aa5874

Again, the very same question can asked of some Atheist who BELIEVE the Pauline writings are authentic WITHOUT a shred of evidence when they also admit there are forgeries attempting to place Paul in the time of Seneca.

Why don't everyone ADMIT that the Pauline writings are sources of fiction and is highly questionable as the abundance of evidence suggest??

Why?? Why??? Why do people BELIEVE the Pauline writings are authentic without evidence???

Some are TERRIFIED to even investigate the history of the Pauline writer.

Steve Weiss

Do you really think that the majority of believing Christians are so because they have faith that the Pauline letters are authentic? The vast majority have no idea what the Pauline letters are or how they would impact their belief system. If they can believe in resurrection, transubstantiation, walking on water, a worldwide flood, rivers parting for the convenience of the Israelites, etc. do you seriously think that scholarship will convince these people that the bible is a fiction?

aa5874

Please, I want to deal with the History of the Church and that even Atheists BELIEVE the Pauline writings are authentic WITHOUT a shred of evidence and are ridiculing Christians for their Belief.

Christians may BELIEVE the Bible and may think that created ADAM was indeed the First man and that God made Jesus through the Holy Ghost.

A close examination of the history of Paul and his supposed letters will SHOW that the supposed 1st century Pauline character was a FRAUD.

No gospel writer of mention Paul and his letters or None emulated his Gospel of Salvation by the resurrection.

aa5874

It would appear to me that it is extremely diffucult and perhaps impossible to re-write history after going through the texts of apologetic sources.

The introduction of the character called Clement the Bishop of Rome in the writings of Apologetic sources have utterly destroyed the credibility of the author of "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and the history of the Church up to the 4th century at least.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth and that the Bishop of Rome wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.

Against Heresies 3 Amazingly for Hundreds of years the Church did NOT know when the GREAT Dissension happened since they did NOT really know when Clement was bishop of Rome.

In the 2nd century Irenaeus placed Clement as bishop c 95 CE.

In the 3rd century Tertulllian placed Clement as bishop c 66 CE.

In the 4th century Eusebius placed Clement as bishop c 95 CE.

At the End of the 4th century Jerome claimed most LATINS placed Clement sometime around c 70 CE.

In the 5th century Augustine of Hippo place Clement sometime around c 70 CE.

Now, once the order of Clement as the Bishop is RE-ARRANGED then the Church also did NOT when the other Bishops held their office.

Quite remarkably, the confusion of the Bishops are fundamentally those from c 66 CE to the end of the 1st century when there is NO evidence from antiquity for any Jesus cult of Christians as suggested by the recovered Dated Texts.

Duvduv

What do you expect, AA? The church writers didn't manage to consult with one another to get their stories correct. Ergo much confusion not only in this matter but in many others as well!

aa5874

You mean they made up their stories about the bishops??? How do you consult to write fiction stories???

Were NOT the Bishops of the Church writing letters to one another. Did NOT the Church have REGISTERS???

At the start of the 3rd century Tertullian claimed the REGISTERS of the Roman Church show that Clement was ORDAINED by Peter.

Prescription Against the Heretics
At the Start of the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo wrote a Letter and claimed Clement was bishop after Linus.

Letter 53

Duvduv

One guy wrote one way and another wrote another way. No big deal. Besides, in the first case Clement was "ordained" and in the other case Clement was the successor. They'd say it was a difference. I wouldn't use this to hang my hat on......