The Pauline Corpus are very late writings.

[dejudge]

When one examines writings of antiquity it is quickly and easily realised that the entire Pauline Corpus is a compilation of very late writings which were unknown up to 175-180 CE or at least after "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus as found in "Origen's "Against Celsus".

The very first problem with the Pauline Corpus is that the supposed author called Paul is unknown by all contemporary non-apologetic writings.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Paul was a Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention any character called Paul or any Pauline sect called Christians and there are no arguments for or against the Pauline Gospel.

Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated up to the 1st century.

The supposed non-apologetic contemporaries Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger have nothing at all about Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews, the alleged founder of Christian Churches outside Judea.

Based of the abundance of evidence from antiquity the Pauline character and Corpus are LATE inventions.

 

[The Atheist]

Yep, I'll go along with all of that; I've been saying for years that christian churches, and the RCC in particular, should change their name to the Pauline Church.

The words of Jesus as stated don't work for things like Augustine's Just War, or riches, so it was necessary to insert a mixer to cobble it all into a religion that allowed the hierarchy to have and hold power and wealth.

A church run on Jesus' rules would be an open-air affair with no collection plate.

The idea that Saulus was a deliberate invention to aid the creation of a church would get a pass mark from me.

 

[marplots]

Is this one of those, "a lack of evidence is evidence for a lack" things?

Those always cramp my brain.

 

[dejudge]

Is this one of those, "a lack of evidence is evidence for a lack" things?

Those always cramp my brain.

If someone falsely accuses you of a crime then I hope it would not "cramp" your brain if there was a lack of evidence.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The Flavian Corpus are very late writings.

When one examines writings of antiquity it is quickly and easily realised that the entire Flavian Corpus is a compilation of very late writings which were unknown up to 240-250 and first cited in "Origen's "Against Celsus".

The very first problem with the Flavian Corpus is that the supposed author called Flavius Josephus is unknown by all contemporary non-apologetic writings.

In the Flavian Corpus it is claimed Flavius Josephus was a client of the Flavian dynasty and a Jew of priestly descent.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention any character called Josephus or any army led by him at Yodfat and there are no arguments for or against The Jewish War.

Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated up to the 1st century.

The supposed non-apologetic contemporaries Philo, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger have nothing at all about Josephus the Hebrew of Hebrews, the alleged historian of the Flavian Imperial dynasty.

Based of the abundance of evidence from antiquity the Flavian character and Corpus are LATE inventions.

 

[marplots]

If someone falsely accuses you of a crime then I hope it would not "cramp" your brain if there was a lack of evidence.

I believe this is why the notion of innocent until proven guilty is so popular. However, who decides the "innocent" side in this case? What's the default going to be?

 

[dejudge]

I believe this is why the notion of innocent until proven guilty is so popular. However, who decides the "innocent" side in this case? What's the default going to be?

Lack of evidence is always the default.

 

[dejudge]

The assumption that letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed BEFORE c 70 CE is extremely easy to debunk.

First of all those who claim letters under the name of Paul were written since before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE cannot identify the manuscript with those assumed early letters.

Imaginary UNIDENTIFIED manuscripts have been dated to c 50-60 CE.

The earliest manuscripts [Papyri 46] with letters under the name of Paul are dated between the 2nd-3rd century.


Next, it is claimed that letters under the name of Paul were composed very early because there is little or nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.

Again, such a claim is easily and quickly debunked.

A reading of ALL the EPISTLES in the Christian Canon reveals that ALL of them have very little or nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.

The Epistle of James---little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

1st and 2nd Peter---little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

The Epistle of Jude---little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

To the Hebrews---little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

The Three Epistles of John--little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus---little or nothing about the Life and miracles of Jesus.

In fact, in the HUNDREDS of Epistles by apologetics of antiquity there is little or nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.

In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo alone wrote over TWO HUNDRED letters with little or nothing about the life or miracles of Jesus.

See "The Letters" of Augustine.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1102.htm

It is the Gospels that we would expect to have the biography of Jesus.

The claim that letters under the name of Paul were composed early because they have little or nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus is completely void of logic.

It is easily seen that Epistles are not biographies.

 

[Marras]

Of course, if Pauline epistles were unknown before 175, it means that Marcion of Sinope was faked too. Those dastardly fakers, not only did they fake things that supported them, they also faked a whole rival heretic sect for themselves.

That was sarcasm, by the way, put the point is that Marcionism was based on Pauline teachings and the Gospel of Luke and it sprung up in the mid 2nd century and lasted for a couple of centuries.

 

[Mcreal]

... the point is that Marcionism was based on Pauline teachings and the Gospel of Luke and it sprung up in the mid 2nd century and lasted for a couple of centuries.

Those scenarios and sequences are current being disputed - some believe some of the Pauline epistles were written by members of the Marcionite community; and a few authors are saying Luke and at least one other of the 'Synoptic' gospels or other NT books were written after the Marcion texts were written -

In 1881 Charles B. Waite, in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred, suggested that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel, and John Knox, in 'Marcion and the New Testament' (1942), also agreed with Waite's hypothesis.​

Joseph B Tyson in 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle' (2006), University of South Carolina Press, makes a case for not only Luke but also Acts being responses to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke as more widely proposed; and​

Markus Vinzent, in 2014 in 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Leuven: Peeters), argues for 'a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD'​

 

[dejudge]

Of course, if Pauline epistles were unknown before 175, it means that Marcion of Sinope was faked too. Those dastardly fakers, not only did they fake things that supported them, they also faked a whole rival heretic sect for themselves.


That was sarcasm, by the way, put the point is that Marcionism was based on Pauline teachings and the Gospel of Luke and it sprung up in the mid 2nd century and lasted for a couple of centuries.

Your statement is not logical and is also un-evidenced.

The existence or non-existence of Marcion cannot be assumed simply because the Pauline Corpus were unknown.

Marcion's teachings were not based on the Pauline Corpus.

Marcion's preaching was derived from Empedocles.

Marcion did preach that the son of God was WITHOUT birth and WITHOUT Flesh according to Christian writings.

Marcion denied the nativity of the Son of God.

In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Jesus was the son of God and made of a woman.

 

[David Mo]

Of course, if Pauline epistles were unknown before 175, it means that Marcion of Sinope was faked too. Those dastardly fakers, not only did they fake things that supported them, they also faked a whole rival heretic sect for themselves.

That was sarcasm, by the way, put the point is that Marcionism was based on Pauline teachings and the Gospel of Luke and it sprung up in the mid 2nd century and lasted for a couple of centuries.

And Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome (beginnings of the second century) are faked too, because they mentioned the pauline epistles.
In reality, almost all the writings of the early Christianity were faked by Eusebius of Caesarea. There are not any original manuscript of these writings and they are "easily debunked" by the new historical method of Dr. Dejudge.This is to say if we "cannot identify the manuscript with those assumed early letters" they are faked. In reality, we have not any original manuscript of Eusebius, so Eusebius was faked also. And Plato and Aristotle and Herodotus, and Tacitus and Plinius... We have not any original manuscript of those people! Well, approximately three quarters of ancient history was faked by someone. Who was able to make a so monumental fake? I begin to believe in the Malign Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Mcreal]

Marcion's preaching was derived from Empedocles.

Please elaborate

 

[David Mo]

Let us be serious. The “easily debunking” method of Dejudge et al. is a disparate (in English, out of reason)
Some “historical” criteria of authenticity “made in Dejudge” ( as the famous “not original, not authentic”) are bad applications of the extreme mythicism.
Only a 0,00001 per cent of professional historians would agree with this. (I exaggerate perhaps).
The existence of a manuscript (not necessarily original!) approximately coincident with the current text gives us a terminus ante quem. Other criteria have to be used if we want to precise if we the fact can or can not have existed before this date.

The fact that Paul never or scarcely ever mentions the facts of the Jesus' life recorded in the gospels is usually considered as a hint that the Pauline epistles are previous to the gospels. This is disputable, but it is a criterion.

The fact that Paul never, or scarcely ever, mentions the Jesus' life is a hint that he didn't know it. This is disputable, but this implies a criterion.

The silence about a fact not ever means the non-existence of this fact. It can be due to other causes. We need analyse the case and its circumstances.

 

[Mcreal]

The existence of a manuscript (not necessarily original!) approximately coincident with the current text gives us a terminus ante quem. Other criteria have to be used if we want to precise if we the fact can or can not have existed before this date.

terminus ante quem means 'the latest possible date for something'.

The fact that Paul never or scarcely ever mentions the facts of the Jesus' life recorded in the gospels is usually considered as a hint that the Pauline epistles are previous to the gospels. This is disputable, but it is a criterion.

The fact that Paul never, or scarcely ever, mentions the Jesus' life is a hint that he didn't know it. This is disputable, but this implies a criterion.

The silence about a fact not ever means the non-existence of this fact. It can be due to other causes. We need analyse the case and its circumstances.

There are a number of possibilities.

It is widely agree at least 6 of the 'Pauline' epistles are not 'Pauline'.

They're wishy-washy theological texts; written in times of vague and changing theologies.

Paul may have been writing to and about non-Christian 'churches', too.

 

[dejudge]

Those who claim letters under the name of Paul were composed since c 50-60 CE have nothing to support their assumptions but UNKNOWN imaginary manuscripts and logically fallacious arguments.

It is now exposed that ALL EPISTLES in and out the NT contain little or nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.

Another massive error is to use Acts of the Apostles to date the letters under the name of Paul.

Let us go through Acts of the Apostles chapter by chapter, verses by verse and word for word.

There is not one mention in the ENTIRE Acts of the Apostles that Paul wrote a letter to anyone in or out the Church.

In fact, it is the complete opposite.

Paul was GIVEN letters FROM the CHURCH in Acts 15.

The act of writings letters was NOT an act of Paul in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles described in details the supposed ACTIVITIES of the Apostles and Paul.

Acts of the Apostles mentions Paul over ONE HUNDRED times and NEVER once mentioned or acknowledged a Pauline letter up to at least c 62 CE or up to the time of Festus Governor of Judea.

There is simply no corroborative evidence in and out the NT that letters under the name of Paul were composed c50-60 CE.

Acts of the Apostles is evidence which supports the argument that ALL letters under the name of Paul are either forgeries or falsely attributed.

 

[Marras]

Those who claim letters under the name of Paul were composed since c 50-60 CE have nothing to support their assumptions but UNKNOWN imaginary manuscripts and logically fallacious arguments.

I'm pretty certain that I have written this to you before, but just in case I didn't.

You are arguing for your position in a very weak an inefficient way. You may have convinced one or two posters here, but most ignore you. You won't ever be able to convince a single scholar if you don't offer some constructive evidence for your claims.

Here's one example of what you could do: go through facsimiles of the oldest extant manuscripts of Pauline epistles and show that language in them is not 1st century Greek but from 3rd or 4th centuries. Show that the texts contain anachronisms that make it impossible that they are from the first century. In short, do the stuff that led scholars to conclude that Daniel was written much later than the claimed date.

The downside is that you can't do that unless you study enough Greek, Latin, probably Hebrew and Aramaic, and classical philology to be a genuine expert on the subject. (I'm not and I've never claimed that I am).

But until you do that, the best you can hope is to convince one or two more posters on a smallish internet site. If you want to be heard, you have to distinguish yourself from the army of crackpots that plague the subject of the early christianity.

 

[dejudge]

I'm pretty certain that I have written this to you before, but just in case I didn't.

You are arguing for your position in a very weak an inefficient way. You may have convinced one or two posters here, but most ignore you. You won't ever be able to convince a single scholar if you don't offer some constructive evidence for your claims.

Here's one example of what you could do: go through facsimiles of the oldest extant manuscripts of Pauline epistles and show that language in them is not 1st century Greek but from 3rd or 4th centuries. Show that the texts contain anachronisms that make it impossible that they are from the first century. In short, do the stuff that led scholars to conclude that Daniel was written much later than the claimed date.

The downside is that you can't do that unless you study enough Greek, Latin, probably Hebrew and Aramaic, and classical philology to be a genuine expert on the subject. (I'm not and I've never claimed that I am).

But until you do that, the best you can hope is to convince one or two more posters on a smallish internet site. If you want to be heard, you have to distinguish yourself from the army of crackpots that plague the subject of the early christianity.

I am afraid that you have distinguished yourself as one of the army of crackpots that plague the subject of early Christianity since you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

You seem to have no idea that Scholars have already admitted or concluded the Pauline Corpus are all late inauthentic writings [forgeries or false attribution] and that Paul is not a figure of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_criticism

....... Loman abandoned the historicity of Paul. Similarly, W.C. van Manen, who had written a doctoral thesis defending the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, wrote in 1889 that he had come to the same conclusions as Loman..............

The ‘radical’ scholars did not want to be impeded by church canons and wanted to be free in their research of the New Testament and of the history of early Christianity.

This research led them to the conclusion that we do not have any authentic Pauline epistles."

The acts of Paul are utter fiction as described in Acts and the claims of Paul in the Pauline Corpus are complete idiotic non-historical nonsense.

No person, Scholar or not, [even with knowledge of ancient languages], can present any actual corroborative historical data for the supposed Paul of the tribe of Benjamin.

No person, Scholar or not,[even with knowledge of ancient languages], can present any corroborative evidence that any letter under the name of Paul was written before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity support the argument that Paul as described was not a figure of history and that ALL letters under the name of Paul were very late writings no earlier than c 175-180 CE or no earlier than "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus as found in "Origen's Against Celsus.

Essentially, all the writers under the name of Paul are FRAUDS.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

"...wrote in 1889..."

Oh, well, if you can't trust scholars writing 126 years ago, who can you trust?

 

[tsig]

terminus ante quem means 'the latest possible date for something'.


There are a number of possibilities.

It is widely agree at least 6 of the 'Pauline' epistles are not 'Pauline'.

They're wishy-washy theological texts; written in times of vague and changing theologies.

Paul may have been writing to and about non-Christian 'churches', too.

The Pauline texts are not necessarily written by Paul but just by the same individual.