aa5874

That is EXACTLY what you cannot do. You have ZERO evidence, internal and external, to claim gMark was written soon after 70 CE. You seem to think whatever you imagine is true must be true.

You attempted to claim an anonymous letter is evidence that a character called Paul wrote letters in the 1st century when you knew in advance that the author was really unknown and therefore could NOT be dated by authorship.

Even Scholars are claiming letters under the name of Paul had MULTIPLE authors so it is just absurd to even think of using anonymous letters to date Pauline letters.

You don't get points for rhetoric. You don't have anything to support your imagination.

We have the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark and gMatthew so we can logically deduce that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN before those gospels were written.

We have Justin Martyr, and we can logically deduce that Justin Martyr knew of the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation by John but knew NOTHING of the Revelations of Paul.

Pauline letters were composed AFTER the mid-2nd century based on Apologetic sources.

aa5874

As soon as it is realized the Pauline writings are ALL AFTER the Short-Ending gMark then the history of the Jesus cult can be reasonably re-constructed.

gMark's Jesus story was written in RESPONSE to the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and the Pauline letters were written in RESPONSE to the Crucifixion and RESURRECTION in the Jesus story.

The author of Acts is presented as a WITNESS of Saul/Paul and supposedly DOCUMENTED the bright light conversion and activities of Saul/Paul.

The Pauline writer PLACED himself in a basket in Damascus in 1 Cor 11.32-33 which COINCIDES with ACTS 9.23-25.

The Pauline writer has placed himself AFTER the Ascension of Jesus.

The Pauline writer is AFTER ACTS was composed.

The Jesus story in gMark and Acts are compatible with FICTION and the Pauline writer ATTEMPTED to be a WITNESS to ALL FICTITIOUS characters.

Paul claimed he met Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. Galatians 1

Peter was a FICTITIOUS character in gMark's Jesus story which was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Paul claimed he met the Apostle James in Jerusalem. Galatians 1

There were NO actual Apostles of Jesus---they are all Fictitious characters in gMark's Jesus story which was written AFTER c 70 CE.

Paul claimed he was LAST VISITED by the resurrected Jesus. 1 Cor.15

Jesus is a Fictitious character in gMark's Jesus story which was written AFTER c 70 CE.

Remarkably ALL of the NT characters that the Pauline writer met cannot be found in any credible sources of antiquity and the very Pauline writer who supposedly EVANGELISED the Gentile world and DOCUMENTED his teachings With letters also is UNKNOWN outside the Church and Apologetics.

Every Apologetic source of antiquity PLACE the Pauline writer AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY KNOWN.

ALL the Canonised Jesus stories have been deduced to have been written AFTER c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are ALL AFTER C 70 CE.

Littlejohn

Yes, Chili, just that ..

WARNING, though: what Eusebius reports, regarding this matter, it is highly reticent, because has been expunged from the narrative the figure of Paul/Saul ... (see Recognitiones of the pseudo Clement)


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

So far, it has been shown that in "Against Heresies" 3, Clement was the THIRD bishop of Rome AFTER the Apostles.

In "Prescription Against Heretics" Clement is the FIRST bishop of Rome AFTER the Apostles.

Now, by MAGIC, Augustine of Hippo will state that Clement was the SECOND bishop.

“Augustine Letter 53 2. When did the Great Dissension in Corinth happen if Clement was the FIRST, SECOND and THIRD bishop of Rome AFTER the Apostles???

We NOW know that Clement of Rome is a FABRICATED character and I have NOT even shown all the various lists of the succession of the Bishops of Rome.

The History of the Church has been BUSTED.

The Bishops of Rome were INVENTED including Peter and Clement of Rome.