aa5874

All the Epistles with the name Paul were attributed to the same Paul in Acts of the Apostls by Church writers.

The Pauline writings are full of forgeries and Acts of the Apostles is full of fiction.

All the Epistles with name Paul and Acts of the Apostles need a TON of SALT.

The author of Acts and Paul traveled and preached all over the Roman Empire.

Colossians 4:14 - "Church History" 3.4.7-8 The author of Acts and Paul traveled to Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi and Rome AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead, and Paul wrote letters to the very same places after JESUS was raised from the dead.

You don't know who actually wrote any Epistles with the name Paul and you don't know when Paul actually lived.

You must admit that the attribution of some Epistles to a character called Paul CANNOT resolve the date of writings.

dogsgod

I think we can reasonably conclude that the epistles attributed to a Paul were written before the destruction of Jerusalem since Paul traveled to Jerusalem twice while it was there, according to Galatians. Paul is obsessed with a risen Christ figure so obviously he traveled after the idea of a risen Christ figure was created in the minds of the apostles. You are correct, one can only know of the person who wrote the epistles that are attributed to a Paul by what can be garnered from a reading of said epistles.

aa5874

But you have already implied that you don't know who wrote the Epistles.

You said "Whomever wrote Galatians claimed to have visited Jerusalem twice, fourteen years apart."

You CANNOT confirm the VERACITY of any claim in the Pauline writings.

WHOMEVER cannot be the same source that corroborates WHOMEVER.

"Whomever wrote Galatians" went to Jerusalem after JESUS was raised from the dead on the third day.

JESUS was raised from the dead on the third day in FABLES written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

"Whomever wrote Galatians" wrote after the Fall of the Temple.


You keep forgetting that you don't who wrote the Epistles. You said "WHOMEVER".

You keep forgetting that JESUS Christ was invented BEFORE he could have given revelations to "whomever.

Whomever did not claim he invented Jesus, did not claim he was the first to preach about Jesus, nor was he the first to SEE Jesus.


No, No, No. You are NOT correct at all.

You MUST NOT use only the Pauline writings to understand what was written about Jesus, the apostles and the Pauline writers.

You must use the NT Canon, the Church writings and other secular sources of antiquity to understand the Pauline writings.

Analysis ONLY by Isolation is a most absurd methodolgy it produces BOGUS RESULTS.

dogsgod

But you have already implied that you don't know who wrote the Epistles.

I don't know who wrote the epistles other than the fact that a number of them are attributed to a man named Paul. Other than that, I really don't know much about Paul, or the others. However, this Paul claims that his apostleship as well as Peter's was appointed by God. Gal.2, 6-10., in other words, apostles were self appointed.

aa5874

Well, you really don't know if anyone was actually called apostle Paul in the 1st century who went to Jerusalem before the Fall of the Temple yet you seem to think that whatever claims made by whomever in the "[b]whomever" (Pauline) writings should NOT be taken with a pinch of salt, but taken for granted as true even though the "whomever writings" appear to be full of forgeries, interpolations and redactions.

How naive can you be!

Now, in the Jesus stories, Peter was not really appointed by God but was hand-picked or selected by Jesus Christ as one of his 12 apostles.

We have the post-ascension chronology for Saul/Paul the author of ALL the Pauline Epistles according to Church writers.

Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light AFTER Jesus ascended through the clouds and after Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers.

There is NO OTHER STORY for Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul was AFTER JESUS went to heaven.

In the Pauline writings, Saul/Paul being the author, JESUS was in heaven AFTER he was raised from the dead when he wrote his Epistles.

This is in the Pauline writings and it is consistent with Acts of the Apostles.

1 Thessalonians 4.14-17 "WHOMEVER" wrote 1 Thessalonians was AFTER JESUS was believed to have died, rose again and ascended to heaven.

"WHOMEVER" wrote ALL the Epistles was AFTER JESUS was believed to have died, rose again and ascended to heaven.

The belief that JESUS died, rose again and ascended to heaven was believed AFTER the JESUS story was written since JESUS did not exist.

The JESUS STORY was written AFTER the FALL of the Temple.

"WHOMEVER wrote ALL the Epistles was AFTER the JESUS story and AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

And look, an apologetic source (whomever) confirms it.

"Church History" 3.4.8 Paul or "WHOMEVER" was aware of gLuke.

"WHOMEVER' was AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

skepticdude

Something in the book of Revelation almost counts as a direct slam against Paul:

As we all know, after Judas died, Matthias became apostle #12 according to Acts 1. That makes Paul a # 13.

The repetition of the word "twelve" in Revelation, especially when designated as the number of the apostles of the Lamb, would be a direct slam against Paul, since all can agree for the sake of argument that the author of Revelation knew of Apostle Paul. If Paul's historical accounts of his own work are true, Paul's claim to being a foundation stone in the figurative City from Heaven is far more solid and undeniable than all of the original 11 and Matthias put together. Had the Revelation-author approved of Paul, he would surely think the New Jerusalem in his vision of Heaven had 13 foundation stones, not just twelve. The author was not describing something peculiar only to first-century Jewish Christianity, but something which applies to all Christians. Paulists would be forced to agree since Paul himself said there is no more Jew or Greek, but all are one in Christ. Thus the only basis for excluding Apostle 13 here is because the Revelator deliberately left him out.

Want more? Eusebius cites Caius and Dionysius as teaching that Cerinthus was the author of Revelation, Church History, Book III, chapter 28. Since Cerinthus was a legalistic follower of Mosaic law, it is quite natural that he would not view Paul as a true apostle. But he quotes the famous story of John fleeing the bathhouse on seeing Cerinthus, lest it fall on them. So while Certinthus easily disapproved of Paul as much as the original 11 disciples, they and Cerinthus had their own violent disagreements about theology.

aa5874

But, there is a problem or more than one problem. There were more than one person who used the name apostle Paul.

Based on Justin Martyr, writing c 150 CE, the author of Revelation was not aware of Acts of the Apostles, SAUL, PAUL or any Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr wrote NOT ONE THING about Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline writings, but he DID write about REVELATION by some character called John.

And in REVELATION, the supposed author John did not call himself an apostle, or one of the 12 apostles of JESUS Christ.

Now, in the Gospels, Jesus selected 12 apostles and Paul was not included. The betrayal by Judas does not affect the number of apostles of Jesus in the Gospel stories, it simply means One of the twelve apostles supposedly betrayed Jesus.

It is interesting to note that both John and Pauline writers supposedly had revelations from JESUS.

The REVELATIONS to John from his JESUS are compatible with the FAILED prophecy, the Second Coming, when the Sanhedrin would see him coming in the clouds when [b]heaven and earth would have passed away and the sun and moon would become dark and the stars would fall.

The REVELATION to John from his JESUS indicated that the ROMAN EMPIRE would be NO MORE. There would be NO MORE MAN-MADE GOVERNMENT.

There would be a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH, A NEW JERUSALEM in a VERY short time.

These are the supposed words of Jesus in the Synoptics, "Heaven and Earth shall PASS AWAY, but my words shall NOT pass away.

The REVELATIONS to the Pauline writers from their Jesus have NOTHING at all to do with the FAILED prophecy. The Pauline JESUS did not TELL the Pauline writers that the Temple would Fall.

How did Paul become an apostle or managed to call himself an apostle of JESUS yet his revelations are not compatible with the Jesus of the Synoptics or Revelation by John?

The Pauline writers were not Apostles of Jesus Christ of the Synoptics but perhaps apostles of Constantine.

mountainman

Good stuff. I would exhort you to keep going to the year 325 CE. Mid-late 2nd century covers the epoch of Marcus Aurelius and Galen and sees the continuation of "The Second Sophistic" - a great revival of Greek literature which must take in Philostratus, who coined the term.

Eusebius in his polemic against Apollonius many times refers to the account of Philostratus "The Life of Apollonius" as a "history". When reviewing the remaining epoch between the end of Marcus Aurelius and the writing of Eusebius (including this "Against Hierocles and Apollonius etc" compare these two accounts of Apollonius. The earlier may have been written as a sponsored history, and the latter as sponsored political polemic.



Well then had you not better also take in "The Acts of Paul (and Thecla)". Perhaps Paul actually earnt his "Apostolic Badge" by emulating his visionary Jesus and "receiving tactical orders" to wander around in the wilderness. This a perenial concept in many stories. It is manifestly evident that the author of "The Acts of Paul" is using the story contained in Aesops's Fables about the lion and the mouse. Paul finds a talking lion in the wilderness and baptises it. Later when thrown to the lions and tigers and kangaroos in the arena at the culmintion of the "Acts of Paul" he and the lion meet up again and Paul is saved from certain death. How exiting @! What a great story lion! Absolutely rivetting! Probably belongs to the genre of satirical Greek romantic fiction.

Analysis of the new testament canon in isolation is the most absurd methodology and produces bogus results. The entire body of "Early Christian Literature" (and this includes the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts") must not be isolated from this analysis.

Whoever authored "The Acts of Paul" and using Aesop did not, and could not have had "written the story out of love for Paul" as is asserted by the author of Tertullian. It is a send up of Paul, and actually provides our only description of him. It is a totally irreverent story about Paul. It was forbidden to be read in the 4th century according to the history of certain "Church Councils". It was buried and hidden out of sight for centuries. Nobody was allowed to laugh at Paul or the apostles etc. The state version of Christianity was gravitas business. It was irreverent and most forbidden to squeek of Paul as a mouse!

aa5874

But, my position is that the Pauline writers were most likely apostles of Constantine.

Examine of the words of an apostle in Romans 13.1-2 And examine Galatians 1.8-9 These words are those of an apostle in collusion with the "higher powers" and it was in the 4th century under Constantine that the "power" was ordained by God.

Paul was most likely an apostle of the "POWER", the "POWER of Constantine".

mountainman

This position does not seem to be openly shared by many at the moment.