aa5874

Paul specifically claimed he was in contact with his Jesus AFTER he was raised from the dead.

The Pauline Corpus is about the Pauline personal revelations from the NON-HISTORICAL resurrected Jesus.

Paul had little or no interest in what others said about Jesus when he was supposedly alive.

Paul consulted NON-historical entities to learn of his resurrected Jesus.

Galatians 1 KJV The Pauline Corpus is useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The Pauline writers documented that they preached about the Non-historical resurrected Jesus.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV2. Galatians 1:1 KJV3. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV4. Ephesians 1 KJV 5. Colossians 2:12 KJV6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV7. Philippians 3:10 KJV The Pauline Jesus is a Jesus of FAITH.

Toto

How can you reconcile these two thoughts? ???

ApostateAbe

What he meant with his writings and what he actually thought are two different things. Paul made his followers believe that his own teachings were directly in line with the teachings of Jesus, but in reality the two sets of teachings were often in conflict.

aa5874

The Pauline writers had NO known followers. No known Church responded to any of the Pauline letters in the History of the Jesus cult in the 1st century.

No Jesus cult writer in the History of the Church has identified themselves as a member of a Pauline Church.

No Jesus cult writer have been confirmed to have existed in the 1st century and was associated with a Pauline Church.

No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 64 CE.

The Pauline Corpus was fabricated in a vacuum and do not reflect the Jesus cult in any period of its development.

Up to the late 2nd century Apologetic writers showed that the Jesus cult and teachings were developed without the Pauline Corpus by using the Jesus story and the books of the Prophets.

Toto

Do you think that Paul knew about other teachings of Jesus but rejected them? Or was too deluded to see the conflicts?

Later critics see the two sets of teachings in conflict. They tend to explain this as Paul based his teachings on revelation from a spiritual Jesus, while an opposing faction of early Christians followed either a different revelation or some actual teaching from a historical Jesus.

But it makes no sense to see Jesus as a cult leader, based on his personal charisma and teachings, and Paul claiming his authority without following his teachings or paying respect to his closest associates. :huh:

ApostateAbe

Paul was a cult leader and he knew the untruth of what he was saying. I don't think he seriously saw a vision of the spiritual Jesus but it was a lie designed to gain a following, in the pattern of so many other cult leaders throughout history. The dispute in this case is whether Paul professed Jesus as the absolute truth, and there seems to be no serious doubt. You can come to a conflicting conclusion by reading Paul with your eyes closed.

aa5874

There is no actual corroborative evidence from antiquity that Paul was a cult leader in the 1st century before c 64 CE.

Now, it is most astonishing you are also admitting that Paul was a LIAR which confirms the weakness of the HJ argument.

You have confirmed that there is NO reliable historical source for Jesus.

The Pauline writings are in fact Lies to historicise the resurrection--a non-historical event.

Examine the Pauline UNTRUTHS.

1. Romans 10:9 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

MrMacSon

Agree !!

jgreen44

Then Paul was in conflict with what he considered to be absolute authority.


If Paul's teachings were, as you said, in conflict with the teachings of Jesus then the disciples should have been saying this. But they dd not. Which leads me to suspect there were few if any teachings of Jesus to contradict when Paul was alive.

ApostateAbe

(1) That's right. Cult leaders lie, and I think we should be in agreement on that point. To explain further, what Paul professed to believe is relevant for determining the meaning of his words, and what Paul secretly believed is relevant for speculating why he said them. For cult leaders, what they profess to believe and what they secretly believe are often in conflict, and we shouldn't be taken by surprise at such a conflict.

(2) None of the disciples could either write or afford to hire a writer, being poor. Both Paul and the gospels are antagonistic toward the disciples, indicating the disciples' disagreement with the existence of the gentile Christians (that is Paul's beef with the disciples per the Epistle to the Galatians).