aa5874

Are you claiming that whatever Paul thinks must be true and cannot be a lie?


Now, Jesus appeared to me and told me the following. I lie not.

Tigers!

What if "Memoirs of the Apostles" = "Acts of the Apostles".
Does any one know if "Acts of the Apostles" has always been known but that name or had an earlier, different name?
If it had an earlier or different name what was it and when did it change?

aa5874

Justin Martyr quoted many passages from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and the passages are similar to passages found in gMatthew, gMark, and gLuke.

The writings of Justin Matyr have nothing on the letters of the writer called Paul, or Acts of the Apostles, yet he has detailed information about Simon Magus and nothing about Simon Magus being converted to Christianity as reported in Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 8.9-13 And this is Justin Martyr in First Apology 26 There is no mention of any apostles who met Simon Magus in First Apology as found in Acts of the Apostles.

Doug Shaver

No. If you would get out of your own head long enough to pay attention to what you read, you would see that I am claiming that a person can utter a falsehood without lying.

Doug Shaver

The scholarly consensus, for whatever that's worth, seems to be that Justin was referring to what became the canonical gospels, or at least early versions thereof. If that wasn't what he meant, then it's anybody's guess what other document or set of documents he might have had in mind. For various reasons, I don't think the Acts of the Apostles would be a good guess, but that's just my own take on it.

My own research has been a very long way from exhaustive, but I think I've done enough reading to have a fair idea of the current state of NT research. There apparently is no evidence that there was ever a version of Acts significantly different from what we now have or that it was ever referred to by any other title.

aa5874

Well, the letter writer called Paul uttered many falsehoods in the letters with his name.

There are lies in the letters with the name Paul.

Of course, you can believe whatever you want. It is your fundamental right to believe a writer who wrote lies and falsehoods in his letters was not a liar.

Paul's lies knot him up.

Doug Shaver

I have not denied that.

Maybe so, but you have provided no evidence to support that assertion.

Maybe you think that if you say it often enough, that'll make it true. A lot of apologists seem to think the same way.

No, not really.

aa5874

Maybe you cannot recognise truth from lies. As I have told you already lies are the proof of lying.

1Corinthians 15.3-8 The 8th verse is a lie. Liars tell lies. Lies are the proof of lying.

But you want some other proof.

Now, tell me how would you go about proving someone is lying?

Doug Shaver

I've already answered that question. As usual, you pay no attention to anything that anybody but yourself posts to these threads.

aa5874

These are the words of the letter writer called Paul.

Galatians1.20 Now, I will try to show that the writer called Paul was not only a liar, but was involved in a scheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

Galatians1.18 Let’s see if Peter is likely to be a person of history.

In the NT, and church writings, the creature called Jesus was portrayed as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, resurrected and ascended. There is no historical evidence for creature called Jesus.

Jesus was a mythical thing.

Now, this mythical creature had a disciple called Peter who witnessed and participated in fictitious events, that is, he saw things and did things that never happened.

Peter saw THE MYTH[/B] the offspring of the Holy Ghost walking on water and attempted to walk to towards the creature.

Peter was up in the high mountains when Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, transfigured and when the talking cloud spoke to Jesus.

The one born without sexual union, Jesus, asked Peter to catch a fish with money in its mouth in order to pay some kind of tax or levy.

And the disciple of the myth, Peter, saw and talked to Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, after the creature was resurrected.

Peter had something like fire on his head on the day of Pentecost.

Now all these things about Peter are either false and implausible, yet Peter [b] saw and participated in these incredulous mythical tales.

And, just as the myth called Jesus, there are no church writers or non-apologetic sources that can provided credible historical evidence for Peter and Jesus. All are themselves witnesses to MYTH and FICTION.

Peter was presented in a mythical way, and there are no credible historical evidence for Peter.

Peter was likely to be a mythical figure.

So, how could the letter writer called Paul meet Peter and stayed with him 15 days in Jerusalem when there is no credible historical records of Peter in the 1st century?

The writer called Paul appears to have lied about meeting Peter and staying with him for fifteen days, since Peter likely did not even exist.

The writer called Paul appears to be involved in the scheme to present a fictitious history of Jesus believers of antiquity.