I'm not charging you with anything in this, so please, for the love of god man, chill out in the response....PLEASE!!
I did not come to this forum to chill out. I came to expose the abundance of logical fallacies and lack of knowledge of those who argue that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth WITHOUT a shred of evidence from antiquity.
JaysonR said:
Now, Dejudge, I'm not against your idea that the Pauline corpus was entirely forged; even if Paul did exist, that is a possibility to examine.
My argument that the entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery is based on the evidence.
1. The author of the short gMark did not acknowledge any apostle called James the Lord's brother and did not acknowledge the Pauline post-resurrection story about the visits by the resurrected Jesus to over 500 PEOPLE plus the disciples and Paul.
2. The authors of gMatthew did not acknowledge any apostle called James the Lord's brother and did not acknowledge the Pauline post-resurrection story about the visits by the resurrected Jesus to over 500 PEOPLE plus the disciples and Paul.
3. The author of Acts did not acknowledge any Pauline letter up to at least c 62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.
4. c 117-138 CE, Aristides did not acknowledge Paul as the one who evangelized the Roman Empire but credited the 12 disciples of Jesus.
5. c 138-161 CE, Justin Martyr did not acknowledge Paul as an evangelist but attributed the spreading of the Gospel to ILLITERATES from Jerusalem and that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles [the Gospel] that was used in the Churches.
6. c 180 CE--Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in True Discourse according to Origen in Against Celsus.
7. c 180 CE, Theophilus of Antioch wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "To Autolycus"
8. c 180 CE, Athenagoras of Antioch wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "A Plea to the Christians".
9. c 180 CE, Ireanaeus claimed that the Gospel, the Elders of the Church and the disciples TAUGHT in the Churches that Jesus was crucified when he was FIFTY years c 50 CE which means Paul and the Pauline Corpus was unknown c 180 CE.
10. In the 2nd -3rd century Minucius Felix wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "Octavius".
11. In the 3rd-4th century, Arnobius wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "Against the Heathen".
12. In the 2nd-4th century, in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John.
JaysonR said:
... I wonder if you have an opinion on the possibility that the texts did exist because:
1) Early founders didn't know of them because they weren't as popular as the later Orthodox formation ended up holding them as.
or
2) Early founders considered them as far lesser texts, some possibly considering them apocrypha perhaps, and only considered them valuable as a secondary or tertiary reading source which did not hold great value to their theological constructs.
I ask this because many texts existed, but most were never cited by early commentators simply because the texts were sparse, considered of little integral value, considered to be not of agreement with the commentator's views, or considered to be apocrypha.
Please, name the texts which you KNOW existed but were never cited?
If the texts were never cited how could you possibly know that they existed?
Texts which did not exist could not be cited
In other words, you cannot argue that unknown TEXTS existed while admitting they were not mentioned.
My argument is not based on texts which I believe may have or may not have existed but on texts which are presently available.
Once it is understood that apologetic sources are riddled with forgeries and fiction then it cannot be assumed that texts did exist and that they were written at the time period as claimed by apologetics.
Now, my position on the possibility that Pauline letters existed pre 70 CE is less than zero or a smaller number since the sources that mention the Pauline Corpus are either fiction or forgeries.
