darstec

You are correct. These are just fine examples of Doublespeak.

angelo

Judging from what we have as evidence now, Paul, that is if it's true he was executed around 60-62 CE, thirty years of evangelizing which would place him there just a few years after the crucifixion.
What must be remembered though, is the experience he had on the road to Damascus as he describes it. The vision and hearing disembodied voices are the symptoms of a schizophrenic, or of some kind of brain seizure which to him would be as true as any one of us talking to a friend etc. It must also be remembered that without this man, christianity may have died a natural death just as for example, Zoroastrianism and any number of other cults.
The dates I agree are arguable and depends on who is making the claims. At best they are educated guesses.

aa5874

But, it is PRECISELY the veracity of the NT Canon that has been questioned.

And once the veracity is questioned then it must be taken into account that it may be true that "Paul" was NOT executed 60-62 CE.

You must remember the track record of the Church writers and authors of the NT.

The very Church historian who wrote that Paul was executed under Nero also claimed Peter was executed during the time of the same Emperor.

Now, it almost certain that Peter was a fictitious character in the Jesus fiction stories.

The very Church historian who claimed Paul was executed under Nero also claimed the fictitious Peter was in Rome with Paul.

It is almost certain that Paul was a fictitious character since only in fiction novels fictitious characters meet and stay with "real people" for "fifteen days."

Perhaps you have forgotten that no Pauline writer even corroborated the "blinding bright light encounter with the voice of Jesus" on the road to Damascus as found in Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writers perhaps suffered from Amnesia. He simply "could not recall."

The Pauline writings do not appear to be the product of "brain seizures but of fiction.

The historical information in the Pauline writings were planted in order to deceive or dupe.

It is almost certain that there was no character called Jesus the Messiah who was regarded as equal to God, Creator of heaven and earth, who was resurrected for the Remission of the sins of the Jews and all mankind BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are a package of NON-HISTORY.

No actual person called Saul or Paul as found in Acts or the Pauline writings was responsible for belief in Jesus or the continuation of belief in Jesus or for there to have been Christians.

Even Paul claimed people were in Christ BEFORE him.

It was CONSTANTINE who SAVED Jesus believers. Check your history.

Before Constantine, Jesus believers were persecuted, called ATHEISTS, and CANNIBALS and AFTER Constantine Jesus believers started to PERSECUTE and DESTROY.


But, if you are simply guessing then you should try other dates for Paul.

Try some dates in the 2nd century. Try some dates in the 3rd or 4th century.

I tried dates AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr, AFTER 150 CE, and they worked just fine.

Now, GUESS who needed Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings to APPEAR to be historically accurate?

Justin Martyr did NOT.

Guess again.

Constantine and the Church historian.

"Church History" 3. "Church History"3. "Church History" 2. It is evident that the Church historian needs Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings to APPEAR authentic.

But AFTER the Church historian claimed Acts of the Apostles was UNIVERSALLY acknowledged as AUTHENTIC, John Chrysostom claimed HARDLY ANY ONE even knew a book called Acts of the Apostles did exist or the author.

This is John Chrysostom in his Homily of Acts around the end of the 4th century..

Without Acts of the Apostles, the Church "history of Paul" would not have been known and therefore HARDLY ANYONE knew or was aware of the author of Acts and the Church "history of Paul" up to the end of the 4th century.

Based on the abundance of evidence, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are fundamentally NON-HISTORICAL.

angelo

I thought that out of 14 Pauline letters, at least 6 are authentic, the rest are forgeries.
Acts could well be fiction as Luke is writing decades later and could well be writing hearsay, just as Josephus and others surely are.

aa5874

How can you demonstrate that even ONE of the Pauline Epistles were written by "Paul" before the Fall of the Temple?

Surely the Pauline writings could have been based on hearsay and written decades after the Fall of the Temple.

I think the authenticity of the Pauline writings is based on "Chinese Whispers" or RUMORS.

Those who claim that some of the Pauline writings are authentic do NOT ever produce EVIDENCE.

By the way, there are ONLY 13 epistles with the name "Paul".

angelo

Sorry about that. There are only 13 which most agree only 6 may be authentic.
That's not to say they are authentic. Only that most scholars thinks so.

aa5874

Again, what is the basis for such an agreement?

Simply claiming that "scholars agree" has NO value as Evidence.

You mean scholars have SPECULATED that some of the Pauline writings MAY BE authentic but there is NO external evidence or corroborative source for any Pauline writings.

The correct word is SPECULATED.

Scholars have SPECULATED.

angelo

The whole N/T is speculative is it not? It has to be. It has no known authors, none claim to be eyewitness accounts, and all the gospels are full of superstitious nonsense.

aa5874

So, if you knew in ADVANCE that the WHOLE NT is SPECULATIVE why did you not say from the start that scholars have merely SPECULATED that Paul was early but there is NO EVIDENCE at all to support such Pauline nonsense in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.


1. There is NO EXTERNAL corroborative source that can show that Jesus of Nazareth a Messiah was given a name ABOVE every other name in Judea or the Roman Empire BEFORE the Fall of the Temple as claimed by a Pauline writer.

It was the 4th Century under Constantine when the NAME of Jesus was a NAME ABOVE every name.

2. There is NO EXTERNAL corroborative source that can show that BEFORE the Fall of the Temple that EVERY JEW and ROMAN citizen should BOW their KNEE to the name of Jesus of Nazareth a so-called Messiah.

It was in the 4th century under Constantine when Jesus was made the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire that every Roman Citizen including Jews was asked or ordered to BOW to the name of Jesus.

3. The teaching of salvation through the resurrection by the Pauline writers is not even found in any of the Gospels.

In the Synoptics the Jesus character did not teach that his resurrection had any ability to remit sins just belief that he was the Messiah.

In gJohn, the Jesus character taught that his crucifixion and death, not the resurrection, was for the sins of mankind.

The Pauline writings show signs of being VERY VERY LATE even after the gospel of "John".

Loomis

But the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 had the LORD’S NAME. Wouldn’t the LORD’S NAME be above every other name?

If so then the only remaining issue is if the LORD’S NAME was “Jesus”.

Right?

But Isaiah 45:23-25 says that everyone will BOW their KNEE and be justified by the LORD.

And the LORD certainly had a name that was above every other name.

Right?

----------------------

To cut to the chase - you are claiming that Constantine invented these motifs.

But it doesn’t look that way to me. Constantine didn’t pull them out of his ass; these motifs were already present in older Jewish folklore.

----------------------

Btw – I think you are right about most everything else.