Paul - a late invention.

[arthwollipot]

I think someone needs a blog.

 

[theprestige]

Dejudge, have you considered using an analogy to try to bring people around to your way of thinking? I have it on good authority that a sound analogy totally works.

 

[dejudge]

As seen in previous posts Christian writers invented characters and writings in an attempt to historicise the Pauline writer.

Clement was claimed to be a bishop of Rome yet Christian writers appear to have no idea when he lived or died.

It is also claimed that a character called Ignatius wrote Epistles which mention a character called Paul.

Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians

You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found..

However, it is completely implausible that Ignatius could have written Epistles to Churches as described in Christian writings.

Examine Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus 16.

Ignatius, third bishop of the church of Antioch after Peter the apostle, condemned to the wild beasts during the persecution of Trajan, was sent bound to Rome, and when he had come on his voyage as far as Smyrna, where Polycarp the pupil of John was bishop, he wrote one epistle To the Ephesians, another To the Magnesians, a third To the Trallians, a fourth To the Romans, and going thence, he wrote To the Philadelphians and To the Smyrneans and especially To Polycarp, commending to him the church at Antioch.

If Ignatius was condemned to death for the capital crime of preaching the Gospel in Ephesus and sent bound to Rome then it is just complete hideous nonsense that he would be allowed to carry out the very same crime while bound as a prisoner.

Who would supply Ignatius with ink, pen and paper to write seven Epistles while he was supposedly a prisoner on a ship on it’s way to Rome?


It must also be noted that these fabricated Epistles are the only writings from the supposed Ignatius.

Now, look at Against Heresies 3.3.4.

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

“Against Heresies” attributed to Irenaeus mentions nothing at all about a bishop of Ephesus named Ignatius.

Again, we see that each Christian writer would invent their own bishops.

“De Viris Illustribus” implies Peter was the first bishop of Ephesus.
“Against Heresies” claims Paul founded the Church in Ephesus.

In addition, it must also be noted that Scholars claim the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians is a forgery.

Ignatius as a bishop of Ephesus was fabricated no earlier than after “Against Heresies” attributed to Irenaeus or sometime after at least the late 2nd century.

Every supposed early Christian writing which mentions the Pauline writers and Epistles are products of fiction, forgery, false attribution or fabricated bishops.

 

[theprestige]

“De Viris Illustribus” implies Peter was the first bishop of Ephesus.
“Against Heresies” claims Paul founded the Church in Ephesus.

According to the passages you quoted, De Viris Illustribus implies Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. No conflict with Paul founding a church in Ephesus.

 

[maximara]

So where is it that you think the religious carp originated?

It cannot be "god", "Jebus", "Paul", "apostles", because you claim none of those existed, so what is the origin?

While I don't buy the idea Paul didn't exist I think he was tapping into belies that went back to the 1st BCE. The are groups we know that predated the lifetime of Jesus that were regarded as "Christian" by Church fathers. As mentioned before at least one scholar connects Pliny's Nazerini with early Christians and then they go on to date Pliny's source to between 30 and 20 BCE and estimates given the lapse of time required for the installation in Syria of a sect born in Israel/Judea, that the Nasoraean existed 50 BCE. Mover over there is strong evidence of a pagan group called Chrestians who followed

Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca historica (between 60 and 30 BCE) says Sarapis is another name for Osiris, Dionysus, Pluto, Ammon, Zeus, and Pan depending on the sect one is dealing with and if the Hadrian to Servianus (134 CE) is real then it firmly connects this pagan god to Christians:

'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'

More over there is an inscription (CILVI24944) dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE

 

[abaddon]

While I don't buy the idea Paul didn't exist I think he was tapping into belies that went back to the 1st BCE. Dejudge says he never existed. Not much by way of evidence, but insists so.

The are groups we know that predated the lifetime of Jesus that were regarded as "Christian" by Church fathers.

What early jewish pre-jesus were messianic jews, not christians. Why you think there were christians before there was a jesus is amusingly bizarre

As mentioned before at least one scholar connects Pliny's Nazerini with early Christians and then they go on to date Pliny's source to between 30 and 20 BCE and estimates given the lapse of time required for the installation in Syria of a sect born in Israel/Judea, that the Nasoraean existed 50 BCE.

And that provides no evidence for any version of jebus. Dedjudge is correct to point out that whichever version of the jebus story you prefer is immediately incorrect.

Mover over there is strong evidence of a pagan group called Chrestians who followed

Nope, which is why I do not buy that baloney. Lots of folks believed Marshal Applewhite on that basis and they are all dead. By suicide. That's what religion does. As policy. It's a death cult.

<snip>

Wow. Any chance you can join the 21st century? It seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Lots of folks believed Marshal Applewhite on that basis and they are all dead. By suicide. That's what religion does. As policy. It's a death cult.

Nonsense.

Heaven's Gate was an example of a destructive cult, bearing little relationship to established religions.

Christianity may have started out as a cult, but if the mythicists are to be believed this never happened. By the time the First Council of Nicaea was convened in AD 325 it had already become well established as a political organization and tool of state. This does not fit the goals of a 'death cult'.

Various sects within Christianity have attempted to play up the apocalyptic aspects, but this goes against what is written in the Bible. Christianity neither glorifies death nor encourages members to die. Anyone who calls themselves a 'Christian' who tries to hasten the Apocalypse, or kill themselves or others in the name of Jesus, or even allow people to die when they could prevent it, is not following the teachings of their religion.

 

[dejudge]

According to the passages you quoted, De Viris Illustribus implies Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. No conflict with Paul founding a church in Ephesus.

You are correct. It is implied Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, not Ephesus, in De Viris Illustribus.

 

[abaddon]

Nonsense.

Heaven's Gate was an example of a destructive cult, bearing little relationship to established religions.

Christianity may have started out as a cult, but if the mythicists are to be believed this never happened. By the time the First Council of Nicaea was convened in AD 325 it had already become well established as a political organization and tool of state. This does not fit the goals of a 'death cult'.

Various sects within Christianity have attempted to play up the apocalyptic aspects, but this goes against what is written in the Bible. Christianity neither glorifies death nor encourages members to die. Anyone who calls themselves a 'Christian' who tries to hasten the Apocalypse, or kill themselves or others in the name of Jesus, or even allow people to die when they could prevent it, is not following the teachings of their religion.

Nope. It is the logical conclusion to christianity. Ask Andrea Yeats. Or David Koresh. Or Jim Jones.

Death is a shortcut to heaven. This life is simply a place to wipe your feet before the next life according to christianity, despite the simple truth that this is the only life we know we have for sure.

Or look at Revelations and all the rapture nonsense.

Or look at the central tenet of the crucifiction.

Christianity is a death cult.

 

[maximara]

What early jewish pre-jesus were messianic jews, not christians. Why you think there were christians before there was a jesus is amusingly bizarre

"amusingly bizarre"? So is the idea that Columbus discovered the Earth was round, James Watt invented the steam engine, Edison inveterate first electric light, Lincoln was a beloved President before he was assassinated, Richard III was a hunchbacked murdering sociopath, or that there was no sound pictures before 1927.

And yet every one of those historical myths was (and in some cases still is) treated as fact.

I pointed out to Carrier that there was a scholarly work that better supported his John Frum example (as well as showing an error in his thinking): Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177

Guiart's 1952 article, a mere 11 years after the John Frum movement become noticeable by nonbelievers it is not clear if John Frum is simply another name for Karaperamun (the High god of the region), a name that various actual people use as leader of the religious cult, or the name of some other person who inspired the cult perhaps as much as 30 years previously. If to confuse things further it has been suggested that Tom Navy, a companion to John Frum, is based on a real person: Tom Beatty of Mississippi, who served in the New Hebrides both as a missionary, and as a Navy Seabee during the war

And that provides no evidence for any version of jebus. Dedjudge is correct to point out that whichever version of the jebus story you prefer is immediately incorrect.

I agree but it is a little bit of a leap form the story is fantastical nonsense to the man didn't exist in any form.

Nope, which is why I do not buy that baloney. Lots of folks believed Marshal Applewhite on that basis and they are all dead. By suicide. That's what religion does. As policy. It's a death cult.

That is a non sequitur. Evolution's "survival of the fittest" has been was used as justification of the greatest slaughter of innocents the 20th century even knew. That doesn't mean Evolution is a crock of bull.

Besides, not all religions are like that. Heck, not even all forms of Christianity are like that.

Wow. Any chance you can join the 21st century? It seems unlikely at this point.

Considering the inscription information came from a 2009 (which last time I checked was in the 21st century ) work perhaps knowing the material out there would be better advice.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nope. It is the logical conclusion to christianity. Ask Andrea Yeats. Or David Koresh. Or Jim Jones.

Ask the 2.2 billion Christians who aren't depressed schizophrenics or controlling psychopaths.

Religion didn't cause Andrea Yeats to drown her children in the bathtub. Religion didn't tell David Koresh to claim multiple women as his 'wives'. Religion didn't make Jim Jones poison his followers after shooting NBC reporters. But even if religion played some part in those cases, we are only talking about a few nutcases who would have latched onto something else anyway (like Heaven's Gate did with UFOs) compared to billions of normal people. Far from being a 'logical conclusion' the tiny number of outliers shows that the vast majority of Christians are harmless, just like (most) atheists.

Death is a shortcut to heaven. This life is simply a place to wipe your feet before the next life according to christianity, despite the simple truth that this is the only life we know we have for sure.

Wrong. Nowhere does the Bible say this, and most churches consider suicide a sin. In the Bible Jesus says that Heaven will be created on Earth, and that those who believe in him will not die. So far, not a single Christian has 'gone up to Heaven'. All who have died are in the grave waiting to be resurrected - assuming they didn't commit mortal sins during their life. Far from just being a 'place to wipe your feet before the next life' what you do during your life is very important to Christians.

Or look at Revelations and all the rapture nonsense.

I agree that it is nonsense. But it does not describe a death cult. Far from glorifying death, it makes it unpalatable. We should also consider the historical context, and understand that the Book of Revelation was a prediction of imminent future strife (which did happen) and promise of a reward in this world for choosing the right side.

Or look at the central tenet of the crucifiction.

The central tenets of the Crucifixion are sacrifice and atonement. The killing of Christ is not glorified, but his selflessness in giving of his own life for others and our making amends for it is. It is a similar message to the motto "All for one and one for all", and countless stories of people who suffered to help others.

Christianity is a death cult.

Christianity is full of supernatural nonsense for sure, but making up stuff about it doesn't help.

 

[abaddon]

Ask the 2.2 billion Christians who aren't depressed schizophrenics or controlling psychopaths.

Religion didn't cause Andrea Yeats to drown her children in the bathtub. Religion didn't tell David Koresh to claim multiple women as his 'wives'. Religion didn't make Jim Jones poison his followers after shooting NBC reporters. But even if religion played some part in those cases, we are only talking about a few nutcases who would have latched onto something else anyway (like Heaven's Gate did with UFOs) compared to billions of normal people. Far from being a 'logical conclusion' the tiny number of outliers shows that the vast majority of Christians are harmless, just like (most) atheists.

Wrong. Nowhere does the Bible say this, and most churches consider suicide a sin. In the Bible Jesus says that Heaven will be created on Earth, and that those who believe in him will not die. So far, not a single Christian has 'gone up to Heaven'. All who have died are in the grave waiting to be resurrected - assuming they didn't commit mortal sins during their life. Far from just being a 'place to wipe your feet before the next life' what you do during your life is very important to Christians.

I agree that it is nonsense. But it does not describe a death cult. Far from glorifying death, it makes it unpalatable. We should also consider the historical context, and understand that the Book of Revelation was a prediction of imminent future strife (which did happen) and promise of a reward in this world for choosing the right side.

The central tenets of the Crucifixion are sacrifice and atonement. The killing of Christ is not glorified, but his selflessness in giving of his own life for others and our making amends for it is. It is a similar message to the motto "All for one and one for all", and countless stories of people who suffered to help others.

Christianity is full of supernatural nonsense for sure, but making up stuff about it doesn't help.

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile, why don't you worship this...

It's a death cult, no question.

 

[maximara]

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile, why don't you worship this...

[qimg]https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-ncregister/swp/hv9hms/media/20200826160844_5f4675e6c2bf74d8ccd6d0c3jpeg.webp[/qimg]

It's a death cult, no question.

As pointed out a long time ago, Christianity is not a monolithic religion (I don't think an religion that last beyond a generation is). Not every version of it is on the death cult bandwagon.

 

[dejudge]

What do you call a cult whose leader is the firstborn from the dead?

Colossians 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[abaddon]

As pointed out a long time ago, Christianity is not a monolithic religion (I don't think an religion that last beyond a generation is). Not every version of it is on the death cult bandwagon.

Why are there "versions" at all? Is the christian god so incompetent that he/she/it/housecat cannot communicate effectively?

After all, if there was one ring god to rule all there wouldn't be differing versions, right? Just one.

But there are thousands of denominations all claiming they have the right god. They cannot all be right but they could all be wrong.

If anyone could demonstrate the evil entity of the bible to be real, then sure, I would believe in it. But I wouldn't worship the **********. I would make it my business to kill it and save everyone.

 

[abaddon]

What do you call a cult whose leader is the firstborn from the dead?

Colossians 1:18

A death cult.

We agree on not a lot, but quite plainly, we agree on the fact that christianity is baloney.

Was there a historical jebus? Maybe. The Levant was rife in those times with apocalyptic preachers. Was there a historical Paul? Maybe for the same reason. Does it make a difference to me either way? Nope.

It's more of a curiousity of history.

 

[dejudge]

A death cult.

We agree on not a lot, but quite plainly, we agree on the fact that christianity is baloney.

Was there a historical jebus? Maybe. The Levant was rife in those times with apocalyptic preachers. Was there a historical Paul? Maybe for the same reason. Does it make a difference to me either way? Nope.

It's more of a curiousity of history.

Some argue that NT Paul was a figure of history and wrote Epistles to Churches before c 60 CE.

I am arguing that NT Paul was a fabricated character and the so-called Pauline Epistles were late inventions no earlier than the 2nd century.

Your maybe this maybe that beliefs about Jesus and Paul have zero effect on my argument.

It is found that NT Acts of the Apostles does not state anywhere that Saul or Paul wrote any Epistles to anyone or any Church at any time.

Acts of the Apostles must have been written no earlier than c 63 CE or at least after the end of the governorship of Festus however the earliest extant writing which mention Acts of the Apostles is "Against Heresies" supposedly written c 178 CE.

Once the NT Pauline Epistles are examined it is easily seen that the writer makes stuff up and then invokes the name of his resurrected Jesus or the LORD God in attempts to appear to be an authoritative source.

In the Epistles the Pauline writer claimed he was committed to preaching the Gospel to the uncircumcision [the Gentiles] and Peter to the circumcision [Jews].

Christian writings contradicted the claims of the Pauline writer.

The supposed apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome [25 years] and Antioch in Christian writings.

In effect, the so-called Peter was preaching the Gospel to the uncircumcision even before the Pauline character.

 

[acbytesla]

I think everyone has seen the very same typical arguments you propose here. It more often than not ends up being someone of another "faith" trying to push their version of "Skydaddy" agenda.

You fail to convince with your opinions as that's all they are. Religion or the lack of it is fine either way as long as there is morality. As long as nobody gets hurt.

So let the Christians have Jesus, let the Muslims have Muhammad, let the Buddhist have Buddha, let the Atheists have the Universe and random chance.

When you strike out to turn others against one thing or another regarding religious beliefs that means you're vested in something else. And that makes you and your motives suspect. I mean really, if you were confident and secure in your own views, why throw rocks at others? Isn't it enough knowing that you have all the answers and they're all the correct ones?

Chris B.

As if Christianity or Islam or Judaism are moral. Now that's a funny one. Have you read their holy texts? They each endorse slavery, misogyny, racism and the killing of people for such infractions as collecting firewood on the Sabbath, blasphemy, apostasy and having sexual relations outside of marriage.

 

[maximara]

Why are there "versions" at all? Is the christian god so incompetent that he/she/it/housecat cannot communicate effectively?.

Same reason all religions have variants.

After all, if there was one ring god to rule all there wouldn't be differing versions, right? Just one.

And God made man in his image. (Looks at humanity as a whole) Oh are we in trouble.

But there are thousands of denominations all claiming they have the right god. They cannot all be right but they could all be wrong.

Peaching to the choir.

If anyone could demonstrate the evil entity of the bible to be real, then sure, I would believe in it. But I wouldn't worship the **********. I would make it my business to kill it and save everyone.

The novel To Reign in Hell is an interesting twist on the old story. I think the Hindus have it right 'Men may not be the dreams of gods but gods the dreams of men.'

Never mind all this is drifting off this thread's topic of 'Was Paul a real person?'

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Epistles are late writings unknown to the authors of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Examine Galatians 1.

Galatians 1:19

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

The so-called Pauline writer implies he met an apostle James who was a brother of the Lord.
If there was an actual apostle who was the Lord’s brother then it would be expected that the authors of the Gospels and Acts would have mentioned that apostle when giving their lists of the twelve apostles.

People in the Roman Empire and Judea should have seen or known this apostle James the Lord’s brother - after all Christian writers claimed there was an apostle called James who was bishop of Jerusalem for about 30 years.
Let us look at the list of apostles in gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and Acts.

Mark 3

16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;
17 And James the son of Zebedee, andJohn the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Matthew 10.

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother ;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Luke 6.

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Acts 1.

13. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

There are only two apostles called James in the NT Gospels and Acts - James, the brother of John, [the sons of Zebedee] and James the son of Alphaeus.

It is clear that up to the writing of Acts of the Apostles there was no apostle called the Lord’s brother.

The Epistle to the Galatians with Paul supposedly meeting an apostle James the Lord’s brother post-date the NT Gospels and Acts.