Sheshbazzar

So the Church has taught you, and so you believe.

Duvduv

AA, there is very little information about what the authors believed was the religion persecuted by Saul.
Neither in Acts nor in Galatians. There is precious little information indicating what the same authors thought to be the actual religion of the folks in Jerusalem and Judea as well.
The authors must have hoped the reader would PROJECT the Church religion into the narrative.
That is what you are doing too. We don't exactly know what supposedly Saul was persecuting, and in Galatians we are not even told WHERE the persecution took place or even against whom and for how long.
And the Apologists don't even fill in any gaps midrashically.

Sheshbazzar

Likely because 'Paul's' writings were the oldest, and thus had enjoyed the longest time period for the text and adulterations to become institutionally standardized.
The latter Gospel texts came in fast succession in period of a few short years in a church that was communicating across multiple nations and growing by leaps and bounds, cranking out their Jebus texts at an incredible rate, with no time left for the various sects to get their ducks in a row and make these Gospels as variation free and as institutionally standardized as they had managed with 'Paul's' writings.

aa5874

You have no idea what 'evidence' is.

You are the one who is arguing that the Pauline writings are early and admit you Believe Paul.

The Church do NOT teach that the Pauline writings are the Last in the Canon and do NOT TEACH that they were composed AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr or around c 150 CE or later.

Sheshbazzar

No, I am arguing that Saul the Pharisee's writings were early, and were originally written before 'christianity',
and that latter 'christianity' co-opted and rewrote them to reflect their own theological beliefs.
Oh come now. Where did I ever say I that I believed any 'Paul', or in what any Paul preached?
I believe I am pretty well known in this Forum for repeatedly and emphatically declaring the Gospels and Epistles as history to be fabricated "horse shit" ...possibly you can recall that fact?

However, based upon the Biblical texts I believe it very likely that there once was a real Pharisee known as Saul of Tarsus that went around to the Jewish synagogues teaching from The Torah and the Prophets that it was contrary to The Scriptures to require Gentile 'God-Fearers' to undergo circumcision.
That does not even entail that I believe what this Saul individual would have taught, only that based upon the content of The Law and The Prophets, and certain material to be found within the christian epistles, I accept the high likelihood that Saul did so preach.
Reverend Fall preached at Pisgah Heights, I was there to hear him first-hand. if I related to you what he preached about, it would be no indication that I believed what he preached.

You need to be a little more specific with that claim. WHICH Church, and WHERE do they claim that the Pauline writings were First in the Canon?
And even if they do, WHY should I accept the views or statements of these religionists that I find to be infected with virulent Zombie Jebus Brain Disease, and inveterate false witnesses inclined to be liars ???
My position in any event, is not based upon what 'the Church' teaches or claims.
Wow. you finally got something right. They teach that all of the NT writings were all written and distributed to the christian churches before 70 CE.
Does that indicate to you that they are accurate or truthful sources of information?
If you don't believe them, Why the hell should you expect that I have to?

aa5874

But, you just claimed 'Paul's' writings were the oldest, can't you remember??But SAUL wrote ZERO, NIL, NO letters to Churches in Acts of the Apostles.

Who told you SAUL wrote anything???

Please quote a phrase from SAUL'S writings and tell us when SAUL wrote??

Acts of the Apostle is the Only Source in the Canon that named a character called Saul and his name was LATER, I repeat LATER, changed to Paul.

Even the name SAUL is found BEFORE PAUL in Acts.

Well, examine your own post. You believe that Saul was early. In the NT SAUL and Paul are the same persons and you have ZERO corroborative evidence for SAUL in the Canon. PAUL did NOT admit he was ever called Saul.

And Saul wrote Nothing to Seven Churches in Acts.

Why is NOT your early SAUL a piece of fabricated "horse shit"??

You Believe there was a person called SAUL because it is in the Bible since there is NO corroboration in the Bible for SAUL.

Except in Acts, no author of the Canon acknowledged SAUL and Pauline writer did not admit he was called Saul.

You have NOTHING but your imagination or faith in Acts that SAUL was early.

Sheshbazzar

The Acts of The Apostles is fabricated religious horse shit. It doesn't make any difference what The Acts of The Apostles says.

Acts of The Apostles was the last piece of the Canonical horse shit forged. The forgers knew of Saul of Tarsus because they had plagiarized his writings

NO SHIT Dick Tracy? Whatever gave you that clue?
Seems like I just mentioned that SAUL wrote first.

But...as I have repeatedly made clear I do not accept that tale as presented in the so called 'New Testament' and there is no reason for anyone not a christian to do so.
SAUL of Tarsus, and 'Paul' are NOT the same persons in reality. 'Paul' is an invented fictional character based upon Saul a real person.
Why would 'he' have? The forged writings were produced (and not by any 'Paul' but by church forgers writing under the ersatz pen name 'Paul') to capitalize on Saul of Tarsus good reputation, while still distancing 'Paul' the imaginary christian, from Saul the real Pharisaic Jew.

Acts isn't history. Acts isn't reality. Acts isn't credible.
What do you think you will prove by citing the invented horse shit of Acts?
Because the anti-circumcision religion had to start someplace, and a devout JEW learned in the Scriptures, identified as Saul presents that most logical of beginnings .

This sentence as written makes no sense.
Saul is the name the texts provide for that individual. There is no rational reason to seek any other

Already addressed and the statement is pointless and without value.
And you have nothing but worthless assertions based upon texts that you admit are forged and are not credible. That doesn't put you in any better position.

You use this thread to pontificate your assertions repeatedly.
I've joined in here to show that you are not the only one who can make assertions based upon this same horse shit.

I am convinced that my reconstruction of the order by which the NT came into being is more accurate, more logical, more rational, and has better explanatory power for why the 'Epistles' lack any information on the life of Jesus, than the version that you have been pontificating here.

.

Sheshbazzar

The Acts of The Apostles is fabricated religious horse shit. It doesn't make any difference what The Acts of The Apostles says.

Acts of The Apostles was the last piece of the Canonical horse shit forged. The forgers knew of Saul of Tarsus because they had plagiarized his writings

NO SHIT Dick Tracy? Whatever gave you that clue?
Seems like I just mentioned that SAUL wrote first.

But...as I have repeatedly made clear I do not accept that tale as presented in the so called 'New Testament' and there is no reason for anyone not a christian to do so.
SAUL of Tarsus, and 'Paul' are NOT the same persons in reality. 'Paul' is an invented fictional character based upon Saul a real person.
Why would 'he' have? The forged writings were produced (and not by any 'Paul' but by church forgers writing under the ersatz pen name 'Paul') to capitalize on Saul of Tarsus good reputation, while still distancing 'Paul' the imaginary christian, from Saul the real Pharisaic Jew.

Acts isn't history. Acts isn't reality. Acts isn't credible.
What do you think you will prove by citing the invented horse shit of Acts?
Because the anti-circumcision religion had to start someplace, and a devout JEW learned in the Scriptures, identified as Saul presents that most logical of beginnings .

This sentence as written makes no sense.
Saul is the name the texts provide for that individual. There is no rational reason to seek any other

Already addressed and the statement is pointless and without value.
And you have nothing but worthless assertions based upon texts that you admit are forged and are not credible. That doesn't put you in any better position.

You use this thread to pontificate your assertions repeatedly.
I've joined in here to show that you are not the only one who can make assertions based upon this same horse shit.

I am convinced that my reconstruction of the order by which the NT came into being is more accurate, more logical, more rational, and has better explanatory power for why the 'Epistles' lack any information on the life of Jesus, than the version that you have been pontificating here.

.

Sheshbazzar

The Acts of The Apostles is fabricated religious horse shit. It doesn't make any difference what The Acts of The Apostles says.

Acts of The Apostles was the last piece of the Canonical horse shit forged. The forgers knew of Saul of Tarsus because they had plagiarized his writings

NO SHIT Dick Tracy? Whatever gave you that clue?

Seems like I just mentioned that SAUL wrote first.

But...as I have repeatedly made clear I do not accept that tale as presented in the so called 'New Testament' and there is no reason for anyone not a christian to do so.
SAUL of Tarsus, and 'Paul' are NOT the same persons in reality. 'Paul' is an invented fictional character based upon Saul a real person.
Why would 'he' have? The forged writings were produced (and not by any 'Paul' but by church forgers writing under the ersatz pen name 'Paul') to capitalize on Saul of Tarsus good reputation, while still distancing 'Paul' the imaginary christian, from Saul the real Pharisaic Jew.

Acts isn't history. Acts isn't reality. Acts isn't credible.

What do you think you will prove by citing the invented horse shit of Acts?
Because the anti-circumcision religion had to start someplace, and a devout JEW learned in the Scriptures, identified as Saul presents that most logical of beginnings .

This sentence as written makes no sense.
Saul is the name the texts provide for that Jewish individual. There is no rational reason to seek any other

Already addressed and the statement is pointless and without value.
And you have nothing but worthless assertions based upon texts that you admit are forged and are not credible. That doesn't put you in any better position.

You use this thread to pontificate your assertions repeatedly.
I've joined in here to show that you are not the only one who can make assertions based upon this same horse shit.

I am convinced that my reconstruction of the order by which the NT came into being is more accurate, more logical, more rational, and has better explanatory power for why the 'Epistles' lack any information on the life of Jesus, than the version that you have been pontificating here.
I DO NOT endorse the accuracy of, nor depend as heavily upon the veracity of these texts as you do.

.

Sheshbazzar

The Acts of The Apostles is fabricated religious horse shit. It doesn't make any difference what The Acts of The Apostles says.

Acts of The Apostles was the last piece of the Canonical horse shit forged. The forgers knew of Saul of Tarsus because they had plagiarized his writings.
Of course his name was changed to 'Paul' LATER. That is what I said. Saul didn't ever change his name, the lying church writers changed it in their christian fiction.

NO SHIT Dick Tracy? Whatever gave you that clue?

Seems like I just mentioned that SAUL wrote first.

But...as I have repeatedly made clear I do not accept that tale as presented in the so called 'New Testament' and there is no reason for anyone who is not a committed christian to do so.
SAUL of Tarsus, and 'Paul' are NOT the same persons in reality. 'Paul' is an invented fictional character based upon Saul a real person.
Why would 'he' have? The forged writings were produced (and not by any 'Paul' but by church forgers writing under the ersatz pen name 'Paul') to capitalize on Saul of Tarsus good reputation, while still distancing 'Paul' the imaginary christian, from Saul the real Pharisaic Jew.
And to repeat. The name change was a convenient marker to quickly identify the 'christianized' epistles from any remaining genuine epistles of the real Saul.

Acts isn't history. Acts isn't reality. Acts isn't credible.
What Acts does or doesn't say about Saul or 'Paul' proves nothing with regard to history.
Acts is nothing more than a religious propaganda fiction a 'just so' 'beginnings tale', a fabricated 'history'.

What do you think you will prove by citing the invented horse shit of Acts?
Because the anti-circumcision religion had to start someplace, and a devout JEW learned in the Scriptures, identified as Saul presents that most logical of beginnings .

This sentence as written makes no sense.
Saul is the name the texts provide for that Jewish individual. There is no rational reason to seek any other

Already addressed and the statement is pointless and without value.
And you have nothing but assertions based upon texts that you admit are forged and are not credible.
That doesn't put you in any better position.

You use this thread to pontificate your assertions repeatedly.
I've joined in here to show that you are not the only one who can make assertions based upon this same horse shit.

I am convinced that my reconstruction of the order by which the NT came into being is more accurate, more logical, more rational, and has better explanatory power for why the 'Epistles' lack any information on the life of Jesus, than the version that you have been pontificating here.
I DO NOT endorse the accuracy of, nor depend as heavily upon the veracity of these texts as you do.


.