Bernard Muller

to Sheshbazzar,
The same goes for India and China.
And that's not answering what aa initially said (and still keeps up):
Anyway, thanks Sheshbazzar, you confirmed that aa was wrong (and you are a hostile witness!).

aa5874

Well, you have IMPLODED once more.

See http://www.sinaiticus.com/

Acts of the Apostles 29.6-8

Bernard Muller

aa, see my answer here:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....67#post7100167

aa5874

You have confirmed that virtually all sources which mention Paul are forgeries, fraudulent or fiction.

Now, please tell me when the letters from Paul to Seneca were forged???

Can you tell me when the letters from Seneca to Paul were forged???

Can you tell me when the letters to Timothy and Titus were forged???

Paul of Tarsus and his letters were fabricated.

Those who fabricated Paul and his letters committed a Crime Against Humanity.

Bernard Muller

And where did I confirm that?
Because these letters were forged does not mean all letters from Paul were forged.
Because some alleged memoirs of Hitler was forged does not mean that 'Mein Kampf' was forged.

aa5874

Because letters with the Paul were forged then all may have been forged. We cannot naively accept letters with the name Paul as authentic WITHOUT corroboration.

Because virtually every source of antiquity that mentioned Paul is either a forgery, fraudulent or fiction then we cannot naively accept letters with the name Paul as authentic and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

Because the Church itself does NOT know when the Pauline writer really lived then letters under the name Paul cannot be BLINDLY accepted as authentic.

Letters under the name of Paul were UNKNOWN to Apologetic sources up to the mid 2nd century and UNKNOWN to the authors of the Short Ending gMrk and the author of gMatthew.

I can ONLY deal with the SURVIVING evidence.

Paul of Tarsus was a Fraud who lived in some other century under some other name or alias who gave the FALSE impression that he lived in the 1st century before c 70 CE and that he met apostles called Peter and James.

The apostles Peter and James did NOT even exist. They were ficitious characters in the Myth Fables of Jesus.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
With your "may", you are allowing the possibility some letters are authentic. Congratulation! A step in the right direction. But then, in a flash, you change your mind.
That's because you do not want to consider the Christology of gJohn (but rather you focus on gMatthew!) and 1Clement (not a forgery because the author does not name himself!). And maybe the author of the short ending of gMark did not want to consider Acts, for reasons I explained many times, some of them evidenced in Tertullian & Chrysostom's writings.
But the author of 'Acts' knew when Paul lived and, more vaguely, also the author of 1Clement.
Yes, I can hear the dominos falling: Peter and James did not exist, so Paul did not exist, so all named authors (like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen) or unnamed who mentioned Paul, did not exist, so all authors who mentioned authors who mentioned Paul, did not exist. Oops, did I go too far? Where do we stop?

aa5874

Oops, you don't seem to care about the evidence you ONLY want people to STOP saying things you don't like.

The Only way to stop me is to find EVIDENCE that can contradict me.

Please explain how Peter James and John could have seen the Transfiguration of Jesus?? Mark 9.2

Please explain how the disciples could have seen Jesus as he Walked on water?? Mark 6.48-49

Please explain how the disciples could have been VISITED by the resurrected Jesus??? John 20

There are NO credible non-apologetic sources for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Jesus was a Son of a Ghost so it is virtually impossible for such a character to have had actual disciples.

The Jesus story is a Myth Fable, not history.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
I did that often, but you raised the bar so high, that you will accept nothing. If you think just a mention of Paul is good enough to prove the whole text is forgery which has to be backdated by centuries, then of course nothing will go through by you.

Here we are again, confusing issues. Just because these things have been written, does not take away the existence of followers of an earthly Jesus. These ones were probably dead when that was written. They did not have any control on what would be said about what they experienced and saw.
Once again, confusing issue. This Son of God through conception with the Spirit came (was invented) at least 50 years after the crucifixion. Again that does not prevent HJ to have been an earthly human. And in these days, this kind of godly conception was believed fairly commonly among Jews and more so Gentiles. From my website with editing:

aa5874

You are NOT credible. You have NOT at all presented any EVIDENCE from a credible non-apologetic source to support anything that you have claimed about Paul. NONE--ZERO--NIL.

I DETEST when you make statements that are WHOLLY erroneous and mis-leading.

It is NO SECRET that there is ZERO support for anything Pauline from non-apologetic sources of antiquity.