aa5874

It is my position the letters of the the writer called Paul were written to distort the true history of Jesus believers and that the chronology of the writer called Paul is fiction, a big lie.

The church writer Eusebius in Church History claimed that a writer called Luke a disciple of the letter writer called Paul wrote Acts of the Apostles.

It is also claimed in the same book, Church History, that the Acts of the Apostles is authentic and was probably written by a writer Luke while the writer called Paul was in jail.

But there are major problems with the information from Eusebius, the first mention of Acts of the Apostles used as sacred scripture is found in the writings of Irenaeus, sometime at the end of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr in First Apology did not write that anyone named Luke had writings that were sacred scriptures or called Acts of the Apostles. Justin mentioned that the “memoirs of the apostles” were regarded as sacred scripture and were read in churches. Not a single event from Acts of the Apostles can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Now this is Chrysostom writing in the 4th century about Acts of the Apostles. And Chrysostom is writing after Eusebius who wrote Church History.

Homilies on Acts of the Apostles by Chrysostom in the 4th century.


How could a book like Acts of the Apostles be not known to have existed? This revelation by Chrysostom puts the writings of Irenaeus , Tertullian and Eusebius in question.

Now, if Acts of the Apostles was regarded as sacred scripture since before the writings of Justin Martyr, it is inconceivable the Chrysostom could have made such a statement, since Acts of the Apostles also contains the history of the writer called Paul after his so-called conversion.

In order to find out about the persecution by Saul/Paul, the so-called conversion, travels and activities of the writer and evangelist/missionary called Paul, Acts of the Apostles is the only book that is available.

And Acts of the Apostles should have been available in the churches as sacred scripture for at least 200 years before Chrysostom. And the writer Luke was inseparable from Paul.

Against Heresies by Irenaeus 3.14.1 Chrysostom has seriously contradicted the information by the early church writers and Eusebius.

It would appear that Chrysostom was not aware that it was well known for hundreds of years that Acts of the Apostles was in cicurlation in the churches and written by a writer called Luke, a disciple of the writer called Paul.

So, based on Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles is just an isolated book, it is not really known by much people, the book’s existence and authorship is little known.

Acts of the Apostles then, based on Chrysostom, is likely to have been recent or was just found out to have existed recently, and not over 200 years ago.

Chrysostom appears not to have known about the writings of Irenaeus, about Acts of the Apostles, written about 150 years earlier.

Chrysostom appears not to be aware of the writings of Tertullian about Acts of the Apostles, written about 125 years earlier.

Chrysostom appears to be unaware that Acts of the Apostles was supposed to be known in all the churches over the empire for about 300 years earlier.

Based on Chrysostom, Acts of the Apostles was just recently circulated in the 4th century, the so-called churches of the writer called Paul, Irenaeus and Tertullian could not have known about the Acts of the Apostles.

And to show that the writer called Paul was a late writer, that is, the writer was aware of Acts of the Apostles, it would be noticed that writer attempted to correct or contradicted Acts of the Apostles in Galatians.


This is the author of Acts.
Acts 9.26-27Ga 1:19 - The writer called Paul appears to be responding to the author of Acts. The writer of Acts claimed Barnabas took Saul/Paul to see the Apostles, but the writer Paul claimed he only saw the apostle Peter. However, Acts of the Apostles is considered to have been written after the writer called Paul was dead.

My preliminary examination of the NT, church writings and non-canonised writings appear to indicate that the writer called Paul was involved in the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

It seems almost certain that the writer called Paul is at least from the 2nd century and maybe even as late as the 4th.

But, the writer called Paul is a fraud.

Doug Shaver

And since he agrees with you, he must have been telling the truth.

aa5874

The letters of the writer called Paul are claimed to have been written to seven churches of the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians and Collosians.

These regions are places where Paganism abounded. In these areas there were all sorts of mythical Gods and pagan rituals, yet in the letters with the name Paul there is virtually nothing at all about Paganism in the letters.

Virtually all the names of pagan writers are missing, the names of the pagan Gods cannot be found, and the manner of worship of pagans are missing.

There are no comparisons made between any pagan God and Jesus, no argument for or against the worship of a pagan God or Jesus.

Just virtually nothing about Paganism, although the converts of the writer called Paul were derived from pagans.

The letters, instead, are filled with over a hundred passages from Jewish Scripture about the Mosaic Law, sacrifice and circumcision, nothing from the pagan writers.

The writer called Paul seemed to have forgotten that he was writing to former pagans, those who had previously worshipped pagan Gods and probably did not know anything in Jewish Scriptures.

The writer called Paul seemed to lack knowledge of Paganism.

Justin Martyr in his “Discourse to the Greeks” made references to numerous pagan writers and mythical Gods while trying to establish why the Greeks should worship Jesus and not the pagan Gods.

These are some of the pagan writers and mythical Gods mentioned by Justin Martyr: The letters of the writer called Paul do not appear to be addressed to pagans but appear to be all letters to the Hebrews

This is the writer called Paul to the Galatians, writing to former pagans.
Galatians 5.1-4 It should be evident that the writer called Paul is writing to the Hebrews, not all to Pagans. Pagans were not under the bondage of the Mosaic Laws.

And the writer is confused, it is circumcision that profits nothing if you are in Christ.

The writer called Paul is a fraud. This writer appears to be involved in the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

aa5874

Once Jesus is regarded as a myth, the letters of the writer called Paul become suspect.

Once Jesus is regarded as a myth, then Peter’s history becomes questionable.

Now, Saul/Paul’s conversion as written in Acts is fiction and in the letters with the name Paul there is fiction.

Peter is a witness and participant in fictitious events.

And there is no external historical information of Peter, Paul or Jesus.

What we have in the NT are completely un-corroborated characters that were witnesses and participants in fictitious events.

No event with these characters can be confirmed to be true and those events that can be investigated are found to be fiction.

It must be obvious that the writer called Paul is involved in the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

The writer called Paul is a fraud.

bacht

Do you think there is anything truthful or historically reliable in the Pauline epistles?

aa5874

After investigation, it would appear to me that the writer called Paul was invovled in the sheme to distort the history of Jesus believers.

And, I can only tell you that I found fiction in the letters with the name Paul.

The writer claimed he met Peter, this character was a witness and participant of fictitious events with no historical records.

Justin Martyr did not account for the writer called Paul or his letters to the churches.

There are no historical records of the writer called Paul and his post-fictitious conversion history is found in a book of fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

The writer called Paul was a fraud.

aa5874

I have a confession

The writer called Paul has confessed that he lied.

It is absolutely true that the writer Paul is a LIAR.

In the letters with the name Paul, the writer claimed that he was not lying several times, yet in a letter called to the Corinthians, the writer Paul lied about seeing Jesus in a resurrected state.


Ro 9:1 - 2Co 11:31 - Ga 1:20 - 1Ti 2:7 - Now, look at at the writer Paul lying about seeing Jesus in a resurrected state.

1Corinthians 15.3-8 And, now look at the confession.

The writer Paul has admitted he lied.

Ro 3:7 -

Doug Shaver

Nice proof texting. The fundamentalists lost a fine apologist when they let you get away from them.

aa5874

Why does it bother you that the writer called Paul has been shown to be a liar.

Look at Romans 4.24
If the writer called Paul was a contemporary of the human Jesus, then Romans 4.24 is just a big lie.

Jesus being human could never have been raised from the dead and the writer called Paul would have known that he was just lying about Jesus.

The writer called Paul is a fraud, and was a part of the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

Toto

aa - I guess a lot of people have you on ignore. Your quote from Romans 3:7 is out of context. It actually says the opposite: