aa5874

In Galatians 1, a writer under the name Paul claimed he did not lie when he made certain statements.

This is the very writer in Galatians 1.20 Paul was a liar when he said he was not lying.

Now, if we examine Galatians 1 and other writings it will be easily seen that the Pauline writer was indeed a liar and could not have seeen the people he claimed he saw in Jerusalem. They just did not exist or their existence are most unlikely as described.

The Pauline writings are part of the NT Canon and in the Canon Jesus is described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin without human father, the Word, equal to God, the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

There is no external historical record of any such figure living in Galilee for about 30 years who had thousands of followers on a daily basis while performing or even appearing to perform miracles.

There are no external records, and there are Philo and Josephus, who gave account for any doctrine of this Creator, this Son of God, not even of his blasphemous doctrine where he claimed he had the power to forgive the sins of the Jews.

And there are no external records of any characters called apostles of Jesus who was born ONLY of a woman and the Holy Ghost.

The stories of Jesus appear to have been written after the Church claimed Paul died.

The Pauline writer would have died before the NAMES of the apostles were invented.

The apostle Peter is an invention, so too is the character called James the bishop of Jerusalem.

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 2.25.5 The Pauline writer died before the apostle Peter was invented.

Now the lies of the Pauline writer, they are underlined and in bold.
Galatians 1.19 The apostle Peter is an invented character in the the Gospels written after the Fall of the Temple or after 70 CE.

This is found in Mark3.14-17 The Pauline writer became a victim of his own lies. He advocated Truth through lies. He attempted to historicise his own lies.

Romans 3:7 - The things which Paul wrote unto us were lies. He did not stay with the apostle Peter for fifteen days in Jerusalem nor did he see the brother of the offspring of the Holy Ghost, his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

avi

Galatians 1:1-19 summarized:

Paul, claiming to be a servant of God, boasts having learned of the divinity of Jesus from no living person, but rather, from a revelation of the post resurrection Jesus himself. (n.b. There is no temporal descriptor in the text, so, this revelation could have occurred at any date in history.)

Paul clarifies that upon receiving this gift, he set about spreading the good news re: Jesus. Paul further reassures his readers that what he, Paul, learned about Jesus came not from encountering any of Jesus' former disciples, because he, Paul, traveled not to Jerusalem, upon receipt of this gift, but rather to Saudi Arabia. He then returned to Damascus, for three years. Finally, Paul traveled to Jerusalem, where he met with Peter, whose flat he shared for two weeks, and James, the brother of the lord, but none of the other disciples.

My first question, before this forum, is WHY did Paul feel it necessary to expressly deny misrepresenting the truth?

Were the churchmen and women of Galatia perhaps having second thoughts re: divinity of Jesus?

Did they alternatively doubt Paul? Was he viewed by early Christians as a snake oil salesman?

Or, is it possible, that already in the mid second century, (i.e. post Jewish-Roman War III of 135CE) which, in my opinion, is the time of origin of this letter, there were so many conflicting sects and offshoots of Judaism, each claiming to be the one true religion, that most folks, listening to a reading of this letter, would have felt threatened, without that particular disclaimer.

My second question, before this forum, is whether anyone else is struck by the language in Galatians 1:20? To me, writing so ambiguously, "James, brother of the lord", instead of "James, head of the Jerusalem Church", or "James, brother of Jesus", or "James, brother of John, both fishermen, plying their trade on Lake Galilee", suggests that Paul's letter was written well after Mark, or some other precursor to Mark. Paul can write ambiguously, because by the middle of the second century, his audience of Greek speaking Jews living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Greece itself, knows to whom this vague reference to "James, brother of the lord" refers.

avi

ApostateAbe

"...WHY did Paul feel it necessary to expressly deny misrepresenting the truth?" I think that is a good question, and I was also struck by that. My tentative guess is that Paul was proceeding to give an account of events (Galatians 2) that was starkly different from the account accepted among other Christians (Acts 15). Not only that, but he has his own version of Christianity, his own "gospel," that is starkly different from the gospel preached by the original disciples of Jesus. That means the Galatian Christians will be less likely to trust him. So, he struggles to retain that trust by giving what could be treated as an oath, in Galatians 1:20. Not that he wasn't a snake-oil salesman--he was, and keeping trust was an everyday struggle.

rhutchin

Its seems related to the charge he has already made:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Later, Paul writes:

Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

His comment about not lying to the Galatians, while stated in the middle of his rehearsal of his credentials, seems to reinforce his attention to the specific problems that Paul sees plaguing the Galatians.

aa5874

You cannot use ONLY the Pauline writings to resolve questions about Paul himself just like you cannot ONLY use the words of a defendant to determine his own guilt or innocence.

It is precisely the reason for MULTIPLE witnesses or MULTIPLE sources of evidence.

And it is even better when the contradictory source is an apologetic source.

Apologetic sources which one would expect would corroborate Paul have done the reverse, the apologetic sources have contradicted Paul.

"Church History" is an apologetic source and it can be found that this source reveals that the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

Once it can be reasonably determined when gLuke was written or a reasonable time zone can be determine then it could be deduced around what time the Pauline writings were carried out or when the Pauline writer was alive.

This is an apologetic source for the Pauline writer, "Church History" 3.4.8

So we have an apologetic source that claim the Gospel of gLuke was Paul's Gospel.

We have another apologetic source, the supposed close companion of Paul, who contradicts him with respect to his travels to Jerusalem.

This apologetic source, his supposed close companion, claimed Paul went almost immediately to Jerusalem after his bright light conversion and not only that, but he did meet the apostles.


Acts 9.26-27 So based on his supposed close companion, an apologetic source, Paul left Jerusalem with letters to bound Jesus believers and bring them back to Jerusalem. On his way, a bright light made him blind and he heard a voice supposedly of Jesus.

Paul preached in Damascus and then went back to Jerusalem after the Jews tried to kill him. Initially the disciples were afraid of Paul until Barnabas introduced Paul to the Apostles.

Now, it must be noted that the Acts of the Apostles was propagated by the Church as being written when Paul was alive. The author of Acts did not write about one of the most significant event, the supposed matyrdom of Paul.

This is an apologetic source "Church History" 2.22.6 Now the Pauline writer made a fatal error.

This fatal error has exposed him as a liar and a fraud.

The Pauline writer responded to and attempted to correct Acts of the Apostles which appears to be even later than gLuke.

Galatians 1.15-19
But Acts of the Apostles appear to have been written after Paul was supposed to be dead yet the Pauline writer attempted to correct his supposed close companion, the author of Acts.

Apologetic sources have placed placed Paul at the writing of the second Epistle of Timothy, Acts of the Apostles and gLuke all written after Paul was supposed to be dead.

The things Paul wrote in Galatians 1.19 are LIES.

rhutchin

It seems to be a faith vs works issue, and not any divinity issues, given that Paul writes.

Galatians 3
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

rhutchin

Your basic argument seems it be, my opinion is that Paul is a liar and on that basis, I maintain that, "The things Paul wrote in Galatians 1.19 are LIES."

rhutchin

Maybe Paul just meant to distinguish between that James who was the brother of Jesus and that James who was the apostle of Jesus. There is nothing vague about it unless Jesus had more than one brother named James.

You are still entitled to your opinion, "To me, writing so ambiguously, ..., suggests that Paul's letter was written well after Mark,..."

aa5874

Perhaps you are blind.

I am using apologetic sources, including the supposed close companion of Paul, to show that the Pauline writer wrote LIES and is one of the writers who attempted to historicise the fraudulent history of the Church.

1. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

But, the gospel according to Luke was deduced to have been written after apologetic sources claimed Paul supposedly had died.

2. Apologetic sources claimed Acts of the Apostles was probably written when the Pauline writer was writing 2nd Timothy since it does not include the martyrdom of Paul.

But, it has been deduced that Acts of the Apostles was written after gLuke and after Paul was supposed to be dead.

3. Apologetic sources have claimed Paul wrote 2nd Timothy.

But, 2nd Timothy has been deduced to have been written after Paul was supposed to be dead.

4. The Pauline writer attempted to correct the chronology of Acts of the Apostles with respect to his Jerusalem travels and the apostles that he met.

But, Acts of the Apostles was written after Paul was supposed to be dead.

The Pauline writer was an integral part of the fraud called "Church History". The Pauline writer wrote things that were LIES.

Loomis

I always love it when ‘Paul’ does that.

It should be self-evident that ‘Paul’ was a liar. The very fact that he denies that he is a liar attests to the fact that he is a liar. Another good one (in the OT) is Exodus 6:3 where Yahweh claims that he was also known as ‘the mountain god’.