Paul - a late invention.

[dejudge]

And that's exactly my point. If some guy was writing a letter to other churches, there would be no point in going through the effort of referencing peripheral things that both parties were or were not aware of. As you say, it was enough work just to compose what they were trying to communicate. I would not expect a fairly random collection of letters to reinforce each others historical narratives. I wouldn't expect the author of Acts to have randomly referenced Pauline letters for any reason. I mean, those letters weren't even yet collected together as significant, right? How would that come up? "Hey man, you know that other letter some other guy wrote to someone else?" I just wouldn't expect biblical writings to present a coherent narrative. They were not written to be.

Well, the author of Acts did reference supposed letters [plural] from the Jerusalem Church and also did mention the contents of those letters.

And not only did the author of Acts mention the contents of the Jerusalem letters, it is stated that they were given to Paul and his companions and that they delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is directly about what the Apostles did after the ascension of their resurrected Jesus.

Saul/Paul is mentioned over 150 times in Acts, far more times that even Jesus and Peter combined, where it is claimed he persecuted believers, blinded by a bright light, carried out miracles, raised the dead, was shipwrecked, imprisoned and preached in synagogues around the Empire.

One act is missing about Saul or Paul from Acts.

The act of writing a letter.

All the so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Thermal]

Well, the author of Acts did reference supposed letters [plural] from the Jerusalem Church and also did mention the contents of those letters.

And not only did the author of Acts mention the contents of the Jerusalem letters, it is stated that they were given to Paul and his companions and that they delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is directly about what the Apostles did after the ascension of their resurrected Jesus.

Saul/Paul is mentioned over 150 times in Acts, far more times that even Jesus and Peter combined, where it is claimed he persecuted believers, blinded by a bright light, carried out miracles, raised the dead, was shipwrecked, imprisoned and preached in synagogues around the Empire.

One act is missing about Saul or Paul from Acts. The act of writing a letter.
All the so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

I would most humbly submit that many, many acts allegedly performed by S/Paul are missing. Is there a chapter on "Paul spanketh his monkey"? The author of the Acts may not have seen the need to include writing letters, prolific though they may or not have been. When my followers write of my exploits, they might not refer to my postings here either. Not because they are not awesome, but because they don't matter in context. Paul's writings were not collected yet; the author of Acts may have had no idea about their volume or significance yet.

 

[dejudge]

I would most humbly submit that many, many acts allegedly performed by S/Paul are missing. Is there a chapter on "Paul spanketh his monkey"?

Paul spanketh a monkey? I am not arguing that Paul spanketh a monkey.

The author of the Acts may not have seen the need to include writing letters, prolific though they may or not have been. When my followers write of my exploits, they might not refer to my postings here either. Not because they are not awesome, but because they don't matter in context. Paul's writings were not collected yet; the author of Acts may have had no idea about their volume or significance yet.

Well, based on your maybe argument, you forgot to mention that the author of Acts may not have written about the so-called Pauline Epistles because they were not yet written.

I am not dealing maybe this and maybe that. I deal with existing evidence.

Some argue that Pauline Epistles were composed before c 70 CE.

I argue, based on the existing evidence, that Paul was a fabricated character and that the Epistles were all written no earlier than c 175 CE.

 

[abaddon]

Well, the author of Acts did reference supposed letters [plural] from the Jerusalem Church and also did mention the contents of those letters.

And not only did the author of Acts mention the contents of the Jerusalem letters, it is stated that they were given to Paul and his companions and that they delivered them.

Can you give me a reason to care? It is all baloney to me. I don't care about it. It is superstitious garbage based on superstitious writings of anonymous superstitious peasants. **** 'em. I don't care who wrote what. It is mostly wrong.

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is directly about what the Apostles did after the ascension of their resurrected Jesus.

Is it? I don't buy that for a second.

Saul/Paul is mentioned over 150 times in Acts, far more times that even Jesus and Peter combined, where it is claimed he persecuted believers, blinded by a bright light, carried out miracles, raised the dead, was shipwrecked, imprisoned and preached in synagogues around the Empire.

Known history demonstrates that this is a load of old bollox. For starters, those with the claimed Saul/Paul saw not a thing and so on. So I am not buying that garbage either

One act is missing about Saul or Paul from Acts.

The act of writing a letter.

All the so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

Sigh.

False. You apparently have not learned your chosen metier. Not my problem. It's yours.

 

[Thermal]

Paul spanketh a monkey? I am not arguing that Paul spanketh a monkey.

I do so assert that Paul spanketh the mokey.

Well, based on your maybe argument, you forgot to mention that the author of Acts may not have written about the so-called Pauline Epistles because they were not yet written.

I am not dealing maybe this and maybe that. I deal with existing evidence.

Some argue that Pauline Epistles were composed before c 70 CE.

I argue, based on the existing evidence, that Paul was a fabricated character and that the Epistles were all written no earlier than c 175 CE.

And I argue that the evidence is far too weak and fragmentary to assign such strict timelines. If such scrutiny and precision are placed on the exact wording, do you ascribe similar credibility to the content?

The bible is a semi-random collection of disjointed writings from millennia past. Hardly enough to exact a timeline from, especially considering the writers were not exactly historians. I'm not taking seriously the editorialized scribblings of a bunch of religious yahoos in the middle of a desert. Credible contemporary historians, sure. Internal evidence can give clues about the timetable (siege of Masada, Pilate, Nero, etc) but even they are subject to editing over the centuries.

 

[dejudge]

And I argue that the evidence is far too weak and fragmentary to assign such strict timelines. If such scrutiny and precision are placed on the exact wording, do you ascribe similar credibility to the content?

Saying the evidence is far too weak is of no real value because based on your previous posts you seem not to even what evidence there is.

The bible is a semi-random collection of disjointed writings from millennia past. Hardly enough to exact a timeline from, especially considering the writers were not exactly historians. I'm not taking seriously the editorialized scribblings of a bunch of religious yahoos in the middle of a desert. Credible contemporary historians, sure. Internal evidence can give clues about the timetable (siege of Masada, Pilate, Nero, etc) but even they are subject to editing over the centuries.

The Christian Bible and Christian writings of antiquity contain historical information which appears to be corroborated by non-apologetic writers.

In fact, just by mentioning figures of history in the NT like Claudius, Aretas, Herod Agrippa, Herod the Great, Felix, Festus and others it is able to deduce the earliest possible date of compostion of many NT books.

For example, Acts of the Apostles could not have been written before c 60 CE based on the fact that the author mentioned Festus governor of Judea c 60-62 CE.

Likewise, the character called Paul did not write any Epistles to Churches in Acts of the Apostles up to c 60-62 CE.

 

[dejudge]

From the Epistles themselves it can be shown that the Pauline writers were aware of stories of the resurrected Jesus.

Stories of the resurrection of Jesus predated all the Epistles under the name of Paul.

Romans 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:15

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Ephesians 1:20

Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places

Philippians 3:10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death

Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Where did the Epistle writers get their story that Jesus was raised from the dead?

It could not have been from a dead or resurrected being.

It is just a big lie that a resurrected being revealed information to the Pauline writers and further more the so-called revealed events could not or did not happen.

Now, stories that the resurrected Jesus was seen by the disciples/apostles are not found in the short gMark.

Stories of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the disciple/apostles post-date the short gMark.

The story in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrected Jesus was seen of the apostles and lastly by Paul are all later than the short gMark.

Further, the story in Galatians 1 that Paul met apostles in Jerusalem after Jesus resurrected is later than gMatthew.

In gMatthew, the disciples/apostles immediately went back to Galilee as previously planned to be with the resurrected Jesus.

There is nothing at all in gMatthew about the apostles waiting or preaching in Jerusalem after Jesus was raised from the dead.

Matthew 26:32

But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Matthew 28:10

Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Matthew 28:16

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The first NT Gospel to claim the apostles were supposed to wait in Jerusalem was gLuke, the latest version of the Jesus stories.

The author of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles changed the post-resurrection story.

In gLuke and Acts the resurrected Jesus appears to the apostles in Jerusalem where they are told to stay there to receive power from heaven and after receiving the Holy Ghost began preaching in Jerusalem.

Luke 24.49

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

The post-resurrection story in gLuke and Acts where the apostles met the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem is not only complete fiction but it is later than gMatthew.

Now examine Galatians 1.18-19


Galatians 1

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The Pauline writers were aware of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The Epistles were composed after gLuke and Acts were already written.

Even Christian writers admit the authors of gLuke and Acts were very close companion of the Pauline writers and that it was said that gLuke was from Paul.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Against Marcion 5.5

For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.

 

[dejudge]

It is impossible to determine the chronology of supposed events in the Epistles with respect to Jesus, the apostles and the so-called Pauline writers without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

It is claimed Jesus Christ was crucified in the Epistles but the time of the event is not found in any of them.

In the Gospels Jesus Christ was crucified in the time of Pilate.

Jesus Christ resurrected in the Epistles but again nothing to determine when the supposed event occurred.

In the Gospels Jesus also resurrected in the time of Pilate.

In the Epistles it is claimed Paul was shipwrecked and again it is not known when such event happened unless one reads Acts of the Apostles.

In Acts, Paul is shipwrecked when Festus was governor of Judea c 60-62 CE.

However, there is one event you will not see anywhere in the Gospels and Acts.

You will not see or hear about Paul writing Epistles- never.

So, it is clear that the Epistles need the Gospels and Acts.

Stories of Jesus and the apostles must be known before reading the so-called Pauline Epistles in order to understand them.

Now examine 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:18

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.

The Pauline writer boasts about talking in tongues.

But who were the first to talk in tongues in the NT?

It wasn't the Pauline writer.

Who were the first to get the power to preach the Gospel?

It wasn't the Pauline writer.

Look at gLuke 24.49

And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Now, look at Acts 2.

Acts 2:4

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

In the very NT, the apostles spoke in tongues before the Pauline writer.

The Pauline writer is always late- always last.

He was the last to see the non-historical resurrected Jesus and now he is the last of the supposed apostles to speak in tongues.

In effect, Paul was the last to get the power to preach the Gospel from the Holy Ghost.

The Epistles are all late writings which were fabricated using stories of Jesus, the apostles and Saul/Paul found in the Gospels and Acts or their sources.

 

[TextusUnreceptus]

Actually, I like to think of Acts of the Apostles as the 2nd century reboot of Christianity. One partly needed because of the annoying and unexpected success of letters circulating outside Judea. Somehow done by some joker claiming to be an apostle. Dude called himself an apostle, but wasn't even part of the original twelve?? Hahahaha. Who does he think he is?

 

[Brainache]

Actually, I like to think of Acts of the Apostles as the 2nd century reboot of Christianity. One partly needed because of the annoying and unexpected success of letters circulating outside Judea. Somehow done by some joker claiming to be an apostle.

Welcome to the forum TextusUnreceptus (can I call you TU for short?).

Dude called himself an apostle, but wasn't even part of the original twelve?? Hahahaha. Who does he think he is?

I made a thread or two on that very topic:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=345423

Enjoy...

 

[theprestige]

OLOL.

Everyone here agrees that Christianity is bollocks. And yet somehow you'd rather get in a slapfight about how much bollocks it really is, than go and preach your bollocks gospel to any actual Christians. Super weird. What's actually going on here?

 

[dejudge]

OLOL.

Everyone here agrees that Christianity is bollocks. And yet somehow you'd rather get in a slapfight about how much bollocks it really is, than go and preach your bollocks gospel to any actual Christians. Super weird. What's actually going on here?

This thread is about the supposed NT Epistle writer called Paul who claimed to be a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

When did the Pauline writer live and when were the Epistles written???

Your claim that "everyone here agrees that Christianity is bollocks" is probably false but irrelevant.

 

[dejudge]

The very NT and Christian writings of antiquity show that the character called Paul was a late addition.

Examine Acts of the Apostles.

When does the name Saul first appear in Acts?

A character by the name of Saul is first found in Acts 7.

Acts 7:58

And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

When does the name Paul first appear in Acts?

The name Paul first appears at Acts 13.9.

Acts 13:9

Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

So, from Acts 7.58 to Acts 13.8 there is no character called Paul.

It was Saul who was present at the stoning of Stephen. Acts 7.
It was Saul who persecuted believers in Jerusalem- Acts 8.
It was Saul who was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice -Acts 9
It was Saul who preached in the synagogues of Damascus. Acts 9.
It was Saul who escaped death hiding in a basket let down over a wall. Acts 9
It was Saul who returned to Jerusalem and met the apostles after his escape. Acts 9.

It is clear that Saul is the original character -not Paul.

From Acts 7 to Acts 13.38 we know nothing of a character called Paul.

All of a sudden the name of Saul was changed to Paul without any explanation.

The supposed resurrected Jesus in Acts did not know anyone called Paul.


Acts 9:4

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 22:7

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

The name Paul was later inserted in Acts of the Apostles.

 

[dejudge]

In the so-called Pauline Epistles the writer called Paul claimed he received information from a resurrected being but no such thing is possible.

The Pauline writer was simply making stuff up and invoking the name of the resurrected Jesus Christ to appear to be an authoritative source.

In the Epistles it is claimed that the Pauline writer was committed by the resurrected Jesus to preach to the uncircumcision [non-Jews] while Peter was committed to preach to the circumcision [Jews]

Examine the Epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:7-8

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

A similar fabrication is found in the Epistle to the Romans.

The Pauline writer brags that he is the apostle of the Gentiles when writing to the Romans.

Romans 11:13

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office

Romans 15.16

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Pauline writer is again caught lying.

Christian writings themselves state that the supposed Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

The apostle Peter had already preached the gospel to the Romans.

In effect, the Epistle to the Romans should be an Epistle to the Roman church started by Peter.

In Jerome De Viris Illustribus it is claimed Peter went to Rome and was bishop for 25 years since the 2nd year of Claudius to the 14th year of Nero. c43-68 CE.

De Viris Illustribus

Simon Peter .............. pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

The claim in the Epistles that the Pauline writer was committed to preach to the Gentiles is a late addition.

In Christian writings, Peter had already preached the gospel to the Romans and was bishop of the Roman Church before the Epistle to the Romans was composed.

 

[dejudge]

It is seen that Acts of the Apostles originally introduced stories about a character called Saul in Acts chapter 7 and that without explanation the name was later changed to Paul in Acts 13 and that there is no mention whatsoever of any Epistles written by Saul or Paul.

There is not even a mention of a verse from any so-called Pauline Epistle in Acts.

In effect, Acts of the Apostles does not corroborate at all that the character called Paul was a figure of history and that he wrote Epistles to anyone or any church.

There is only one other book which mentions the name Paul in the NT and that is the supposed 2nd Epistle of Peter where the name appears only once.

2 Peter 3:15

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you.

However, it is admitted in Christian writings that the 2nd Epistle of Peter is a forgery and does not belong in the Canon.

Eusebius' Church History 3.3.1.

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon

The NT itself does not corroborate the historicity of Paul and the claim he wrote Epistles to anyone.

Now, look outside the NT.

A Christian writing called 1st Clement mentions Paul and implies he wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.

1Clement to the Corinthians 1.47.1

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

However, as soon as one examines other writings about Clement it is realized that the character was fabricated and that the Epistle is a forgery or falsely attributed.

1. In Irenaeus' Against Heresies" Clement is the third bishop of Rome after the apostles, Linus and Anacletus.

2. In Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics Clement is the first bishop after Peter.

3. In the Preface to the Recognitions, Clement is the fourth bishop but still immediately after Peter.

4. In the Chronography of 354 , Clement is the second bishop after Peter and was bishop from c 68-76 CE for 9 years 11 months and 12 days but before Cletus.

5. In Church History 3.15, Clement is the third bishop after Peter but was bishop in the 12th year of Domitian to the 3rd year of Trajan or c 93-101 CE.

6. In Augustine in Letter 53, Clement is the second bishop after Peter but before Anancletus.

As is seen each writer manufactured their own order or date of bishopric for Clement and contradict each other in the process.

The fabrication of the Clement character is a perfect example of how characters are invented and Epistles falsely attributed to them.

1st Clement does not show that the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed before c 95 CE it does the opposite. It shows that writings were falsely attributed to a fabricated Clement in an attempt to historicise Paul.

The character Paul is no different to Clement.

Both were fabricated and Epistles falsely attributed to them.

 

[dejudge]

In the previous post it is seen that Christian writers fabricated a character called Clement in an attempt to historicise Paul and to make it appear that Pauline Epistles were written to the supposed Corinthians.

Now, it will be seen that the very character Paul was himself a fabrication like Clement.

In Christian writings it is claimed that both Peter and Paul were killed on the same day under Nero.

Eusebius’ Church History 2.25.5

It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.
This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus

He then, in the fourteenth year of Nero on the same day with Peter, was beheaded at Rome for Christ's sake and was buried in the Ostian way, the twenty-seventh year after our Lord's passion.

Now, examine the Chronography of 354.

This Christian writing shows that Peter was bishop of Rome and died c 55 CE or about 1st year of Nero.

Chronograph of 354

Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 days. He was in the times of Tiberius Caesar and Gaius and Tiberius Claudius and Nero, from the consulate of Minucius and Longinus [AD 30] to that of Nero and Verus [AD 55]. However he died with Paul on the 3rd day before the kalends of July, the emperor Nero being consul.

It is seen in the Chronography that the so-called Peter was bishop for 25 years, 1 month and 9 days and died with Paul [AD 55].

These Christian writings were supposed to be from the 4 century yet they have very different dates for the death of Peter and Paul.

In De Viris Illustribus Peter and Paul died c 68 CE and in the Chronography c 55 CE.

But more fabrication of dates for the death of Peter and Paul are found in the very same De Viris Illustribus.

This is extremely important.
The author of De Viris Illustribus gives two contradicting time periods for the death of Peter and Paul in the very same sentence.

Examine the same passage from De Viris Illustribus.


Peter and Paul were killed in the 14th year of Nero. [c 68 CE]
Peter and Paul were killed 27 years after the Lord’s Passion.

When was Jesus Christ crucified according to Jerome?

Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus

...... I only say this, that the twenty-fifth year after our Lord's passion, that is the second of Nero, at the time when Festus Procurator of Judea succeeded Felix, he was sent bound to Rome…

Jerome implies his Jesus was crucified 25 years before the 2nd year of Nero which would be 25 years before c 56 CE or c 30-31 CE.

In the very same sentence Jerome simultaneously puts forward two contradictory dates for the death of Peter and Paul which match the contradictory dates in Church History and the Chronography of 354.

Church History -- Peter and Paul executed c 68 CE.

Chronograph of 354 --Peter and Paul executed c 55 CE.

Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus - Peter and Paul executed c 57 and also c 68 CE.

Christian writings are evidence that Peter and Paul were invented and were not figures of history.

 

[turingtest]

The sound of one hand clapping.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

OLOL.

Everyone here agrees that Christianity is bollocks. And yet somehow you'd rather get in a slapfight about how much bollocks it really is, than go and preach your bollocks gospel to any actual Christians. Super weird. What's actually going on here?

It may be bollocks, but Christianity has had a vast influence on our history and culture. As such I think it is worth studying, even if just for historical curiosity.

But some people are apparently so upset about finding out it's bollocks that they try to make it even more bollocks, to the point of rejecting actual history and common sense. What these people don't seem to understand is that by attempting to refute one collection of bollocks with another, they are actually increasing the total amount of bollocks!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There was a quote somewhere about arguing about who's invisible friend is the most powerful..

 

[abaddon]

The sound of one hand clapping.

Well, i don't know. I don't put any credence in that load. Alas, our protagonist does.

I have no idea why, I have been a atheist for some 40 years. I will hardly be changed to more of an atheist by more offensive arguments. It is rather amusing to observe our protagonist make futile arguments. I have no clue why they do it.