aa5874

It does not help you at all.

Well, I have observed that in antiquity the commandments were also referred to as the law in the very Jesus cult Canon..

John 7:19 James 2:11 What you say is wholly erroneous. I argue that the Pauline writings are inconsistent and the Flagship of forgeries, fiction and false attribution and that Apologetics of antiquity did not know when Paul really lived, when he died and what he wrote.

To show the inconsistencies, Apologetics claimed Paul was executed under Nero but was ALIVE after gLuke was composed and that the same Paul wrote all the Epistles under the name of Paul.


If there were multiple writers under the name of Paul which one was Simon? Now, you have admitted that there more than one Paul then you will need to find corroboration for your Simon/Paul.

The unwary?? Who was the unwary? Those who fabricated the story?

The author of gMark claimed his Jesus spoke in Parables made a reference to Isaiah 6 which would have been known to people of antiquity.

Isaiah 6
The author of the short gMARK did not use the Pauline writings at all.

Simon Magus most likely PREDATES the Pauline character and the Jesus stories in the Canon based on writings attributed to Justin.

Sheshbazzar

Right there you have your answer and explanation. 'St Paul insists that all of his knowledge of Christ Jesus came through 'revelation' from 'Jesus' ...and not from men.

With that claim he has set his self up in a situation and a claim where he cannot admit to, nor betray having ever received any knowledge of the content of the written Gospels.
__As any admission of possession of such knowledge puts his claim that his knowledge was attained exclusively via means of direct revelation from 'Jesus', to be a lie.

He (or rather whatever writers were masquerading under the name 'Paul') knew alright.
He (they) just deliberately attempted to conceal the fact that he (they) had been privy to the Gospel stories.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries, and are all latter than the Gospels.

aa5874

The abundance of evidence from antiquity do indeed suggest the Pauline writings were very late and after the Jesus story was known.

Even if Jesus did actually exist he could not have revealed anything to the Pauline writer AFTER he was dead.

The Pauline writings are either a Pack of fiction or a compilation of Mythology with no historical value except that they represent documented fraud and forgeries.

spin

(The Hebrew is somewhat screwed up.)

Diogenes the Cynic

How does the name, Saul, figure into this hypothesis?

Tommy

You think the gospels preceded Paul? I recall a thread where someone noted that no one quoted Paul prior to 130AD, (although there's no reason they couldn't have been written somewhat prior to becoming fashionable).

One thing about the epistles that it's easy to overlook is that (with the exception of maybe 1 Corinthians 13) they're boring - dry, worthy and abstract. Compare with gMark where Jesus dashes from exorcism to exorcism, talking in riddles and there's a beheading and a naked young man. Who would bother with Paul after that?

Furthermore, if Paul following revelation was closer to the horse's mouth than the gospel writers why doesn't he describe his revelation to us as was common? The ancients can't have been that credulous to take Paul's word for granted after reading the gospels. If Jesus had lived it's not impossible that a gospel writer might have known Him or Mary or Peter.

Seems more like that the epistles came first and were surplanted by the more interesting and intimate gospel narratives.

Sheshbazzar

Most Christians were illiterate, and the Church elders decided what would be taught and in what order it would be taught, and how it was to be interpreted.

I believe that the 'Pauline Epistles' and 'the Book of Acts' were invented after the Gospels and after 170 CE. their purpose was to provide the Church hierarchy with a talking head from the 1st century, one that could be employed to prop up the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession' and the myth of Peter and Paul traveling to and founding the Roman Church.
The 'Pauline Epistles' may be 'boring dry and abstract' but their content (along with 'Clement of Rome', and the Ignatian Epistles) is absolutely essential for the establishment of the Roman Church's claims.

The Gospel narrative show no knowledge of the elaborate theology of the Pauline Epistles, or any recognition of an early church influenced in any manner by any 'Paul'.

Salvation in the Gospels was attained by 'keeping The Commandments' with not a hint of Paul's elaborate 'substitutionary sacrifice' theology.
The opposite is true of the 'Pauline Epistles' they know of the Gospels (and Revelations) 'KEEP the Commandments' sayings, and set out to deliberately overturn and supplant the words of 'Jesus', with the no Law antinomian theology of 'Paul'.

Then in addition to this is the fact of the early historians and church writers that most certainly would have known of a 'Paul' and his teachings and recorded it, if there had been such in their day. Chief among these being Justin Martyr who wrote extensively (even more than 'Paul') on the subject of circumcision, and uncircumcision,
circa 150 CE, but never once mentions or quotes anything by 'Paul' the alleged 'Apostle to The Uncircucision'. And as Justin's writings agree in most all points with what the 'Pauline Epistles' have to say, it is inexplicable that Justin would not cite such a great authority, if any such had existed in his day.
And then, there has never been so much as a fragment of a 'Pauline Epistle ' recovered that can be dated to earlier than 180 CE.
Any claim that the 'Paulines' are earlier than the Gospel's is unevidenced speculation, and it doesn't matter how 'authoritative' the source such a claim comes from it is still speculation without material evidence.

'Paul' could not admit to knowing the content of the Gospel's because doing so would contradict and prove to be a lie his claim that he received his Gospel by exclusive revelation from the 'Lord Jesus' when in fact he had learned all about 'Jesus' from the Christian believers that were before him.
'Paul' would have gotten nowhere with such a claim if he had not been the invention and tool of the latter church orthodoxy Establishment.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries produced after approximately 170 CE, as are 'Clement of Rome' and the 'Ignatian Epistles'.

aa5874

You have only stated what you think but have not stated the actual evidence from antiquity for your thoughts.

It is already known that some people believe the Pauline writings are early and credible without a shred of corroboration.

No-one in antiquity could have corroborated the Pauline revelations from a resurrected Jesus even if Jesus did actually exist.

It is most astonishing to me that the same people who argue that the Gospels are unattested do not also expose that the Pauline writings are the very same.

RParvus

I think the name “Saul” was part of the background that the proto-orthodox invented for their new Paul.

As I see it, the second-century proto-orthodox Christians responsible for reworking the Simonian letter collection and composing Acts of the Apostles knew that the real first-century figure who was the first to preach the Son of God among the Gentiles was Simon of Samaria. They wanted to hide that fact because Simon’s beliefs were, on a number of points, at serious odds with their own. They could not acknowledge that the Apostle to the Gentiles was also the Father of heresy and Gnosticism. And that he broke with the Jerusalem pillars and became their enemy (“Have I become your enemy?” – Gal. 4:16).

The Simonians were a secretive group and their letter collection was likely known only to themselves before the proto-orthodox obtained a copy of it. Since it had previously been circulated only internally, there was nothing to stop the proto-orthodox from co-opting it by changing the sender’s name to “Paul”, making any necessary doctrinal changes, and then claiming that he was one of their own. The Simonians did not respond for it would have meant breaking their own code of secrecy. Moreover, they would have realized that the proto-orthodox actions in fact only served to increase the secrecy that enveloped the original teaching. Basilides was right that only “one in a thousand, two in ten thousand” would figure it out. (Marcion came close, by the way. He came to realize—perhaps through his association with the Simonian Cerdo—that the public Pauline letter collection had been tampered with by Judaizers and that the author of the original letters believed in a god higher than the creator god of the Jews.)

Anyway, the newly created Paul would have needed a background. I think it was his proto-orthodox creators who gave him one as a converted persecutor named Saul.

aa5874

Your claim is without a shred of corroboration in antiquity.

It was Saul/Paul who was completely unknown. There was no Pauline corpus up to 180 CE and is CONFIRMED by "Against Hersies 2.22" when it was argued that Jesus was crucified AFTER he was about 50 years old about c 48-50 CE [20 years after the 18th year of Tiberius]

According to Justin almost all the Samaritans and some of other nations worshiped Simon Magus as the FIRST GOD.

First Apology
In writings Against Heretics Simon Magus is also listed and that Simon Magus was made in the image of JUPITER

In "Against Heresies" in the time Simon Magus the SIMONIANS well known.

Against Heresies 1 As soon as it was argued in "Against Heresies" 2.22 that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years c 48-50 CE then the Pauline Corpus--all the Epistles under Paul are NOT credible.

But, now Hippolytus also claimed Jesus lived through every age which tends to corroborate "Against Heresies" 2.22.

Refutation of ALL Heresies The Pauline writers are not credible at all and do not represent the Jesus cult in any century except that they represent fraud, forgeries and false attribution.

Not, even the Entire Canon corroborates that the Pauline writers composed nine Epistles to Churches and 4 Pastoral or the revealed Gospel that there would be No Salvation Without the Resurrection.