aa5874

:huh: You are blatantly mis-representing the ABUNDANCE of evidence from antiquity that I have shown you.

I did not say that the Pauline Corpus could not have been composed before c 175-180 CE merely because there were Multiple authors.

I deliberately and SPECIFICALLY presented MULTIPLE sources that did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus up to 175-180 CE.

Again, this is some of the evidence .

1. The first known source, the author of Acts, to write a biography of Saul/Paul up to c 59-62 CE did NOT claim at all that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles and Pastorals.

2. The first known source, 1 st Clement, to mention an Epistle to Corinthians by Paul is a forgery or false attribution and was unknown up to the 4th century BASED on Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine, Rufinus and the Chronograph of 354.

3. The first known source, "Against Heresies", to mention the letters of the Pauline Corpus is a forgery because Irenaeus was a Presbyter of the Church and argued Publicly that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old or 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius---Against Heresies contradicts the Pauline Corpus.

4. Aristides did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 117-138 CE.

5. Justin did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 138-160 CE.

6. Theophilus of Antioch, a Christian, did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 175-180 CE.

7. Athenagoras, a Christian, did not mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 175-180 CE.

8. Minucius Felix an Apologetic writer did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline corpus around the late 2nd-3rd century.

9. Hippolytus admitted that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus.

10. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul C 175-180 ce.

There is an abundance of evidence to support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was fabricated AFTER c 180 CE.

I really glad you mention 2 Peter.

2 Peter is a forgery. It was ADMITTED by the Church that the NT Canon is compiled with a forgery called 2 Peter. See "Church History" 3.3.1.

2 Peter does NOT belong to the Canon.

Eusebius' Church Hstory 3.3.1

arnoldo

Sorry, I should have stated that the multiple sources which do mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus before 175-180 are forgeries according to the purposes of this thread. Is Ignatius of Antioch's mention of Paul's letter another example of a forgery?

aa5874

You should have stated from the start that you really have no interest in the evidence from antiquity.

It is well known that Jesus cult writings are riddled with forgeries and false attribution. The NT Canon is a prime example where virtually 100% of the authors are FAKES.

It is already accepted that the Pauline Corpus contains forgeries.

Now, is it not stated that 2nd Peter does NOT belong to the Canon?

2nd Peter was known to be a forgery for hundreds of years.

It is NOT stated that the Bishop of Rome wrote a letter in response to a Dissension of the Church of Corinth which should have happened c 95 CE?

Clement was NOT bishop of Rome 95 C E based on Tertullian, Optatuis, Augustine, Rufinus and the author of the Chronograph 354.

Any letter attributed to Clement as bishop of Rome when there was a Dissension of the Church of Corinth is a forgery or false attribution.

Which Paul are you talking about? You know that there were FAKE Pauls.

Please identify which Paul Ignatius mentioned in the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Saul/Paul in Acts wrote NO Epistles and Pastorals.

May I remind you that the passage you quoted is from Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians.

May I also remind you that the letter to the Ephesians attributed to Paul is generally accepted as a forgery.

It would seem that Ignatius knew one of the Fake Pauls.

aa5874

Because of the abundance of evidence from antiquity it is an EXTREMELY simple matter to determine within reason that the Entire Canonised Pauline Corpus is a very late invention.

As soon as it was discovered and accepted almost universally by scholars that the Pauline Corpus does contain forgeries or falsely attributed epistles then it is easily understood why multiple 2ND century Christian writers up to 175-180 CE show no influence at all of the Pauline Corpus and Pauline teachings.

The Pauline Corpus is Anti-Marcionite propaganda composed AFTER Marcion was dead.

This can be shown when Ephrem's three books "Against Marcion" are examined.

Although Ephrem wrote AFTER Tertullian's "Against Marcion", the Syrian writer did NOT corroborate a single verse from the Pauline Corpus as stated by Tertullian.

Instead, Ephrem the Syrian corroborated Justin Martyr's statements about Marcion.

Ephrem's existing three books on "Against Marcion" does NOT mention that Paul manipulated the Pauline Corpus and so does Justin NOT mention Paul.

But, there is also another serious problem for all sources which mention the Pauline Corpus.

If the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians is most like a forgery how does Ignatius know of the forgery?

Are we to expect that a forgery was actually sent to the Ephesians Church while Paul was alive?

Incredibly, the earliest recovered Epistle to an Ephesian Church is a forgery under the name of Paul.

Without the Pauline forgery we would know nothing of "Paul's" Ephesian Church.

It is clear why many Christians writers did NOT mention Paul, the Pauline teachings and the Pauline Churches--they were fabricated after c 175-180 CE.

arnoldo

Polycarp also seems to know a great deal about Paul's (fake or not) writings. JSTOR has an article called Polycarp of Smyrna's View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy which may be of interest (see quote below).

Duvduv

In a number of cases you assume that the text not mentioning Paul had been an original Christian document, whereas it is more likely to have been a non Christian tract that was simply adopted and adapted by Christians. They also didn't mention other Christian personages either.
In the case of Justin the was simply addressing prophecies he suggested related to Jesus in the Tanakh, which wasn't relevant to Paul.

aa5874

Polycarp did not establish that he knew when really Paul lived or what he really wrote.

Essentially, Polycarp is a source of fiction or has no real historical value.

The supposed Presbyter Irenaeus, who argued that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or c 49 CE also claimed to know Polycarp.

See Against Heresies.

Ploycarp should have known that Paul could NOT preached Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41CE.

Polycarp should have known that John the disciple and the Elders preached that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and NOT Tiberius.

aa5874

The Canonised NT is extremely consistent with regards to the Pauline Corpus.

None of the authors of the NT Canon show awareness of the Pauline teachings.

In the NT, it is claimed Paul had revelations from the resurrected Jesus.

In the same NT, it is also claimed John had Revelations from Jesus.

The teachings about the Second Coming or the resurrection must have been a very significant teaching in the Jesus cult.

It will be seen that up to the 2nd century that it was the Johanine teachings of the Second Coming that was known--NOT Paul's.

The Revelations of Paul and the Revelations of John are NOT compatible.

The resurrected Jesus in John's Revelation did not know the Pauline Jesus.

In John's revelation, there would be a New Jerusalem on earth and people would reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

Revelation 21:2 KJV Revelation 21:10 KJV

Revelation 20:4 KJV In the Pauline Corpus, it is claimed the Dead in Christ shall rise FIRST and meet Jesus in the AIR.

1 Thessalonians
No such Pauline teaching was known in the 2nd century based on Justin Martyr.

Justin knew of John's Revelation--NOT Paul's.

Dialogue with Trypho LXXX Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXXI The writings of 2nd century Jesus cult writers show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown.

arnoldo

Why would the Emperor Julian quote the Apostle Paul almost word for word in Against the Galileans?


Maybe Julian didn't know that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 wasn't written in the first century?

aa5874

Again, I am extremely happy you mention the Emperor Julian. In fact, in writings attributed to Julian the Emperor he did argue that Jesus and Paul were UNKNOWN by those who wrote about events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius wrote about events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius but never mentioned Jesus and Paul.

Why would Julian say that the fabrication of the Galileans was a Monstrous fable and a fiction of men?

Why would Julian challenge Christians to show any well known writer who mentioned Paul and Jesus?

Julian must have found out that the Jesus and Pauline stories were fiction--monstrous fables.

Julian's Against the Galileans I put the same challenge to you.

It was already known since the 4th century, precisely at the time of Julian the Emperor, that the stories of Jesus and Paul were Monstrous fables and were UNKNOWN in the well known writings about the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tascitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio corroborates Julian--Jesus, the Galileans and Paul were not mentioned by well known writers of antiquity.

Julian's Against the Galileans