aa5874

Please, Split these posts. They are all off-topic.

Toto

If I split the posts, would you actually explain your personal background and your language?

aa5874

This is becoming quite laughable.

Please split posts #226, # 228 and #229 since they are off-topic.

Toto

Discussion of moderation issues is always off topic. Feel free to PM me.

mountainman

Perhaps I may assist? From my perspective aa5874's first language is the language of logic. There are people here in this forum who do not understand this language when applied to the EVIDENCE presented in support of the authenticity of christian origins (including the authenticity of the Gospels and the Pauline letters) because their first language is English Rehetoric. (and many are already converted in their head to Rhetoric, not the logical examination of the evidence ... and the CONSEQUENCES and the IMPLICATIONS of the logic and the EVIDENCE)

For those in such a situation allow me to suggest that when aa5874 says you have self-destruct it just means that the authenticity of these books of the new testament self-destruct in the face of common sense logic applied to the evidence itself.

The cultural context is critical skepticism of the authenticity of the new testament, the relevance of the "packaged" LXX (ie: thus the entire bible) and the authenticity of the ONE AND ONE ONLY "Early Christian Church History" (if it can be called a history and not an imaginary complex theological romance narrative).

Some people who prefer to deal in English rhetoric and not logic-and-evidence may not be helped if they knew this, since they are happy with the status quo's (essentially defensive and apologetic) position to varying degrees. An example of this class of (shall we say) "thinkers" as applied to the OP here are those who actually PRESUME Pauline authenticity. aa5874 is simply arguing that the application of logic to the available evidence results is a self-destruction of the authenticity of the orthodox rhetorical dogmatic position. If you seek contemporary corroborating positions start with Hermann Detering's "THE FALSIFIED PAUL - Early Christianity in the Twilight" (1995).

Hermann Detering's and aa5874 first language of logic is the same.
International language rhetoric is a poor substitute veil cast over logic.
Arnaldo Momigliano once wrote about:

It would be a good thing to meditate upon this statement.
In an evidence-and-logic (ie: non rhetorical) fashion of course.

Transient

I guess "self destruct" is probably the best way to describe Kent F's arguments so from a logical perspective aa5874 is correct.

aa5874

My position is rather simple.

Once Jesus of the NT did not exist then the Pauline writings are non-historical or a pack of lies.

I am not dealing with the theology but the supposed historical events that the Pauline writers claimed to have PERSONALLY carried out with respect to Jesus, and the apostles.

1. A Pauline writer claimed he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus during the time of a governor under Aretas. See 2 Cor. 11.32-33.

That claim MUST be fundamentally true or false.

2. A Pauline writer claimed he persecuted and destroyed the FAITH that he NOW preached. See Galatians 1.23

That claim must be fundamentally true or false.

3. A Pauline writer claimed that there was some Jesus his Lord and Saviour who was a Messiah, the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God and could REMIT the sins of Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

That claim must be fundamentally true or false.

Once Jesus of the Pauline writings did NOT exist then those statements from the Pauline writers at the time of Aretas were fundamentally historically false.

Now, once the Pauline writings are historically false we just need to know who would have benefited from the Pauline writings.

Who needed the Pauline writings to be HISTORICALLY true?

The 4th century historian of the Church.

Now, let's see what the 4th century historian of the Church said about the Pauline writings.

"Church History" 3.3.5 The supposed historical information supplied by the Pauline writings to HISTORICISE Jesus, and the apostles appear to have been FABRICATED for the 4th century historian of the Church.

NOT ONE SINGLE PAULINE LETTER IS HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC.

The 4th century historian of the Church DROPPED the ball INADVERTENTLY.

Let's listen to him.

"Church History" 3.4.8 You heard him?

"Paul" was still alive when gLuke was written was ALREADY written.

The Pauline writings are NOT historically authentic.

avi

I have commented on this previously.

As one who is, sadly, grotesquely ill-equiped to handle communication in any language other than English, and with admitted handicaps even in that mother tongue, permit me to submit, to the forum, my opinion, that English is just about the world's most difficult language to employ in written communication.

Consequently, when I encounter the occasional grammatical mistake in aa5874's submissions, I simply ignore it.

I have never, in two years of reading his posts, found that the occasional minor error in his English grammar had any impact at all on the points he endeavored to explain. I am frankly puzzled by not only the initial inquiry, but also about the request for elaboration on the relationship between one's adopted language, and the "cultural context" of aa's post here, addressing the topic of the supposed authenticity of the dozen odd Epistles attributed to "Paul", all of which, in my view, are not only fiction, but also written well after Mark appeared on the scene, latter half of 2nd century, CE.

That is why I am puzzled to read this question in this thread. Kankei nai da to omiemasu.

avi

aa5874

Now, once the Pauline writings are moved to a later date then we get the DOMINO effect.

Irenaeus will have to be moved. He could not have been arguing in real time that "Paul" wrote letters one hundred years earlier when no such thing ever happened. And then Tertullian's writings that mentioned Paul would have to pushed to a later date this writer also claimed "Paul' wrote Before the Fall of the Temple.

The picture that emerges after the DOMINO effect is that many of the Church writings that appear to have been publicly circulated were not. These Pauline Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen appear to be internal documents of the Church fabricated just for the 4th century historian of the Church.

This stunning admission by John Chrysostom contradicts any theory that there was a Canon which included Acts of the Apostles since the 2nd century and contradicts the theory that the author called Luke was well known as a writer up to the END of the 4th century.

Since the 2nd century Irenaeus wrote about Acts and that Luke was the author yet 200 years later John claimed people hardly knew the book of Acts did exist and hardly knew its author .

How could people hardly know about Acts when it is the book which contains the DAY of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, and the Pauline expeditions with the very author of Acts.

Examine the words of John Chrysostom.

They are shocking.

Acts of the Apostles was hidden and out of sight up to the end of[/b] the 4th century.[/b]

"Homilies1 of Acts" How could Acts of the Apostles be not known to exist up to the end of the 4th century?

What other books were HIDDEN out of sight that was believed to be ALREADY Canonised since at least the 2nd century?

What other books did people NOT know were in existence but was supposed to be ALREADY Canonised since the at least 200 years before John Chrysostom?

The shocking admission by Chrysostom about Acts of the Apostles has led me to believe that the Pauline writings were likely to be INTERNALLY fabricated documents for the 4th century historian of the Church.

Toto

aa5874 rarely commits a grammatical error, and his or her English is quite fluent, with only occasional laspes in idiomatic English. But the tone of aa5874's posts is not conducive to dialogue. The posts come across as boastful and arrogant - much as "Paul's" letters sometimes do. More than one poster here has tried to get aa to consider a different point of view, but no one has succeeded.

I think the real problem is that aa5874 seems to treat this as some sort of logical exercise, as if the statements in the NT could be treated as if they were parts of syllogisms.