aa5874

I have finally nailed "Paul" in his coffin of fiction, never to be released.

"Paul" claimed he met and stayed with a fictitious character for fifteen days.

"Paul" claimed he met the brother of a fictitious character in Jerusalem.

"Paul", by his own words, is fabricated fiction.

Galations 1.18-19 The authors of the gospels appear to have trapped "Paul" in a web.

Jesus, the son of God born of the Holy Ghost, who was resurrected and ascended to heaven in full view of the apostles, is fiction, as well as Peter and James, yet "Paul" got revelations from Jesus and physically met these fictitious characters called Peter and James.

The fabricator of "Paul" did not realise, it would seem, that one day it would be discovered that the Jesus story was fiction and exposed his character "Paul" as a fraud.

"Paul" was a fabricated fraud.

aa5874

It can be shown, over and over, that Paul, was an invention, a fictitious character assembled to maintain the false claim that the Christian Church of the Eusebian "sect", as found in Church History, was the only true Church and was started by disciples of Jesus, namely Peter along with "Paul".

As it can be shown, without contradiction, the Jesus of the NT is a fictitious character, Jesus came to earth as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and left as some kind of ghost-like entity floating through the clouds.

Even internally, using the NT, it can be shown that "Paul" was a fictitious character.

"Paul" received the fictitious gifts of the "Holy Ghost" after "Paul" was supposed to be dead.

The inventor of "Paul", it would appear, did not realise the day of Pentecost, when the apostles received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as written in Acts, was a bogus event.

This complete fictional event is found in Acts 2:

Now, it would appear that the Jesus stories in the NT were written after the fall of the Jewish Temple followed by the Acts of the Apostles sometime later, this means that the fictitious gifts of Holy Ghost story was written AFTER the fall of the Jewish Temple.

Now, this is "Paul" in 1Corinthians 14.18 And this is Eusebius in Church History with the claim that "Paul" and Peter died under Nero.

Church History 2.25.5 Based on Eusebius, then, "Paul" would have died BEFORE the Acts of the Apostles was written, in turn, Paul would have been dead before the fictitious gifts of the Holy Ghost stories were written, and the FIRST time Acts of the Apostles is mentioned is about 175 CE by Irenaeus.

How is it "Paul" was dead and still received the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

Only Ghosts can receive gifts from Ghosts.

"Paul" is fiction or a ghost letter-writer.

rlogan

Oh my goodness. I beg pardon for not having read 41 pages. Tried the beginning, then sampling occasionally and finally the end here.

Seems to me that one has to put forward an "Argument of Best Explanation" to defeat the "where there is smoke there must be fire" sophistry of the HJ crowd looking for that kernel of Jesus beneath the Christ. (Worded as what is really meant as no more than a good natured barb to HJ adherents. Honestly.)

So you have to assemble the whole lot of it (the NT Canon) with the "letters" of the legendary Paul being fabricated by Marcion (See Dutch Radicals), others writing other fraudulent" (ha!) letters of Paul and of course the culmination of it all under the emperor Constantine.

I say Eusebius forged the TF, meaning at about that time it was done by the confluence of interests in monopolizing religion for greater control of the population. But already by then of course Christianity was generations into its maturity with competing creeds that this confluence of interests co-opted as opposed to creating. That is where the assertion as a cold-start Roman myth fails. It fails to address the prehistory of the movement.

Eusebius, writing the official Church History - ie church doctrine, must have had a role in the TF. (More correctly, he PERFORMED a role.) It was imperitive that they credentialed themselves with the linear descent of authority from Jesus to (heh) the State religious powers. They altered official history as a means of consolidating power. Jesus was real. His authority passed through Peter and ultimately to whoever is in power now.

Eusebius, writing for the Emperor, had both motive and opportunity. My goodness, no person more so that Eusebius had license to alter a historical tract, and the motives of the government/church power nexus could not be clearer. Look at how effusive he is over it. Obviously, he needs it. The TF arises historically in his hands. Just as the letters of Paul arise in the hands of Marcion.

It seems to me that one has to start being reasonable with acknowledging a solid reference to Christians by the time of Pliny writing to Trajan. Christianity must be pretty well established by then if it were in need of official state memorandum back and forth. But not so well established that they knew how to handle it. Sounds like both Trajan and Pliny have never thought about how to deal with them before.

So you need to begin at least there with a model of nascent christianity and how it ultimately became commandeered in the 4th Century. How it became a state sanctioned criminal enterprise.

In a way answering challenges makes you fill in all the holes one-by-one but one has to do it linearly in history for the most compelling case. Then sell it on amazon dot com.

FWIW I do believe that Paul was a fiction of Marcion, representing one branch of Christianity that developed after (not before) the fall of the Temple for sure and maybe even post JW and AJ by Josephus. If there were Christians, Josephus was unaware of them. It is a full generation from there to the Pliny the Younger/Trajan exchange. Plenty of time to get a cult going.

The mish-mash we ended up with in the official church canon is due to that canon being assembled both over time and across different creeds and finally as a group co-opted when religion was monopolized as a means of controlling the population.

All of it best categorized as fiction and the characters myths.

Doug Shaver

You can say it over and over. That isn't the same thing as showing it even once.

aa5874

I do not think Marcion invented "Paul", let me try to show some of the reasons.

The first report of Marcion of Pontus is found in Justin Martyr's "First Apology" XXVI and LVIII.

"First Apology" XXVI Justin is very clear, Marcion does not believe in the God of the Jews, he does not believe that the God of the Jews is the maker of this unverse. Marcion is of the devil.

But, Marcion has many followers from every nation and they are called Christians.

First Apology LVIII Again, Justin clearly states Marcion DENIES that the Christ is from the God of the Jews , and believes that some other greater God had some other Son who was earth. And further, then all the prophecies as outlined in the OT have nothing to do with Marcion's Christ.

And this is how the character called "Paul" introduces himself in "Romans"

Romans 1 So Paul's Jesus Christ, quite unlike Marcion's Christ Jesus, is from the God of the Jews, according to prophecies in the Scriptures, of the seed of David and resurrected from the dead.

And Paul continues in Romans 11.1 So, Paul claims to be a Jew.

It is highly illogical to me for Marcion to invent the "Paul" of the Pauline Epistles, when this Paul in no way whatsoever represents his Jesus Christ and bearing in mind that Paul would have had a 100 year history with the Church, preaching Christ crucified according to the Scriptures, and would have founded or help to start seven Churches.

It seems more realistic that the Church invented "Paul" to falsely claim that their Jesus was more ancient that the one of Marcion.

2-J

... unless one is of the opinion that the anti-marcionites interpolated bits into the Epistiles as opposed to Marcion removing things.

Marcion's version of the epistles, of course, didn't have these statements which contradicted his overall philosophy.

aa5874

Now, if the Church invented a man, with three close associates and seven Churches in the 1st century, couldn't they invent a few stories about Marcion?

rlogan

Yea.

I think it is generally recognized that Marcion came up with the first bible and that it consisted of the letters of Paul.

The proto-orthodoxy solves the Marcionite threat by commandeering their movement and doctoring things up. Introducing Acts too in an attempt to resolve contradictions.

rlogan

Marcion's Paul is not the proto-orthodox Paul, and both of them are anti-Judaism.

I liked this piece on the two different approaches to how the Hebrew Bible was integrated (or not) into the two creeds:

Anti-Judaism in Marcion and his Opponents by Joseph B. Tyson

aa5874

The fatal flaw in "Anti-Judaism in Marcion and his Opponents" by Joseph B Tyson is that the author failed to recognise that Peter and Paul are products of fiction.


Philo and Josephus did NOT account for any one named Jesus who had thousands of followers, and was believed to be the son of the God of the Jews.
Philo and Josephus did NOT account for Followers of Jesus.
Philo and Josephus did NOT account for any Churches of followers of Jesus.
Philo and Josephus did NOT account for any person who had the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
Philo and Josephus did NOT account for any persons who were asking Jews to abandon the law because the son of the God of the Jews was crucified, and died for their sins.

Eusebius in Church History claimed Philo may have met Peter in Rome, however, Philo, in all his writings, never mentioned Peter.

Eusebius, again in Church History, claimed Philo was aware of Mark a disciple of Peter, similarly, Philo never wrote a single word about Mark.

Eusebius, claimed Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome under Nero, yet in Acts of the Apostles, no such martyrdoms are recorded, even though, Acts of the Apostles appear to have been written in the 2nd century.

The author of Acts mentioned the martyrdom of Stephen and James the brother of John, but failed to mention the two most important martyrdoms in the history of the Church, Peter and Paul.

The basis for Paul"s ministry was his conversion, yet this conversion is all fiction based on Acts.

But, how is it that fiction is canonised in the NT?

Acts of the Apostles was canonised, it is riddled with fiction, and Eusebius in Church History wrote that the Paul in Acts is the same Paul who wrote all the Epistles to the seven Churches, Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Peter and Paul are canonised fiction.