Loomis

No it doesn’t. It could also mean that they just didn’t care if they contradicted the last guy.

In some places (where there are no contradictions) some of the texts appear to be copied verbatim. That wouldn’t happen if it were an oral tradition.

aa5874

This argument also has very little merit. Contradictions in the gospel stories may show that one author CORRECTED the other.

You are ignoring Paul's own words. Paul claimed he got his gospel from revelation from the resurrected Jesus Christ. He claimed Jesus had supper on the same night, he was betrayed, was crucified, was dead, resurrected on the third day, ascended to heaven, and is coming back to earth a second time.

Paul wrote that there were apostles before him, that there were christians before him and that he persecuted the faith that he is presently preaching.

Al these events or stories are found in the memoirs of the apostles or the gospels even Acts of the Apostles.

Paul is merely claiming that events already known about Jesus was personally given to him by revelation from the resurrected Jesus. But, Jesus did not exist. The resurrection of Jesus happened on paper after the Fall of the Temple when Paul was dead.

And Paul cannot be found in any writing external of church writings of antiquity. Philo and Josephus wrote nothing about Paul.

Now, how can you prove that Paul wrote his letters before the memoirs of the apostles or gospels were written?

What church writing of antiquity mentioned a gospel not related to the Jesus story.

aa5874

This is exactly what I have expected from you in every post. You will not put forward any information, not a single shred of evidence to show that Paul did not know the gospel.

I am still waiting.

The writer Paul appears to be even aware of Acts of the Apostles.

Information found in Acts of the Apostles are also found in Acts.

Now, if Jesus did not exist and had no disciples, and Paul was actually living during the time of Pilate, then Paul lied when he claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, raised the third day, ascended to heaven and was coming back a second time. He would have lied when he claimed Jesus had apostles, and disciples named Peter, James and John.

Paul claimed people were talking in tongues and that he talked in tongues. According to Acts, people, including the apostles started talking in tongues, after Jesus ascended through the clouds, on the day of Pentecost.

Jesus did not exst. There were no apostles of Jesus Christ that were talking in tongues on the day of Pentecost as stated in Acts. Yet Paul supposedly in the 1st century claimed Jesus Christ gave the gifts of the Holy Ghost including speaking tongues.

Paul lied. Jesus' existence became known on paper after the Fall of the Temple, Paul got some of his information from some of those very paper after 70 CE.

The writer Paul is a backdated fiction writer .

maryhelena

Is not the whole question here a matter of dating?

Luke dates Paul with the proconsul Gallio, around 51-53 CE. Paul’s death, in Rome, is given (Wikipedia) as between 60-65 CE.

The gospel of Mark is dated from either 68-73 CE or 65-70 CE (Wikipedia)

Thus, from this chronology, the writings of Paul preceded the writing of Mark - hence leaves open the question of where Paul got his info of Jesus from - oral tradition or revelation - but not from the written gospels.

However, surely, from the mythicist position where the existence of a historical Jesus is denied - the chronology given to Paul is nonsensical. Surely, once a historical Jesus is denied, once the lynchpin is removed, the whole pack of cards comes falling down??

Why should the story line of Paul be viewed as historical just because Luke places him during the time of the proconsul Gallio. Luke places Jesus in the 15th year of Tiberius - and yet mythicists uphold the view that Jesus is not historical. There seems to be no consistency here. Consistency would require that Luke’ historical detail is correct - but not his linking that date to a historical ‘Paul’. The internal date stamp regarding ‘Paul’ no more relates to a historical person than Luke’ gospel date stamp relates to a historical Jesus. Consequently, there is no internal NT reason to date the NT story line regarding early Christianity prior to 70 CE.

What we are dealing with in the NT is an attempt at giving a historical grounding to early Christianity. That the gospel story is placed early in the lst century is not evidence that Christians actually existed at that time - all it tells us is that the early Christians, the NT writers, wanted to backdate Christian history to a time period they deemed to be important for their theology, their salvation history. A time period they viewed as having significance for their spiritual understanding.

Josephus? Well he, or whoever, places Jesus with Pilate and James with Lucceius Albinus. If both these passages can be proven to be wholly interpolations then there is no problem. If not, then this time frame used by Josephus, in a work published in 93 CE, could indicate that he, or whoever is writing under that name, is involved with the creation of the NT time line - involved with backdating the history of early Christianity. Or, at the very least, the 93 CE date would indicate that the NT story line was by then up and running....

show_no_mercy

Until you comprehend that gospel doesn't mean a written document, but it means "good news" then we're going to keep talking in circles. And no one here is positing a "gospel" not related to the Jesus story. Why are you implying that 100% of Christians were all literate and could only have learned about this Jesus character if they read about him?

Surely there are stories you've heard that you've never read about.

fatpie42

Haven't you just opened the can of worms regarding a historical Paul? After all, being a mythicist about Jesus does not require you to be a mythicist about Paul. To be honest, the whole historical Jesus debate struck me with such a shock when I realised how fragile the argument for Jesus' historicity really was that I've never even considered what the argument for a historical Paul might be like, nor where I should go to read about such an issue.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that the question of Paul's historicity is simplified by the fact that he is connected with a number of texts as their 'author'. As such, the issue would not be whether Paul existed, but rather how many of these texts he actually wrote (and on that there actually is some serious research). Whether Paul actually went to Damascus seems unimportant. Whether he was writing in response to actual Christians seems a little more important.

It would seem that if the writer of those texts really died prior to 70AD then there would have to be at least one Christian prior to that date. (How we know Paul died in Rome between 60-65 AD is unknown to me however.)

aa5874

But we are dealing with Paul, he was not illiterate. All you have to do is prove that 'Paul" did not read anything about Jesus before he wrote that Jesus was betrayed in the night, crucified, died, rose on the third day, ascended, and was coming back the second time.

We are dealing with Paul's gospel, the crucifixion, death and resurrection are fundamental parts of Paul's gospel.

1 Corinthians15.14

aa5874

All the church writers claimed Jesus died under Pilate but Jesus did not even exist. They were all wrong

The same church writers claimed Paul existed and got revelations from the resurrected Jesus who did not even exist in the first place.

Paul met Peter who did not exist. The church writers were all wrong about Peter.

Paul met Peter, James and John, the fictitious disciples of fiction.

Paul is a participant and witness to fiction, that is, Paul himself did things that are implausible, he stayed with a fictitious person for fifteen days.

Galatians 1:18 - All the church writers were wrong about Paul, even his inseparable disciple Luke got his conversion wrong.

Paul is a backdated fiction writer.

Amaleq13

Logic and a persistent effort to try to hold you accountable for the claims you make? Rest assured, I will continue to fulfill that expectation.

You made the assertion but you can't or won't respond to any of the criticisms that have been offered. You do not engage in rational discussion but in evasion of anything contrary to your beliefs.

You are just preaching.

That's right and I've explained why. It is an illogical expectation which fails to hide your refusal to make an honest effort to support your assertion.

Repeating this foolish request instead of answering my questions only serves to make your evasion more obvious.

Stop preaching and start engaging in a rational discussion of your claims.

Amaleq13

No, the burden is yours. Stop avoiding it. He doesn't have to prove anything.

And your claim was specific to the Gospels not just "anything about Jesus".