I have never claimed that all the Pauline Corpus was written by a single author so already you are wrong about my position. I have already specifically stated many times that the Pauline Corpus is a product of MULTIPLE authors.
So, your argument would have to be that, independently, several people in the second century and deliberately faked these letters and created a fake persona named "Paul." Alternatively, you could be arguing that they did this in concert as part of a hoax to claim an earlier origin for their cult.
Consider motive. Why would they have gone out of their way to identify with a mythical Jesus, who was put to death by the Romans? Why would they anchor their mythical Christ in Judea, of all places?
On the other hand, it's quite reasonable that later Christian authors of the Deutero-Pauline letters would forge them in the name of a revered church father.
There is also the fact that those letters considered by most scholars to be from the hand of Paul have, as I've previously noted, a highly apocalyptic world view, involving the imminent second coming. Those not considered genuine are concerned with societal relationships. This fits a change in a religion that started out as a doomsday cult, then changed when it became obvious the world wasn't going to end on schedule.
Please, just go and read what I wrote because you obviously have not done so.
Your argument is absurd and without logic. If there were no Churches of the Jesus cult until the 2nd century then there would be no congregations existing pre 70 CE.
Concerning the hilited area: Once again, your insulting and abrasive tone is uncalled for. You can simply say, in the first instance, "I feel you have misread what I wrote because . . ." or in the second instance, "I find your reasoning on this point wrong, because . . ."
As to Christian congregations, from the letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan, we know that Christians were established enough early in the second century to be considered a problem in various provinces of the empire. Also, these letters tell us that the Romans had, by that time made it a policy to put Christians to death if they did not recant their view. So what is more likely, that the cult had appeared earlier and spread by that time, or that it was a brand new phenomenon, but was already considered a problem?
Writing about the same time as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, in the
Annals, relates that Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians. There is strong evidence that it was originally written as Chr
estians. However, Tacitus also says their founder, Christ, was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Also, Tertullian complains that detractors of the Christians couldn't even get their name right and called them "Chrestians."
If the passage in the Annals refers to Christians, then Tacitus was asserting they were already in Rome by the time of Nero.
There is no apostle called the Lord's brother in the Gospels and the other Epistles.
Please, read what I wrote. It is obvious that you have not done so.
There is NO apostle named James the Lord's brother in Mark 6.3 and Matt 13.55-57.
My point was that, according to Mark, Jesus had a brother named James. That he might well have become a follower and might have taken over the cult after Jesus died isn't unreasonable.
Do you not know that the Acts of Paul is most likely a forgery? Please get familiar with the forgeries of antiquity.
Acts of Paul was REJECTED by the Church.
. . . (snip) . . .
All writings about Paul and under the name of Paul are fiction or forgeries and were composed no earlier than c 180 CE.
You complain vociferously that I am not reading what you wrote. Here, it is quite obvious you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of doing. If you will go back and read my post you will find that I said that it was unlikely that people would be making up romances such as the Acts of Paul in the middle of the second century about someone who didn't exist and wasn't mentioned until after CE 180. By the way, what is your basis for choosing that date?
