Clivedurdle

These heresy ideas are later so this may be evidence that this passage is later.

AA have you read Pagels on Paul?

aa5874

Again, that is all you have been saying. You have nothing to show that Paul did not know the gospel stories.

There are two positions.

1. Paul was aware of the gospels.

2. Paul was not aware of the gospels.

I am defending position 1 with the premise that Jesus of the NT did not exist.

In the letters with the name Paul, the writer claimed he received his gospel by revelation from the resurrected Jesus Christ possibly sometime around the time of Aretas within a few years of the supposed death of the fictitious Jesus.

The writer called Paul claimed the following.

1.There were apostles before him.
2.There were christians before him.
3. He persecuted the the faith he now preached.
4. He met Peter and stayed with him.
5. He met the Lord's brother James.
6. He met Cephas, James and John.

Now, Jesus of the NT did not exist, a most important point to remember.

Peter, James and John were not disciples of Jesus when Paul was in Damascus in a basket or during the time of Aretas.

Peter, James and John were not disciples of Jesus preaching in Jerusalem.

The stories that Jesus had disciples named Peter, James and John were fabricated after the fall of the Temple.

It is claimed Paul died before the fall of the Jewish Temple.

All claims (1-6) from Paul are made with the impression that these characters, Jesus, Peter, James, John and the Lord's brother, actually existed and preceeded Paul..

The writer Paul placed himself after the ACTUAL EXISTENCE of Jesus, Peter, James, John and the Lord's brother, but there is a major problem, these characters did not exist except on paper after the Fall of the Temple.

Paul has placed himself after the Fall of the Temple, after the Jesus stories were believed to be based on the actual existence of Jesus, Peter, James, John and the Lord's brother.

Now, what do you have to support your position that Paul was not aware of the gospels?

I think that you have nothing.

Amaleq13

Logically, that is all I need to say in response to your unsupported assertion.

Still having trouble with the logic of addressing positive assertions rather than inherently logically problematic negative claims? Or have you even given it any thought?

Logic indicates that the answer is best obtained by first addressing the positive assertion above and you have done your best to defend it. You were unable to provide any credible evidence suggesting that Paul had read the Gospels so, according to you, that leaves us with only one remaining possibility.
Paul was not aware of the Gospels.

QED

What part of your argument do you not understand?

That contradicts your chronology and supports the opposite. :huh:

Agreed.

That is your belief but, even accepting it FSA, how does that create a problem? The paper upon which you believe they were created was not written until after Paul.

Where?

So, you don't understand the logic of addressing positive assertions rather than negative assertions? You don't understand that attempting to or expecting someone to "prove a negative" is not logical?

bacht

I thought the usual argument was based on differences in theology, and the lack of references in Paul to words or deeds of Jesus or his associates?

aa5874

Once Jesus did not exist and had no disciples named Peter, James, John or a brother named James, then Paul claims about meeting those people cannot be true and must have been written after the Jesus stories were fabricated.

Paul claimed he was in a basket in Damascus around the time of Aretas and three years later he went to Jerusalem to see the apostle Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.

An apostle of Jesus Christ called Peter did not exist in Jerusalem at that time.

It is in the Jesus story where a person called Simon was named Peter by Jesus and in a later story in gJohn was called Cephas.

If the writer Paul had actually written that he met James, Peter, John and the Lord's brother while he Paul was actually living in the first century, the statement would have been known to be false.

No person after reading the information in the 1st century, before the death of Nero, would have been able to locate James, Peter, John or the Lord's brother.

The writer Paul must have been aware of the gospels, only in the gospels Simon is called Peter and/or Cephas, and James, John and Peter are together.

In the letters, Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night, but Jesus Christ or his disciples did not exist. If Paul actually wrote about the betrayal of Jesus in the first century, such a statement would have been known to be false, no evidence of Jesus Christ or Peter would be found.

The betrayal of Jesus in the night is found in the gospels, Paul must have been aware of the gospels.

Paul is after the gospels.

Amaleq13

Why can't they have been based on his fabrications?

But Paul never tells us that either is a nickname for a man actually named "Simon" which he would have learned from reading the Gospels.

His mere use of the alleged nicknames doesn't actually support your claim.

But Paul does not call anyone named "Simon" Peter or Cephas and that is not consistent with his having read the Gospels where this is explicitly explained.

No, he claims that Jesus was handed over with no necessary connotation of betrayal and tells us the Lord revealed this to him.

As you've already been told repeatedly, this does not support your claim.

Your faith in this is strong but clearly misplaced.

show_no_mercy

If Paul had read the gospels, he would have known that Cephas was part of the Twelve.

If Paul had read the gospels, he would have said that Jesus appeared to the Eleven (which includes Peter):

In the gospels, Jesus never appears to the Twelve. He only appears to the Eleven, since Judas doesn't get replaced until Acts of the Apostles. In Paul's letters, Jesus appears to the Twelve and Cephas which would make the Thirteen.

aa5874

Exactly.

The writer Paul was a liar.

He fabricated the stories about his meeting with Peter, James, John and the Lord's brother.

He fabricated the stories about his revelations of the betrayal of Jesus in the night, the crucifixion, the death and resurrection on the third day and his ascension.

Now, I cannot find the name Paul, the letters to the churches, including the pastorals, the Acts of the Apostles, or any events with respect to Paul in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr, in all of his writings, did not use any passage from the letters with the name Paul or any passage from the book called Acts to defend his belief in Jesus Christ even though he used many many passages (over 50) from the memoirs of the apostles or gospels.

The writer Paul is after the writings of Justin Martyr.

Why would Paul tell people that Simon was called Peter or Cephas when they already know from the gospels?

Of course it supports my position. Simon was called Peter or Cephas only after he met Jesus.

Paul knew the gospel stories. He called Simon "a stone".

Only fundamentalist christians, perhaps like you, believe the resurrected fictitious Jesus reveal anything to Paul. And the passage did make reference to the betrayal on the same night..



1Cor 11:23 - You are stuck with your baseless assertions.

Up to now, you cannot provide any information to show that Paul did not know the gospels, so every post you just say the same thing over and over.

Come on.
Let's get some evidence from you.

Amaleq13

I contradicted your claim with a question and you respond "Exactly"?
:rolling:

You've either changed your position or become quite confused.

This is what my question was offering:
"Once Jesus did not exist and had no disciples named Peter, James, John or a brother named James, then Paul claims about meeting those people cannot be true and" the Jesus stories were written later based at least in part on Paul's fabricated claims.

Still want to agree?

If not, can you offer a logical argument against it?

He didn't read these in the Gospels?

You have changed your position? You've certainly tried to change the subject.

That is an example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. You are assuming your conclusion to show support for your conclusion.

Paul doesn't mention anyone named "Simon".

From what Paul tells us, "Cephas" and "Peter" could be two different guys.

Paul doesn't tell us that or even hint that he knows any of that so, no, it doesn't do anything to support your claim.

No, he doesn't. Why bother posting such blatant fabrications? Paul doesn't mention anyone named "Simon" and the only rock is Christ.

Please read more carefully. You clearly did not understand the first time because you have gotten it completely wrong.

We're discussing your assertion. Stop trying to shift the burden to proving a negative.

I've asked questions for clarification and you've ignored them. I've pointed out logical fallacies or errors and you've simply repeated them without attempting a defense. All you've done is try to shift the burden to my proving a negative.

aa5874

You did not understand what I wrote. Look at it again


Paul is a liar.

He fabricated his stories about his meeting. Read carefully. He fabricted his stories about his meeting, I did not say he fabricated Peter, James, John and the Lord's brother.

Paul is a liar. The stories about his revelations MEANING his claims of revelations are false.

What I find real odd is that you think that you are providing evidence to support your position if you mis-understand me.This is strange.