aa5874

But, Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after resurrection and told churches all over the Roman Empire. It is completely unrealistic for Paul to make false statements about the supposed resurrection of Jesus within a few years of supposed crucifixion, while knowning that Jesus did not exist at all.

This can be interpreted as fiction. This can be interpreted as part of the scheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

Paul want readers to think that Jesus in a resurrected state revealed historical events to him.

Paul was simply writing very long after the supposed events when the supposed stories of Jesus were already believed to be true.

Just the mere fact that Paul claimed Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day indicates that the author was aware of the Jesus story.

Amaleq13

You rely on Irenaeus' claims as historical despite thinking him a fiction author?

aa5874

I depend upon Homer.

To find out what was written about Homer's Achilles.

I depend upon Josephus.

To find out what was written about the history of the Jews

I depend upon the NT and the church writers.

To find out what was written about Jesus of the NT.

Some depend upon imagination and speculation for events of antiquity.

Not me.

Paul was a fiction writer who wrote after the gospel and gospel story was already established and believed to be true.

If Paul had ever attempted to claim over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state he would have been found to be a liar.

The author of Matthew claimed the body of Jesus was stolen and that people believed the stolen body story as he was writing.

Matthew 28.12-15 If Paul had already told people all over the Roman Empire, in the synagogues and the churches that over 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, why did the author of Matthew write about the stolen body story when it would be senseless?

It is because the author of Matthew was not aware of the Pauline "over 500 story" and that Paul was not around at the time of gMatthew.

spamandham

If the 'genuine' and the fake are both for sale as genuine by the same shop owner, and your only evidence that the 'genuine' is in fact 'genuine' is that you have not proven to yourself it is fake, would you really pay full price for the 'genuine'?

kcdad

Paul's teaching were a matter of debate among the disciples... they argued with Paul and told him to stay on the "other side of the tracks" away from Jerusalem and peddle his kettle of fish to the Gentiles.

Paul's letters were circulating through the Western Churches. Whoever bothered to record the teachings of the early disciples would certainly have been aware of that guy Paul and his attack of sunstroke on the road to Damascus.

kcdad

Paul was dead before Luke's works were written...
Yes they were together, In many ways Luke's works are an apologetics for Paul's preaching that was contrary to Peter and James.

This is a little troublesome. When did Paul claim Jesus did not exist? Or are you claiming (out of hand) that Jesus did not exist?

What exactly do you think a revelation is?

kcdad

HUH? When do you think Paul lived? Or was he fictional too? I mean "is he fictional too".

spamandham

So if I read this right, you're basing your premise on Acts?

aa5874

Not according to the church writers. It was said, according to Eusebius, Paul called the gospel of Luke "my gospel.

Church History 3.4.8 Now, you see the problem. Paul must have died after gLuke was written.

The information about Jesus of the NT is impausible, unrealistic, chronologically in error, fictitious and incoherent. Such an entity could not have existed on earth in the 1st century during the time of Tiberius.

And further only an interpolator wrote about the third-day resurrected-one around 300 years later.

Are you claiming out of hand that the offspring of the Holy Ghost was really an offspring?

I will tell what Paul's revelation was. Fiction.

Amaleq13

So Irenaeus might have been wrong or just making things up when he wrote that Paul and the author of Acts were inseparable companions?

You asserted it as though you considered it true and a sound basis for later claims. :huh:

How? Please explain exactly how he could be found to be a liar.

You haven't explained why it would be senseless. You've just repeated it. There does not appear to be any logical problem with Paul claiming that 500 people believed they saw the risen Christ and Matthew denying a claim that Jesus' body was stolen regardless of when you think they were written relative to each other or even whether they knew the other's account.

Why couldn't an author describe the appearance of Jesus to a group of 500 and describe how the Jews bribed guards to lie about his body being stolen in the same story?