aa5874

All I know is that Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost was not my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great.......... grandfather.

Is he yours? Possibly?

ChuckE99

I'm with you, but, for the sake of argument, couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't Luke be reading from Paul?

aa5874

Remember, Paul is fiction. Paul's conversion as written in Acts is fiction, his revelations as stated in the Epistles are fictitious, he never wrote any letters to any Churches. And Luke was not his disciple or a disciple. Paul wrote nothing.

The true names of authors of the entire NT have been concealed and the dates of writng may never be known.

Paul and Luke were names used to fabricate and distort the history of Jesus believers.

ChuckE99

Forgive me this shorthand response, but, "Duh".

Of course the names we ascribe to the authors of these documents are placeholders. Only fundamentalists hold that "Luke" wrote "GLuke" or that "Paul" wrote the epistles. Let me then rephrase my question:

"...for the sake of argument, couldn't it be the other way around? Couldn't the anonymous author of GLuke be reading from the anonymouse author (or authors) of the Pauline epistles?"

aa5874

That is EXACTLY the response I expected.

You cannot rebut any thing I said with any facts. You only ask endless questions.

If you think the author of gLuke got his gospel or words of the Last Supper from Paul, then simply present your evidence or information to support you.

ChuckE99

Whatever. If you recall, I started my question with "for the sake of argument" and I guess I got one. You just seem so convinced, on no evidence of your own other than the text "in remembrance of me" appearing in both GLuke and Corinthians that Paul read from Luke. I just wondered if you could have made the exact opposite conclusion on the exact same evidence, meaning Luke read from Paul.

aa5874

What do you mean by I have no evidence of my own own?

I am not the person who wrote the NT.

The information of Paul are in the Epistles, Acts of the Apostles and the writings of the Church writers and it is fundamentally fiction.

• Paul's conversion is fiction as reported in Acts.

• Paul's revelations are false as reported in the Epistles.

• Paul's story of seeing Jesus after he rose from the dead is fiction.

• Paul's story about the gifts of the Holy Ghost as reported in the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles is not true.

Now, biblical scholars have deduced that all the Gospels including Acts of the Apostles were written after the alleged death of Paul, during Nero, as stated in Church History. The Gospels and Acts are claimed to have been written as late as the 2nd century.

Eusebius in Church History claimed Paul was familiar with a person called Luke and knew that this Luke wrote a gospel. Paul, according to Eusebius, called Luke's gospel "my Gospel".

Eusebius in Church History also claimed it is probable that Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles while Paul was in prison.

Based on the deduction of biblical scholars, Eusebius claims about Paul are completely erroneous. Paul could not have seen the gospel of Luke or the Acts of the Apostles and could not have called the Gospel of Luke, "my gospel".

And further, biblical scholars have deduced that the Epistles were written by more than one person using the name "Paul". The Church writers all thought or wanted their readers to believe that all the Epistles, with the name Paul, were written by him.

Paul really has no history, HE IS BOGUS. Paul is TOTAL FICTION.

Now, I hope you can deduce that Luke was also a fictitious character, he did not write a gospel until some unknown person or body of persons claimed he did.

The true authors of the NT are all anonymous and may never be known, all that is known is that the NT is all fiction fabricated to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

mountainman

The true authors of the NT apochrypha are also anonymous.
However we have Eusebius of Caesarea named as the author
of the Apocryphal Acts of John ....

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

I have been advocating that Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction and to continue to re-inforce my position I will focus on the two so-called important characters Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus.

Jesus of the NT was potrayed as God and Man, but based on his conception, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, I will just consider him only human presently.

Jesus was crucified, died and was buried. A mere human convicted of blasphemy was crucified and was buried. The story should have ended there, but it did not.

Paul of Tarsus, in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, made outrageous and fictitious claims about this dead man.

Paul claimed the same dead Jesus blinded him from heaven and gave him instructions.
Paul claimed the same dead man, Jesus, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Paul claimed the dead and risen gave him revelations and helped him to perform miracles.
Paul claimed he received the gifts of the Holy Ghost through the risen Jesus.

Now, all these events are fiction if we assume Jesus was just human and died, and everyone including the father and mother of Jesus and all the people who knew Jesus would have INSTANTLY recognised that Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were fiction if they were written and circulated so shortly after the death of Jesus.

And further, the authors of the Epistles are aware of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, a fictitious event only found in Acts of the Apostles.

So, if Jesus was just human, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are just fiction with respect to events after the burial of Jesus. And if Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are fiction, then it is likely they were written at a time when the fiction could NOT easily be contradicted, that is possibly up to a hundred years or more after the so-called burial of Jesus.

aa5874

There is another problem with respect to the Pauline Epistles that have been complerely overlooked and is a good indicator that the Epistles were not really written to any Churches but were just fabricated to distort the history of Jesus believers.

Some Paul it is claimed wrote epistles to seven churches, now these churches are formed from converts who should have left paganism to become Jesus believers. But as I read the epistles there is a startling revelation, there is virtually nothing in them that deals with paganism specifically.

No Pagan writer from all the pagan regions is mentioned. No specific Pagan doctrine is addressed. No Pagan God is mentioned. No specific Pagan ritual is dealt with. No conflict of any specific Pagan ritual or mode of worship is addressed with respect to Christianity. In fact, this Paul, in writing to former Pagans, concerns himself with circumsion, the law and eating food offered to idols, it would appear that the seven churches are filled with Jews, and that there are no Pagans converts.

But, if Justin Martyr's Discourse to the Greeks is examined, a book of only five chapters, it will be seen that Justin Martyr, in trying to convert the Greeks to Christianity, will mention and address some aspects of Paganism.

Justin Martyr mentioned the names of many Pagan Gods, figures and writers, like Homer, Hesiod, Agamemnon, Helen, Chryseis, Breseis, Thetis, Pelides, Hector, Apollo, Ulysses, Ajax, Telamon, Polyxena, Chronos, Ouranos, Curetes, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Melanippe, Nereids, Prosperine, Atiope, Europa, Leda, Semele, Ganymede, Saturn, Latona, Daphne, Hyacinthus, Minerva, Bacchus, Lyda, Nessus, Vulcan, Mars, Atreus, Thyestes, Pelops, Danaus, Aegypteus and Laius.

And in Horatory Adress to the Greeks, Justin Martyr addresses and deals with in some detail the opinions of Plato, Aristotle, Orpheus, Homer, Sophocles and Pythagaros.

However, Paul, writing to several congregations of former Pagans, appear not to know of or dealt with any specific Pagan writer, doctrine or Diety.
The Epistles of Paul do not reflect in any way a missionary writing to or trying to convert Pagans.