aa5874

You still need to carefully read what you wrote. You may still be in a hurry.

Base on your assertion, if I did read carefully and was not in a hurry, persons who pathologically utter falsehoods, and falsely claim that they believe their falshoods are true, must never be assumed to be liars.

How absurd.

aa5874

If Jesus existed in the first century he could only be human. The writer Paul lied when he claimed Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

No human can resurrected and ascend to heaven.

Now, the writer Paul placed himself in Damascus during the time of Aretas or sometime around 40 CE, so was a contemporary of the supposed Jesus, yet he did not write a single time that he saw Jesus alive only after he was in a resurrected state.

The writer Paul appears to be a fictional first-century character fabricated to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

It is claimed that the writer Paul died sometime during the reign of Nero, or somewhere around 66 CE and wrote letters to seven churches before he died.

If the writer Paul wrote to seven churches and travelled all over the Roman Empire as a pioneer evangelist for Jesus and the letters to the churches were regarded as sacred scriptures, then it would be expected that the letters would have been well known by Jesus believers.

But, when the writings of Justin Martyr is examined, there is no mention whatsoever of the evangelist called Paul or his sacred letters anywhere at all. His history, as found in Acts, is missing and not even Acts of the Apostles was mentioned.

But, what is interesting about Justin Martyr is that he wrote a work called “Dialogue with Trypho”, and in that writing a Jew called Trypho argued that Jesus Christ has not yet come and Justin argued the opposite.

Justin in his argument for Jesus Christ quoted many many scriptures from the OT and the Memoirs but never from the “sacred letters” of the writer Paul or Acts of the Apostles.

And in a somewhat similar work from Origen “Against Celsus”, the author writing about 80 years after Justin, presented a Jew with Celsus who tried to put forward the similar argument that Jesus Christ had not yet arrived.

And Origen in his argument for Jesus Christ used the word “Paul” over 90 times and mentioned the Acts of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr never once mentioned the name Paul or Acts of the Apostles writing 80 years after the letters were supposed to be well known in the churches and regarded as sacred.

The writer Paul appears to be a fictional first century character who wrote no earlier than the middle of the second century or no earlier than 100 years after the reign of Aretas.

2Co 11:32 - Based on the writings of Justin Martyr, the writer Paul is a fraud. He was probably not even born during the reign of Aretas.

Doug Shaver

I have no knowledge of whether you read carefully or were in a hurry, but your construal of my assertion is indeed absurd. What I wrote implies nothing like that.

bacht

Another question would be when believers similar to Paul in outlook came on the scene. The NT claims this happened before 70 CE. Would you assert that Gentile-dominated Christianity was only established in the 2nd C?

aa5874

You may have to apologise to everybody one more time.

Look at what you wrote in a previous post.


You must apologise, again.

Based on your post, a pathological liar must not be assumed to be a liar while they claim they believe whatever they say they believe.

It is just folly to expect liars to admit that they are lying.

Now, it would appear to me that the writer Paul is a pathological liar. I do not expect the writer to admit that he did not believe what he wrote.

The writer Paul based his gospel on the resurrection of Jesus and that over 500 people, including himself, saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

These are monstrous lies.

The writer Paul claimed he was alive during the time of Aretas, around 40 CE, and it is accepted that if Jesus did exist he could only have been human.

Paul must have known that Jesus could not have risen from the dead and could have investigated any rumors that Jesus did rise from the dead.

Instead, the writer Paul chose to propagate lies of monstrous proportions about Jesus being raised from the dead.

The writer Paul is a fraud. His lies knot him up.

aa5874

It is my position that the NT as found today, including the letters with the name Paul, are part of a fraudulent scheme to distort thehistory of Jesus believers.

If non-apologetic writings of antiquity are examined for the first century from Jewish writers, Jesus of the NT and most importantly, I repeat, most importantly, his teachings and thousands of followers cannot be accounted for.

There is no account of any man or disciples of a man named Jesus who tried to persuade the Jews to worship him as a God, and to persuade the Jews to ask him to forgive their sins. There is no account that there were high priests who did follow Jesus and worship him as a God asking him to forgive their sins while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

There is no account of a writer called Paul, supposedly Jewish by his own words in a letter, who put forward the blasphemy in Jerusalem that circumcision does not profit anything to a Jew while the Jews still observed the Mosaic Laws and the Temple was still standing.

Now, the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church was James the Just according to Church History. James the Just was supposed to be the brother of Jesus of whom there is no historical evidence, and further in the NT, there is no character called James the Just, and no histoty of such a character.

It is my position that the Jesus story as found in the gospels, was started possibly by a single apocalyptic writer after after reading the writings of Flavius Josephus, including Antiquities of the Jews, and that this writer was not a Jew who wrote in a region well away from Judaea sometime at the end of the first century or early second century.

If Justin Martyr's First Apology is examined, it will be noticed that Justin cannot account for any activity of Jesus believers after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven. This is an indication that Acts of the Apostles is fiction and that there was not any character called Paul or Peter who had evangelise the Jews or Gentiles.

Doug Shaver

That is correct. If you say he is a pathological liar, you must have proof.

It would be folly to suppose that there could be no proof other than an admission.

How things appear to you is beside the point.

Neither do I.

Bill Clinton never admitted to lying, either, but we all know he lied, because there is plenty of evidence that he knew good and well that he wasn't telling the truth.

aa5874

There is also plenty of evidence that the writer Paul is a liar, a fraud and was part of the scheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

The writer Paul claimed he was alive during the time of Aretas, he therefore lied when he claimed Jesus rose from the dead and that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state, including himself.

The writer lied when he claimed people are still in their sins if Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The writer Paul lied [b]throughout[/n] all the letters with his name with the false claim that a fictious resurrection could save the Jews and Gentiles, the whole world, from their sins.

aa5874

In Church History, Eusebius claimed that Acts of the Apostles was universally accepted as authentic and was written by an author called Luke who was a witness to some events.

Church History 3.4.7 So, based on Eusebius, Paul and his disciple Luke were alive in the 1st century.

Now, if all the witings of Justin Martyr are examined, it will be noticed that Justin cannot account for the apostles or the acts of the apostles after the supposed Jesus was seen going through the clouds.

Justin Martyr, in trying to prove that Jesus was the son of God and Messiah, could not go pass the ascension.

He did not write or tell Trypho the Jew about the day of Pentecost. He wrote nothing about the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Ghost as predicted by Jesus.

Justin wrote nothing about being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

Justin wrote nothing about the miracles of Peter or Paul, raising people from the dead and angel-assisted escapes from prisons.

After the so-called ascension of Jesus, Justin goes blank. He has no explanation.

But, did he?

Well, Justin only wrote about the magician Simon Magus and his follower Meander. He wrote nothing about Peter meeting and converting Simon as found in Acts of the Apostles.

Justin goes blank for the apostles.

But, he does not go blank for the magician, Simon.

He claimed the magician was worshipped as a God in almost the whole of Samaria and even regions beyond.

There are no apostles. No Paul.

Justin claimed the magician, Simon, was in Rome during the time of Claudius. But no Paul in Rome.

The writings of Justin Martyr show that Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul were unknown up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Paul was a fraud and lied when he claimed Jesus rose fronm the dead and that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state, including himself.

Doug Shaver

You've said that several times in this thread, but so far you have not produced any of that alleged evidence. Not one bit. You just keep saying over and over that Paul lied.

Repetition is not proof. If it were, Christianity would have been proved a long time ago. But it doesn't work for Christians, and it won't work for you.