aa5874

When one examines historical sources of antiquity it becomes rather easy to observe that the Pauline writings are NON-historical.

In the Pauline letters it is claimed Jesus Christ was born of the seed of David.

Jesus Christ if he did exist was supposedly a Jew.

Romans 1:3 KJV In the Pauline letters, Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee.

Philippians 3:5 KJV In the Pauline letters, Paul claimed he was AUTHORISED to preach to NON-JEWS, the Uncircumcised Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7 KJV In the Pauline letters, it is implied Paul PREACHED the Gospel to the uncicumcised since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

2 Corinthians 11:32 KJV In the Pauline writings it is IMPLIED that Paul preached to the uncircumcised Non-Jews for at least 17 years.

Galatians 1:18 & 2.1KJV Now, what did the PHARISEE supposedly preach to ROMAN CITIZENS.

Philippians 2.9-11 KJV It is WHOLLY fictional that a PHARISEE called Paul PREACHED to ROMAN CITIZENS that a DEAD JEW was LORD and that EVERY ROMAN CITIZEN, including the Roman Emperor should bow to the name of a DEAD Jew.

Roman Citizens ALREADY had their Gods and Deified their Emperor so it is almost certainly impossible that a PHARISEE would have been able to Convince any Roman Citizen to WORSHIP a Resurrected Dead Jew.

No writer of antiquity record such a scenario where a PHARISEE preached to Roman Citizens that a dead Jew was LORD of ALL and had a name ABOVE every name in the Universe, including the Roman Emperor.

The Pauline writings are HISTORICALLY Bogus and cannot ever be substantiated.

The Pauline writings are historically a Pack of LIES based on the Abundance of evidence from antiquity.

Iskander

The writings of Paul existed and are still part of our history. I prefer to examine its value and relevance to our lives to the noisy shouting at an opponent across the street.



Charles Freeman (The Closing of the Western Mind, 2002), who in turn draws upon Gale Geiger (Filippino Lippi's Carafa Chapel, 1986).

"At the center of the composition sits Thomas Aquinas, in the black and white habit of the Dominicans. The friar crushes with his foot a scowling old man who personifies evil. In the old man's hand is a banner with the Latin inscription "Wisdom conquers evil." Above Aquinas, just out of the margin of the picture, on panels held by cherubs, are words which express the theme of the fresco: "The revelation of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple." In Aquinas's left hand is a book with words from the Apostle Paul: SAPIENTIAM SAPIENTUM PERDAM, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise." Freeman suggests that this statement of Paul was the "opening shot in the enduring war of Christianity and science."


http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...31&FORM=IDFRIR

Duvduv

As I have mentioned before, the author of Romans or the interpolater forgot that if Jesus was the messiah of the seed of David, then necessarily according to Malachi he had to be preceded by ELIJAH, and yet not a single epistle makes mention of Elijah or the Baptist in this role, nor do any of the epistles mention any verses prophetic writings concerning either Elijah or the messiah.

So it is rather mysterious why someone would introduce the element of the seed of David (especially without any genealogy)WITHOUT introducing any verses about this or the necessity of the precursor, Elijah/John the Baptist.

aa5874

Please, there is no need to be confused.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline letters.

Elijah did Come when Jesus was up in the mountain at the Transfiguration according to the Gospels.

Sinaiticus gMark 9

Duvduv

Yes, AA, I know. But that doesn't answer the question for me regarding over one dozen letters that do not mention John the Baptist, Elijah, or verses from Malachi 3 or 4, Isaiah 40, Zachariah or even Isaiah 53. Nothing. The same epistles show many other verses from the Tanakh on other matters, but NOT this. Therefore, it would appear more likely that a later scribe added the Seed of David from a marginal gloss, and did not intend to alter the text of the epistle. Otherwise anyone would immediately know that this reference introduces a whole host of questions for the text of the epistles. And the lack of any messiah-related verses in the epistles would suggest that the original writers did not imagine the Christ of Paul to have had any connection to the role of a Davidic messiah, thereby ignoring relevant verses in Tanakh.

Yet we would wonder WHY the writer(s) would not want to include the Davidic element originally with or without verse citations since it would only enhance the status of the Christ about whom other verses appear from the Tanakh.......

Perhaps all this alludes to the elements referred to in the controversy concerning the ideology of Marcion's Paul and epistles and the Tanakh references in them, whether or not the events surrounding Marcion as described by apologists was true in any century.
(Of course the immediate contradiction would arise because the Christ of Marcion who had nothing to do with the Tanakh landed in Judea and had some kind of "Marcionite gospel" about him. But that's another thread).

aa5874

Again, why do you always IMAGINE some story that cannot be found at all in antiquity or cannot produce any evidence???

Please, also imagine that a scribe did NOT add the "seed of David".

It is imperative that you also imagine that anything you imagine may be in error.

Duvduv

Therefore the fact that not a single epistle refers to a Tanakh verse about Elijah or the Davidic messiah when you would expect something to be stated means exactly WHAT then?
Just as I would ask what it means that HJ life events go unmentioned or that the epistle writer shows no interest in the places visited by the HJ.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are about Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from the dead. The Pauline writings are about the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus was the FIRST BORN of the DEAD.

Colossians 1:18 KJV Think about it. If you MET Robin Hood AFTER he was RAISED from the dead would you NOT write or at least tell people about it???

It would APPEAR that the Pauline writers were DELIGHTED that they Met the Resurrected Jesus and supposedly wrote many letters about the things the Resurrected Jesus told them.

The Pauline writers BOASTED that they did NOT confer with Flesh and Blood.

Tell me who did they CONFER with???

The Non-historical God and his non-historical Son.

The Pauline writings are about "historical" events that NEVER happened.

2 Corinthians 12:3 KJV

Duvduv

In other words this prevents a single reference to the places where his Christ was or to the verses pertaining to the Davidic messiah?! Come on!

aa5874

Again, the Pauline writer did NOT claim he saw Jesus before he was Resurrected on the third day.

The Pauline writer was supposedly giving his Personal SIDE of the Jesus story--the AFTER-LIFE of the Resurrected.

Imagine that you MET Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from the dead today would you write about the Gospels or your PERSONAL meeting with the resurrected Jesus???

The Pauline writer is claiming to have some kind of post-resurrection contact with Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV
Galatians 1