwise(personal letter vs polemic)?