outhouse

before the fall of the temple there was only a sect of judaism


christianity didnt exist at that time.


does my statement really go against what was said by Tacitus and Suetonius ???

Chili

The sperm is a self propelled seed with a mind of it's own?

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writer is a fictitious writer who did NOT live before the Fall of the Temple cannot be unfounded at all.

1. The very Church writer, apologetic sources, claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

2. The author of gMatthew did NOT use a single verse from the Pauline writings.

3. The author of gMatthew used virtually all of gMark Word-for-Word.

4. The additional details of the supposed Jesus in gMatthew are NOT from the Pauline writings.

5. Not one of the SIX post-resurrection visits in the Pauline writings are found in gMatthew.

6. The Matthean Jesus was NOT AWARE of the Pauline Jesus.

7. The Matthean Jesus was aware of the Markan Jesus.

8. The Matthean Jesus was NOT known as a Savior of the Jews.

9. The Matthean Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ.

10. The Pauline Jesus had a name above every name and was Lord to whom every knee should bow.

11. The Matthean Jesus told his disciples to Baptize for remission of Sins.

12. The Pauline Jesus revealed that without the resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins.

13. In gMatthew, John the Baptist baptized for repentance of Sins which made the Pauline Jesus Obsolete.

14. The Pauline Jesus was the Firstborn of the DEAD but the Matthean Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost.


There is simply no non-apologetic evidence at all anywhere that the author of gMatthew was aware of Paul, the Pauline letters, the Pauline churches or attended a Pauline church at anythime.

The author of gMatthew was FULLY aware of gMark.

No one can produce a comprehensive argument supported by any credible evidence of antiquity that the author of gMatthew was aware of any Pauline letter.

NO-ONE.

All we have are just continuous rhetoric as support for an early Paul.

EarlDoherty

Until you can demonstrate why Matthew should have been aware of Paul and his writings and/or why he should have used them (as far as I know, you haven't even made the attempt), all the CAPITALS in the world will not justify your claim.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Again, your statement is NOT credible just rhetoric. You cannot demonstrate that the Pauline letters were written Before gMatthew regardless of the size of the letters you use.

As I stated before, NOT one person can show using any non-apologetic evidence of antiquity that the Pauline letters to the churches were composed Before the Jesus stories were written.

We have Canonised gMatthew, gMark and the Pauline writings.

Any reasonable person can see that the author of gMatthew did NOT use any details of the Pauline revelations of the resurrected Jesus.

The author of gMatthew appears to have used virtually all of gMark [word-for-word] or the very same source used by gMark's author.

And when the Canon is closely examined it is revealed that NOT one author claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches.

Who initiated the claim that Paul wrote letters to churches and before the Fall of the Temple when there is NO such things in the Canon???

Incredibly, it seems we are dealing with "Chinese Whisper" that was probably started 1600 years ago.

There is NO corroborative source in the Canon to support the claim Paul wrote letters to churches and that he did so before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE---NONE whatsoever.

EarlDoherty

I can see why people end up putting you on ignore.

Consider me a member of the club as well.

Earl Doherty

Bingo the Clown-O

Earl,

We don’t have to understand all of early Christianity in order to establish that Paul is fiction.

Here’s what I said:
See?

We don’t have to understand all of early Christianity in order to establish that Paul is fiction.

Get it?

Now get over it.

Johnny Skeptic

Hi Earl,

Thanks very much for partipating from time to time at this forum. I am a big admirer of yours, although I am far from being an expert in biblical criticism and history. Even when I do not understand what you say, you seem to present your postions very logically, and very thoroughly. Don't worry about people who complain that you are not a scholar. Some of the most brilliant people in the world do not have college degrees. Dr. Robert Price once told me that he was very impressed with some of your writings.

At the very least, people should appreciate your attempts to honestly try to find out as much as you can about what happened in antiquity. May you live long and prosper.

Bingo the Clown-O

Earl,

It looks to me like you are the one claiming to have the smoking gun.

Not me. I am just a clown. I told you that a long time ago. It should be obvious.

I'm not watering down anything.

Bingo the Clown-O

Then what does it say?