aa5874

That is precisely why it can be deduced that the Pauline Corpus is historically and chronological bogus when for hundreds of years the history of Paul and the composition of his letters cannot be reconciled.

It must not be forgotten that the first to mention the Pauline Corpus also claimed Jesus was crucified about 20 years AFTER the 15th year of Tiberius or around c 48-50 CE which utterly destroys the credibility of the Pauline Corpus--See Against Heresies 2.22.

Astonishingly, the people in Asia claimed John told them that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age and John was alive up to the time of Trajan c 98-117 based on "Against Heresies".

Against Heresies 2.22 How in the world could Paul preach Christ crucified in the time of King Aretas C 37-41 CE when up to c 98-117 CE it was taught that Jesus was crucified about c 48-50 CE?

It is clear that in antiquity it was not known or established when Paul lived, when he died and what he wrote.

And, up to the mid 4th century, there was NO known non-apologetic writer who mentioned Paul and Jesus in the time of Tiberius--See Against the Galileans.

Duvduv

Looks like one version of the Jesus story had a scenario involving a "disciple" named John (as opposed to Peter or Paul) whereby "Paul" was the successor. Imagine an alternative Christianity of the Empire whereby everybody lauds a "trinity" of Jesus, John and Paul. Hmm.....maybe that's part of the picture of how the Baptist got a role, he had the name John.

In any event, here you had the heresiologists such as Origen and Irenaeus (and Justin) telling us about the importance of a John, and yet this John was not an important figure in the texts that these so-called heresiologists believed in. Looks like there was poor supervision in the scriptoriums.......

spin

You assert that it's a lie, ie neither real or mistake. Any logic built on the unsupported assertion has no weight.

Calling things "whoppers" (still with this assertion of "lie") might cause you blowback.

Your inability to read the text for what it says doesn't zoom right over my head.

This is not a lie or a whopper: it's you in your persecuting zeal to package what was said with your own bias. It is utter balls to call them the "Apostolic congregations in Judea". The text Gal 1:22 only talks of "congregations in Judea in christ", messianic groups. You hold the church's hand and retroject "apostolic" into the text and pervert it.

It would be good if you read the text that is there and not just the one you want. You've insinuated "Jesus" into this mix, when you haven't established its validity in the pre-Pauline context.

That is your belief, but it isn't in the text.

(See previous comment.)

You're conflating the later Acts Paul with the writer of Galatians, who never calls himself "Saul". You already understand the problem of translating εκκλησια as "church", but here you fall back on the anachronism. You need to show that those messianists Paul pissed off were believers of Jesus. Good luck with that, buddy.

This non sequitur seems to work under the misguided notion that games need followers and being remembered. You haven't stopped playing games here, Shesh, since you got here. The more recent revealing stuff about your beliefs related to sacred names should help you see that you have been playing a game of presenting yourself in one light in the forum while holding a quite different inner light. You're a game player, Shesh. And you're running with one now, this comfortable nonsense about the late corrupted church writing the corpus of Pauline texts, that's not late corrupted when it doesn't suit you.

Umm, you mean they get mixed up with what the doctrine of their own day is. You're having credibility issues, Shesh.

Oh, so it's not the late corrupted church, you mentioned earlier. Convenient. When an assertion doesn't work, you just reshape it at your leisure.

Yeah, right. Not late corrupted church again. This Paul gets shifted through time with gay abandon.

It's gone from "late" to "latter" with the shifting sands of exigency. Isn't the bishop of Rome supposed to be one of "THE Apostles"? You know the one that Paul ridicules for being wishy-washy in his eating habits and steafastness of his commitments.

Would you like to try again minus the ass-covering bullshit?

Thanks, Shesh. I appreciate it and perhaps, if you prayed for me, "'JESUS' would heal your blindness."

Sheshbazzar

This is getting too long winded. Believe whatever you want.

Tommy

I'm getting a bit lost. Questions for anyone:

• How long after Christ's crucifixion did Paul convert? - not obvious to me from Acts.
• Could the 37-41AD breadbasket incident in Aretas' Damascus have happened during the three years prior to Paul going to Jerusalem (Galatians) rather than shortly after his conversion (Acts)? - the former would clearly put more distance between 37-41 and Christ's crucifixion.
• The famine prophesised in Acts 11 (mere two chapters after Paul's conversion) - the dispciples swift provison of aid indicates it was imminent. If this famine happened in AD46-7 as chronicles report, where does this leave the dates of Paul's conversion and Christ's crucifixion?
• This thing about Christ dying at 50 y.o. - wouldn't this contradict the gospels in any way?

spin

Retracts head. The view of one's own heels isn't that thrilling.

I try not to let beliefs get in the way, Shesh. You should try it.

Toto

Acts is fictional, and there is no clue there.

Critical scholars have tried to pin down the dates of events in Paul's life based on Acts and the epistles, and it turns out to be impossible to pin down.

The reference to Aretas by Paul in his epistle is not clearly historical. Aretas II was not in control of Damascus at any time that makes sense in the usual narrative, and the way Paul tells the story, it could be part of an allegorical or coded narrative (Damascus could be a coded reference to Jerusalem, and Aretas to some other authority figure, escaping through a hole in a wall could be a coded reference to escaping from a legal problem through a loophole.)

The story in Acts is unreliable - it differs significantly from Paul's account.

There are some old threads in the archives on this question. Sorry - I was more up on this at one point.

The indirect reference to Christ being 50 by Irenaeus has other more likely interpretations than as historical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion when he was 50. Unfortunately, aa5874 keeps repeating this, and most of the knowledgeable posters here eventually get tired of explaining this and put him on ignore.

aa5874

I am getting real annoyed by your response you consistently keep on making known errors year after year.

You are not providing any evidence that the Pauline letters were composed at any time so I really don't know why you cannot appreciate that others can produce evidence for their argument that the Pauline writers are NOT credible.

We have "Against Heresies" 2.22 in front of us.

It is simply blatantly erroneous that Irenaeus made an indirect reference to Christ being 50.

It is a 2000 word argument--an Entire chapter of book 2


It can be seen that in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that the author argued agasinst Heretics and also claimed that John, the other Apostles, the Elders, the Gospel told people in ASIA that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old up to the time of Trajan.

This is an excerpt from "Against Heresies" 2.

Against Heresies 2.22 Against Heresies 2.22 cannot be reconciled with Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

The Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER c 180 CE or after "Against Heresies" .

It is virtually impossible that Paul was known to have preached Christ crucified since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE when the Gospels, John, the other Apostles and the Elders of Asia did convey upto the time of Trajan C 98-117 CE that Jesus was crucified c 48-50 CE.

aa5874

This thing about Christ dying at about 50 years old is not imagination. It is actually a 2000 word argument in "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Now, there is another Apologetic writer who also claimed Jesus did live through ALL the age of this life.

Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies" Against Heresies" 2.22

Sheshbazzar

Think whatever you want then.

I know what I think.