Early Pauline letters debunked.

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#21  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 20, 2022 2:55 am

dejuror wrote:
The Pauline character, letters and converts were not forgotten but were not yet fabricated up to the end of the 2nd century.

The NT Pauline character, letters and converts were invented no earlier than the 3rd century or later.


Well we do know that the letter exchange between Paul and Seneca was a blatant forgery of the Nicene church industry in the 4th century. This provides a "terminus ad quem" or "latest possible date" for the appearance of the NT Pauline character, letters and converts.

Another item of evidence in relation to the reactions to Paul and the Pauline literature is found in the texts comprising the Nag Hammadi library (NHL). It is generally agreed that the NHL is a time capsule from the mid 4th century. The dating is reasonably secure and includes agreement between paleographic dating and scientific dating (C14).

Now, once we can find out who primarily benefitted from the fabrication of the Pauline character, writings and converts then we may be able to find out about what time period they were invented between c200-300 CE.


If we were to move the possible time period of the fabrication of the Pauline character, writings and converts to 325 CE then this leads us to a person who certainly became exceedingly rich as a result of the Christianisation of the Roman populace. At this time the gold, silver, treasures and many art works held in the most ancient and highly revered pagan temple networks of the eastern empire were looted. Many of the largest pagan temples dedicated to Apollo and his son Asclepius were utterly destroyed and in some cases the chief priests were publicly executed. The situation might be described as a hostile takeover of the pagan religious sector and associated industries.

In the fist place the looting of gold and treasure represented a monumentally huge financial benefit for the Christian cult. A one off huge transfer of wealth happened between the city of Alexander and the city of Constantine. In the long run the Christian cult - instead of the pagan cults - attracted all the revenue by tithing and donations in the religious sphere. The transfer of wealth continues through the Christian revolution of the 4th century during which time the succession of Christian emperors from Constantine to Theodosius cemented their support, protection and sponsorship of the Christian cult into the law codes of the Roman empire. Law by law. By 381 CE anyone not subscribing to the revised Nicene Creed were listed in the law codes as either heretics or madmen, and could be summarily dealt with by the imperial army.

Anyone following the money trail over which person actually benefited the most financially by the implementation of a fabricated Pauline character, writings and converts - indeed the entire NT writings - would be lead in no uncertain terms to the Pontifex Maximus Constantine.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 887

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#22  Postby dejuror » Mar 21, 2022 11:24 pm

Well we do know that the letter exchange between Paul and Seneca was a blatant forgery of the Nicene church industry in the 4th century. This provides a "terminus ad quem" or "latest possible date" for the appearance of the NT Pauline character, letters and converts.


The forged letters between the supposed Paul and Seneca may indeed be the “latest possible date” however the earliest date for the fabrication of the Pauline character and Epistles appear to be sometime after c 175 CE.
The writings attributed to Justin [c 150 CE] claimed it was 12 illiterate disciples who first preached the story of Jesus to the world which means that the author knew nothing at all of the so-called Paul, the Epistles or converts.
A writing attributed to Origen admitted that Celsus [175-177] when writing against the Christians in his “True Discourse” mentioned nothing at all of Paul and his Churches.

It therefore means, based on the evidence christian writings have provided, any writing which mentions a character called Paul who preached the story of Jesus around the world and that he wrote Epistles to converts are forgeries and also fiction.

Ignatius’ Epistles which mention Paul are most likely forgeries and fiction. [Ignatius could not have written Epistles while imprisoned]
The letter called “First Clement” from the Church of Rome c 95 CE which mentions Paul is a forgery and fiction. Many christian writers claim Clement was bishop of Rome c 67-78 CE not 95 CE.
“ Against Heresies” attributed to Irenaeus c 175 CE which mentions Paul is a forgery– a corrupted writing with multiple authors. It is virtually impossible for the same Irenaeus to have preached that Jesus was an old man [almost 50 years] when he was crucified and knew of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the supposed Pauline Epistles.
The Gospel according to Luke claimed Jesus was about 30 thirty years of age around the 15th year of Tiberius and that he was crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE.

Essentially, Christian writings do show that Paul, the Epistles and converts were fabricated sometime after C 175 CE.
But, how much later??

Are there Christian writings in the 4th century that mention nothing of Paul, his Epistles and converts?
There is at least one christian writing attributed to Arnobius supposedly written c 305 CE where the author wrote nothing at all about the so-called Paul who preached the gospel to the world.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01746c.htm
Up to the 4th century, Arnobius claimed it was the apostles who were with Jesus who preached the gospel to the whole world.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/06311.htm

Arnobius’ Against the Heathen 1. 55
Nay, because they saw all these things to be done by Christ Himself and by His apostles, who being sent throughout the whole world carried with them the blessings of the Father, which they dispensed in benefiting as well the minds as the bodies of men


Based on the evidence I have seen so far in Christian and non-apologetic writings including Arnobius’ Against the Heathen” I am of the view the Pauline character, letters and converts are forgeries and fiction most likely fabricated by Romans sometime around the 4th century.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#23  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 22, 2022 12:08 pm

Edward Gibbon wrote that "The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church."

dejuror wrote:The forged letters between the supposed Paul and Seneca may indeed be the “latest possible date” however the earliest date for the fabrication of the Pauline character and Epistles appear to be sometime after c 175 CE.
The writings attributed to Justin [c 150 CE] claimed it was 12 illiterate disciples who first preached the story of Jesus to the world which means that the author knew nothing at all of the so-called Paul, the Epistles or converts.


The earliest extant manuscript for "Saint" Justin is dated 1364 CE and is some form of "Omnibus edition".

The letter called “First Clement” from the Church of Rome c 95 CE which mentions Paul is a forgery and fiction. Many christian writers claim Clement was bishop of Rome c 67-78 CE not 95 CE.


Eusebius produces all sorts of lists of bishops. There is little evidence to get a bishop into Rome before the victory of the troops of Damasus over the troops of other prospective and competing would-be-bishops in the streets of Rome. Damasus kick-started the Latin church and the "PETER-WAS-HERE" tourism business. Damasus sponsored his pupil Jerome, in a lavish scriptorium to produce a Latin Bible. Damasus renovated the catacombs.

CLEMENT FORGERIES:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... 20Rome.htm
Joseph Wheless, "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930


“ Against Heresies” attributed to Irenaeus c 175 CE which mentions Paul is a forgery– a corrupted writing with multiple authors.


I agree with this assessment. Irenaeus is another fake source forged IMO by the (Latin) church industry of the 4th century. All the earliest manuscripts of "Against Heresies" are Latin. WARNING. WARNING.


Essentially, Christian writings do show that Paul, the Epistles and converts were fabricated sometime after C 175 CE.
But, how much later??

Are there Christian writings in the 4th century that mention nothing of Paul, his Epistles and converts?


Christian writings took a dramatic turn once there was a Nicene Creed. Many of the NT Apocryphal writings were composed in response to the political appearance of the NT Bible codex c.325 CE. The post Nicene political context seems to have involved a massive theological controversy over Christian writings. The writings of Arius of Alexandria were to be burnt under peril of death if they were discovered on your bookshelf.

Paul seems to have taken a back seat.

There is at least one christian writing attributed to Arnobius supposedly written c 305 CE where the author wrote nothing at all about the so-called Paul who preached the gospel to the world.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01746c.htm
Up to the 4th century, Arnobius claimed it was the apostles who were with Jesus who preached the gospel to the whole world.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/06311.htm

Arnobius’ Against the Heathen 1. 55
Nay, because they saw all these things to be done by Christ Himself and by His apostles, who being sent throughout the whole world carried with them the blessings of the Father, which they dispensed in benefiting as well the minds as the bodies of men


Based on the evidence I have seen so far in Christian and non-apologetic writings including Arnobius’ Against the Heathen” I am of the view the Pauline character, letters and converts are forgeries and fiction most likely fabricated by Romans sometime around the 4th century.


Bruno Bauer proposed something very similar. He thought all the Pauline letters were fabricated and that Paul had been invented. He says:

* the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria";
* that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca";
* Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."


I also think the NT is the product of a Roman architect.

What is the evidence that Roman political propaganda has been
weaved together in the canonical Jesus Story Book?


GOSPELS:

(1) Pay tax to Caesar;
(2) Give Caesar whatever he asks for;
(3) In all Judea it is the centurion who has greatest faith;
(4) Go the extra mile carrying the soldiers pack;
(5) Be compliant and turn the other cheek;
(6) Support the Roman military industrial complex and go out and buy a sword (or two);
(7) the management of money, property and tithing for the church (industry)
(8) the massive proliferation of the abbreviation of "sacred names" (nomina sacra)
is neither Jewish or Greek but a distinctive trait of the Romans; (And so on and so forth.
(9) Codex media which becomes popular in the 4th century was used for the earliest physical
Christian manuscripts. This was very expensive exercise (The Roman Martial mentions?)

(10) Greek "episkopos" (bishop) also means "spy". (particularly relevant in the 4th century)

(11) SETTING: NT supposedly written within the Roman empire (Palestine) - ruled by Rome.

(12) Christianos: Etymology. The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ",
comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", with an adjectival ending borrowed from
Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership.

(13) Obsessive COPY/PASTE from greek LXX to greek NT (literary school) ??

(14) Earliest references to "Christians" (excluding TF) are all Roman = emperor Trajan, statesman Pliny, historian Tacitus

(15) Pray for Romans ("your enemies") on you way to the feeding of the lions

(16) GRAVITAS: Don't laugh !! Jesus and the NT is serious business ----

"'Gravitas' was the typical Roman virtue. By 'gravitas' they meant the type of personality that must be taken seriously; they were serious men themselves and they demanded that they should be treated with respect." --- The Roman Character, SPQR; Kennedy & White (1944)




(90) JC=Julius Caesar and Augustus the son of god


PAUL:

101) The Epistle to the Romans is the sixth book in the New Testament. Biblical scholars agree
that it was composed by Paul the Apostle to explain that salvation is offered through the gospel of Jesus Christ.




Romans 13: paraphrasing:

102) "People should be subject to the government - which is appointed by God.
103) Obey these agents of God on earth". [1]
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 887

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#24  Postby dejuror » Jul 10, 2022 6:53 pm

Based on the evidence I have seen so far the writer called Paul in the NT is a product of fiction and forgeries invented extremely late, possibly the late 3rd century or early 4th century.
It is claimed that absence of historical evidence for the NT writer called Paul does not mean he did not exist however such a claim is really useless since absence of historical evidence for Paul does not mean he existed.

In fact, if Paul did not exist there will not/never be any historical evidence of his existence.

All fictitious characters have no historical evidence.

Absence of historical evidence for Paul supports the argument that he did not exist.

It is also very important to note that the NT writer called Paul made claims in the so-called Epistles that appear to expose his fictional accounts.

There multiple historical problems for the NT writer called Paul.

1. There is no historical evidence for NT Paul, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. The acquaintances of NT Paul have no historical evidence.
3. Writings which mention Paul have been deemed to be forgeries.
4. The NT Epistles under the name of Paul do not have any historical markers.
5. Events in the Epistles, like the persecution by Paul, have no historical evidence.
6. Many Christian writers make no mention of NT Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles.
7. NT writings do not corroborate claims by NT Paul.

Examine the Epistle to the Galatians.

Galatians 1.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it


When did the Pauline persecution happen?

There is no historical support for the persecution of any cult of Jews who worshiped a man called Jesus as a resurrected son of God in any writing of those who wrote about events in Judea from the time of Tiberius to the end of the 1st century.

Examine all the so-called Pauline Epistles-- there is no historical information about the supposed persecution of the Church--none.
Look at Galatians 1.15-16. Again there is no historical data for God's revelation of Jesus to the Pauline writer.

Galatians 1.15
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood


In order to derive when the epistle to the Galatians was written then it would be essential to know when God revealed his Son to NT Paul. There is nothing.

Look at Galatians 1.17-19

Galatians 1
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

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.


When did NT Paul go to Arabia? How long was NT Paul in Arabia?
Who were the apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother?
Are there any historical references to the apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother?

The stories of persecution, revelation and traveling to Arabia, Damascus and Jerusalem in the Epistle to the Galatians are without historical evidence and also without corroboration by Christian writings in and out the NT.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#25  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jul 24, 2022 1:49 am

dejuror wrote:Based on the evidence I have seen so far the writer called Paul in the NT is a product of fiction and forgeries invented extremely late, possibly the late 3rd century or early 4th century.
It is claimed that absence of historical evidence for the NT writer called Paul does not mean he did not exist however such a claim is really useless since absence of historical evidence for Paul does not mean he existed.

In fact, if Paul did not exist there will not/never be any historical evidence of his existence.

All fictitious characters have no historical evidence.

Absence of historical evidence for Paul supports the argument that he did not exist.

It is also very important to note that the NT writer called Paul made claims in the so-called Epistles that appear to expose his fictional accounts.

There multiple historical problems for the NT writer called Paul.

1. There is no historical evidence for NT Paul, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. The acquaintances of NT Paul have no historical evidence.
3. Writings which mention Paul have been deemed to be forgeries.
4. The NT Epistles under the name of Paul do not have any historical markers.
5. Events in the Epistles, like the persecution by Paul, have no historical evidence.
6. Many Christian writers make no mention of NT Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles.
7. NT writings do not corroborate claims by NT Paul.


8. The only non biblical reference to the historical existence of Paul is found in the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca. The Christians prefaced their circulation of the literature of Seneca with this fabricated letter exchange for a thousand years before it was "removed from the evidence". What could possibly go wrong believing that Paul existed?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 887

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest