outhouse

You left a horse in the stable with the rant, its name is Paul.

aa5874

The Pauline letters had no influence on NT authors and have been found to be manipulated.

The author of Acts writing after the Fall of the Temple did not mention that Paul wrote letters to Churches and an Apologetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

The Pauline character is fictitious and his letters are historically Bogus.

Sheshbazzar

'Paul' and 'his gospel' is nothing more than a late 2nd century church created fabrication.

Even Justin Martyr the Christian writer of 150 CE knows nothing about any 'Paul', or anything about the form of salvation by substitutionary sacrifice theology taught by 'Paul's gospel'.

The Pauline Epistles were all forged later than 150 CE.

AFTER 130 CE

Around 130 CE

Wanna bet? Its already been done. Evidence shows no one knew of 'Paul's gospel' before 150CE.


You are the one claiming that it caused a great ruckus among ...how many witnesses were there to this 'passover event' ? remember?
I believe you have a figure memorized, god knows you have presented it on here often enough.

Here are, according to you, all these witnesses all worked up by this alleged 'passover event', yet not one single contemporary non-christian historical writer knows anything at all about it. If it had happened they certainly would have mentioned something about it. There is nothing.

Clivedurdle

Can we triangulate any closer? Before or after Hadrian in Jerusalem?

Chili

It was predated 100 years to let skeleton's die since it is all myth with only a core of truth in it that is meant to survive.

mountainman

The most scientific chronological evidence to the OP is the C14 dating of the gJudas to the year 280 CE plus or minus 60 years.

National Geographic commissioned UA for the test and in 2006 published the results that were later described by Peter Head to be "problematic". If you want the details .......

Based on the C14 result as published the gnostics were publishing prohibited and heretical Coptic translations of original Greek stories about Jesus and the Twelve Apostles between the years of 220 and 340 CE. This may rule out the 5th century.

If you want to rule out the first century with aa5874 then we are left with the following three alternatives:

a) Christianity started in the 2nd century

b) Christianity started in the 3rd century

c) Christianity started in the 4th century before 340 CE

Sheshbazzar

It is Justin Martyr's 'First Apology' that throws a monkey wrench into the fabricated works of Christian writings and their fabricated 'history'.

'First Apology' describes an earlier Christianity, one that knew of nothing at all of any 'Acts of The Apostles', or any 'apostle named 'Paul', any 'Epistles of Paul', or of any 'Paul's' gospel'.

No such texts are quoted anywhere by Justin. Justin never once mentions any 'Paul'. Justin never once quotes any 'Paul'. Justin never once mentions any situation that this 'Paul' was in.

Justin is totally unaware of the type of gospel that supposedly had been taught in all of the churches for years by this 'Paul'.

If 'Paul' had been known to Justin's contemporary christians, there would have been no acceptance or preservation of Justin's writings.
Justin's writings were accepted and preserved because their was no competing 'catholic' account, and NO 'Paul'.

By the time 'Paul's' writings were forged, Justin's 'First Apology' had already became far too well known and too widely disseminated among christians to make any radical changes, so the church just ignored and marginalized it as they introduced an ever more elaborate fabricated christian 'history'.

To Saint Justin Martyr, writing of the christian religion circa 150 CE, 'Paul' the apostle had never existed.

Everything to do with 'Paul', and all of 'Paul's' letters were forged by Church writers after 150 CE.

There never was any 'apostle Paul' in the 1st century CE.

Chili

There likely never was a Paul who was designated as rock (petros) to occupy the seat of faith in the manner of Peter.

It so is the NT Gen 1 and Gen 2 as God and Lord God respectively, that is occupied by human as like-god of Gen 3 to make him infallible when on this seat as the vicar of Christ.

outhouse

Long before

aa5874

It is not only Justin Martyr that threw monkey wrenches at "Church History"--we have Aristides' Apology, Minucius Felix "Octavius", Arnobius' "Against the Heathen and Celsus in "Against Celsus" by Origen.

Justin Martyr wrote about his conversion to Christianity WITHOUT ever referring to the Pauline letters or the Paul's conversion in Acts or in Galatians.

Justin Martyr fundamentally USED ONLY Hebrew Scripture, the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels and Revelation by John.

Aristides did NOT acknowledge that Paul preached the story of Jesus but claimed it was the Twelve disciples that preached to ALL the world.

In Minucius Felix's writing-- Octavius converts Caecillius to Christianity WITHOUT a mention of the Pauline letters or the Pauline conversion but mentions stories about Jesus.

Arnobius in "Against the Heathen" did not acknowledge that Paul preached to the Heathen.

In "Against Celsus", Origen admitted that Celsus did NOT mention Paul when he wrote Against the Christians in "True Discourse".