Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#21  Postby proudfootz » Dec 16, 2011 3:14 pm

It seems like there might be a lot of 'wiggle room' regarding the Pauline corpus (however you pronounce 'Pauline') - all by Paul, none by him, some but not others. Some say seven of the fourteen letters are genuine, others only four.

And the dating is also something to think about since they are often taken to be among the earliest 'documents' of a christianity.

Given the propensity of people to write things and attribute them to some supposed authority of the past (Moses being a prime example) there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of claims about these epistles.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#22  Postby PeterI » Dec 16, 2011 9:08 pm

proudfootz wrote:It seems like there might be a lot of 'wiggle room' regarding the Pauline corpus (however you pronounce 'Pauline') - all by Paul, none by him, some but not others. Some say seven of the fourteen letters are genuine, others only four.


Nearly all textual critics hold that Romans,1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians. Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians were written by Paul. (Some think that some of the epistles are composites of genuine letters; the idea that 2 Corinthians is made up of two letters written by Paul to the Corinthians is quite common, but that counts as genuine.)

Nearly all textual critics say that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).

Textual critics disagree about Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. There were times in the twentieth century when Colossians probably had more than 50% support, but at the present time only a minority of critics ascribe Colossians or 2 Thessalonians to Paul. Ephesians is accepted as Pauline by a smaller minority, but it has more support than the Pastorals.

AFAIK, no textual critic thinks Paul wrote Hebrews.
PeterI
 
Posts: 148

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#23  Postby dejuror » Dec 17, 2011 4:03 pm

PeterI wrote:
proudfootz wrote:It seems like there might be a lot of 'wiggle room' regarding the Pauline corpus (however you pronounce 'Pauline') - all by Paul, none by him, some but not others. Some say seven of the fourteen letters are genuine, others only four.


Nearly all textual critics hold that Romans,1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians. Philippians, Philemon and 1 Thessalonians were written by Paul. (Some think that some of the epistles are composites of genuine letters; the idea that 2 Corinthians is made up of two letters written by Paul to the Corinthians is quite common, but that counts as genuine.)....


Well, we are NOT really discussing OPINION. We are dealing with the EVIDENCE of antiquity. It is IRRELEVANT whether one or nearly all textual critics have some opinion on the Pauline writings if you are NOT able to SHOW the written corroborative evidence of antiquity.

It would NOT matter if only one atheist claimed the God of the Jews did NOT create the Universe provided that the EVIDENCE supports the claim of that SINGLE atheist.

Evidence of antiquity is PRIMARY.

All opinion is Secondary.

The EVIDENCE of antiquity SUGGESTS that the Pauline writings are historically BOGUS and were MOST likely written WELL AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

1. There is ZERO corroborative non-apologetic source for Paul as found in the NT.

2. The Pauline writings, P 46, are dated by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

3. The Pauline writings CONTAIN Fiction or LIES.

4. The Pauline Jesus Christ cannot be accounted for by non-apologetic sources BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

5. The Pauline Gospel cannot be accounted for in non-apologetic sources BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

6. The FOUR authors of the Gospels did NOT use the Pauline Post-resurrection story that OVER 500 people WITNESSED at ONCE the resurrected Jesus.

7. Apologetic sources MADE CONTRADICTORY statements about Paul. It is claimed Paul was EXECUTED under Nero c 67-68 CE but Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke which has been deduced to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

8. Even Apologetic sources, like Justin Martyr and Aristides, did NOT state that Paul preached to the Gentiles. Both Justin and Aristides attributed the preaching of the Gospel to ALL RACE of Men to the 12 disciples of Jesus.

9. The Conversion story of Paul in Acts is FICTION.

Writing in the Mid 2nd century Justin Martyr in "First Apology" XXXIX LITERALLY destroys the chronology of the Pauline writings.

There was NO character known as Paul who preached the Gospel to Gentiles all over the Roman Empire.

"First Apology" XXXIX
...For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking, but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God....


Aristides in his "Apology" appears to corroborate Justin Martyr.

Aristides' "Apology"
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah........ he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness....


There is just NO credible corroborative evidence of antiquity that there was any character called Paul who preached ALL OVER the Roman Empire the FICTION that a Jew called Jesus was Resurrected and ABOLISHED Jewish Laws for Remissions of Sins and was a UNIVERSAL Savior and Messiah Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

ALL the Pauline writings are Chronologically bogus.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#24  Postby proudfootz » Dec 17, 2011 8:41 pm

dejuror wrote: There is just NO credible corroborative evidence of antiquity that there was any character called Paul who preached ALL OVER the Roman Empire the FICTION that a Jew called Jesus was Resurrected and ABOLISHED Jewish Laws for Remissions of Sins and was a UNIVERSAL Savior and Messiah Before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

ALL the Pauline writings are Chronologically bogus.


Certainly one would expect that a Paul who travels the whole known world preaching to and converting all kinds of high profile individuals would be mentioned by sources outside his own self-serving letters...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#25  Postby dejuror » Dec 18, 2011 8:18 am

proudfootz wrote:..Certainly one would expect that a Paul who travels the whole known world preaching to and converting all kinds of high profile individuals would be mentioned by sources outside his own self-serving letters...


It would have been UNPRECEDENTED that a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee as Paul described himself could have Preached ALL over the Roman Empire that a resurrected JEW had a NAME above every name on earth and that even the Deified Emperors of Rome should BOW before the NAME of a Jew.

Philo, Josephus and Tacitus claimed or implied that Jews did NOT worship Men as Gods and REFUSED to worship the Emperors as such.

It would have been Blatant Blasphemy for a Jew to claim a man was God.

The Pauline writings are Chronologically Bogus.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#26  Postby willhud9 » Dec 18, 2011 8:11 pm

dejuror wrote:
proudfootz wrote:..Certainly one would expect that a Paul who travels the whole known world preaching to and converting all kinds of high profile individuals would be mentioned by sources outside his own self-serving letters...


It would have been UNPRECEDENTED that a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee as Paul described himself could have Preached ALL over the Roman Empire that a resurrected JEW had a NAME above every name on earth and that even the Deified Emperors of Rome should BOW before the NAME of a Jew.

Philo, Josephus and Tacitus claimed or implied that Jews did NOT worship Men as Gods and REFUSED to worship the Emperors as such.

It would have been Blatant Blasphemy for a Jew to claim a man was God.

The Pauline writings are Chronologically Bogus.


@Proudfootz Except any historian or even theologian can tell you that Paul did not preach across the entire Roman Empire or for that matter . It was Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece Paul traveled, got arrested in Jerusalem and asked for a trial in Rome, his stay in Rome was from behind prison doors. Point 1.

Next, why should Paul be known through history? He did nothing great, no great works, no wonders. He was a missionary. Woo. However, the basis that Paul did not exist simply because there is no external sources aside from his letters is simply fucking ridiculous, take some history why don't you. Most ancient peoples we know about are from personal letters or works signed by the author of said letter or works. Furthermore, this idea that Paul in his entirety is bogus and made up is ludicrous. Unless you are saying it's perfectly normal for people to simply write letters in the name of some fictional man? (Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1+2 Timothy, etc). So either there had to be a Paul to base these other epistles off of, or this is just one big fucking charade. The problem dejuror is that the former had more historical basing, the latter is random guess work and assumptions based on faith that one is correct. Point 2

Christianity was a mystery religion. Meaning it had a cult following. It was appealing in the fact that it offered equality, individuality, and freedom from rituals. But Christianity had to spread and many early churches were led by many disciples who claimed to have known the original 12 apostles. The epistles and their authorship towards the various churches makes sense in regards to early Christian church and makes sense in history. Point 3
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19330
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#27  Postby z8000783 » Dec 18, 2011 8:41 pm

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore, this idea that Paul in his entirety is bogus and made up is ludicrous. Unless you are saying it's perfectly normal for people to simply write letters in the name of some fictional man? (Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1+2 Timothy, etc).

Are suggesting that these authors, in this case would have had to have known Paul personally in order to write their Epistles rather than by reputation built up through the other letters?

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9329
Age: 67
Male

Country: Greece
Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#28  Postby PeterI » Dec 18, 2011 9:36 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Christianity was a mystery religion.


No. A mystery religion is one where you get a secret you aren't allowed to share upon initiation. There are sometimes multiple levels of initiation in mystery religions.

Christianity has and had public preaching which is the same for insider and outsider. Only the person who actually tries following the Way understands what most of it means, but the teachings aren't secret. (Some Gnosticism may have had secrets told to initiates, but for the most part the "secret" bit seems to have been an understanding you had to get for your self.)
PeterI
 
Posts: 148

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#29  Postby willhud9 » Dec 18, 2011 10:10 pm

z8000783 wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Furthermore, this idea that Paul in his entirety is bogus and made up is ludicrous. Unless you are saying it's perfectly normal for people to simply write letters in the name of some fictional man? (Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1+2 Timothy, etc).

Are suggesting that these authors, in this case would have had to have known Paul personally in order to write their Epistles rather than by reputation built up through the other letters?

John


Not personally no, but there had to be some basis for the existence of Paul aside from a fabrication of the people's imagination. Just as I believe there is a basis for Jesus Christ that people based his stories off of. The only difference is we have texts which explain what this Paul character did, written in first person (not counting Acts since it's historicity is contested) claimed to be written by Paul. Yet dejuror believes this is not evidence that Paul existed, for some reason.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19330
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#30  Postby willhud9 » Dec 18, 2011 10:11 pm

PeterI wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Christianity was a mystery religion.


No. A mystery religion is one where you get a secret you aren't allowed to share upon initiation. There are sometimes multiple levels of initiation in mystery religions.

Christianity has and had public preaching which is the same for insider and outsider. Only the person who actually tries following the Way understands what most of it means, but the teachings aren't secret. (Some Gnosticism may have had secrets told to initiates, but for the most part the "secret" bit seems to have been an understanding you had to get for your self.)


Then my history textbooks are wrong since they say it originated as a mystery religion. But my definition was incorrect.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19330
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#31  Postby proudfootz » Dec 19, 2011 12:04 am

willhud9 wrote:
@Proudfootz Except any historian or even theologian can tell you that Paul did not preach across the entire Roman Empire or for that matter [?]. It was Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece Paul traveled, got arrested in Jerusalem and asked for a trial in Rome, his stay in Rome was from behind prison doors. Point 1.

Next, why should Paul be known through history? He did nothing great, no great works, no wonders. He was a missionary. Woo. However, the basis that Paul did not exist simply because there is no external sources aside from his letters is simply fucking ridiculous, take some history why don't you.
No need to get your tailbone tied in a knot! I have taken some history and outside of academia have read quite a bit about classical Greece, the Roman Empire, and also on the origins of christianity.

Most ancient peoples we know about are from personal letters or works signed by the author of said letter or works. Furthermore, this idea that Paul in his entirety is bogus and made up is ludicrous. Unless you are saying it's perfectly normal for people to simply write letters in the name of some fictional man? (Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1+2 Timothy, etc).


It might not be 'perfectly normal' but I would never assume these people we are discussing are normal at all. ;)

So either there had to be a Paul to base these other epistles off of, or this is just one big fucking charade.


Well, duh! It could well be that christianity is one big fucking charade.

The problem dejuror is that the former had more historical basing, the latter is random guess work and assumptions based on faith that one is correct. Point 2


Good to have your opinion.

Christianity was a mystery religion. Meaning it had a cult following. It was appealing in the fact that it offered equality, individuality, and freedom from rituals.


Really? No rituals in christianity? Pliny for one tells us otherwise. Not sure how subscribing to a cult made one more of an individual or more free...

But Christianity had to spread and many early churches were led by many disciples who claimed to have known the original 12 apostles.


Is any of this true? :think:

The epistles and their authorship towards the various churches makes sense in regards to early Christian church and makes sense in history. Point 3
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#32  Postby dejuror » Dec 19, 2011 7:35 am

willhud9 wrote:.... any historian or even theologian can tell you that Paul did not preach across the entire Roman Empire or for that matter . It was Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece Paul traveled, got arrested in Jerusalem and asked for a trial in Rome, his stay in Rome was from behind prison doors. Point 1....


You NEED to see the WRITTEN statements in Acts 28.31 and stop guessing. Paul PREACHED Jesus Christ in ROME for at least TWO years WITHOUT any restrains in Acts.

Please, I did NOT say Paul preached across the ENTIRE Roman Empire. Paul was ALL over the Roman Empire in Acts of the Apostles and in writings under the name of Paul.

Now, in the NT, Paul preach about Jesus Christ in ROME, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi, the chief city of Macedonia, Colosse, Berea, Athens, Antioch, Caesarea, Phrygia, Asia, and Jerusalem.

willhud9 wrote:...Next, why should Paul be known through history? He did nothing great, no great works, no wonders. He was a missionary. Woo.....


You are NOT allowed to guess. Apologetic sources made WRITTEN statements about Paul.

Please read Acts of the Apostles 14.8-10.

Paul INSTANTLY healed a Crippled man who NEVER walked.

Willhud9 wrote:.. However, the basis that Paul did not exist simply because there is no external sources aside from his letters is simply fucking ridiculous, take some history why don't you....


The basis that Paul existed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE is FUCKING ridiculous.

Wilhud9 wrote:...Most ancient peoples we know about are from personal letters or works signed by the author of said letter or works. Furthermore, this idea that Paul in his entirety is bogus and made up is ludicrous....


The idea that Paul is NOT bogus and NOT made up is LUDICROUS. It is just historically Improbable that a Jew and Pharisee called Paul would have been allowed to preach the BLASPHEMY that a Resurrected Jew was a Messianic ruler, and had ABOLISH Jewish Laws for the Remission of Sin, was God's own Son and that even the Deified Emperors of Rome should BOW to the name of a dead JEW.

Willhud9 wrote:... Unless you are saying it's perfectly normal for people to simply write letters in the name of some fictional man? (Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1+2 Timothy, etc). So either there had to be a Paul to base these other epistles off of, or this is just one big fucking charade...


It is ONE BIG FUCKING CHARADE.

Not one credible non-apologetic source accounted for Paul of the NT.


Willhud9 wrote:The problem dejuror is that the former had more historical basing, the latter is random guess work and assumptions based on faith that one is correct. Point 2


You should KNOW that Apologetic sources place PAUL AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE. See Church History 3.4.8. 6.25 and Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1, "First Apology" by Justin, "Apology" by Aristides and the EARLIEST gMARK.

Willhud9 wrote:Christianity was a mystery religion. Meaning it had a cult following. It was appealing in the fact that it offered equality, individuality, and freedom from rituals. But Christianity had to spread and many early churches were led by many disciples who claimed to have known the original 12 apostles. The epistles and their authorship towards the various churches makes sense in regards to early Christian church and makes sense in history. Point 3


It is ONE BIG FUCKING CHARADE. Not one of the so-called Apostles that Paul met can be found OUTSIDE the Church and apologetic sources.

Please, name a credible NON-apologetic source that Met the supposed Apostles Peter, and James, Barnabas or any other apologetic characters in the NT.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4716

Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#33  Postby proudfootz » Dec 24, 2011 4:07 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhbpGrEWrNY[/youtube]

Did Paul *really* go to Jerusalem? Or was this another trip like he took to the Third Heaven?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10915

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#34  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 24, 2011 4:20 pm

There all bloody fairy tales about bloody fairy tales told by people trying to fleece other people.
Why do people make so much hard work of it. It is a fucking load of crap.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Questioning the authenticity of Paul himself

#35  Postby RealityRules » Dec 31, 2011 8:02 am

Paul lacks a role as a primary or secondary source, and there are No sources about Paul ...

* He did not see or hear the events himself.
* We do not know who he was, apart from documents purported to be autobiographical.
* The primary document - Papyrus 46 - was written at least 120 years later

Galatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.


Does ..
1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him [Paul?] from the dead

.. mean
a. Paul [and his early christian "brotherhood"] was/were metaphorically "raised from the dead"??, or
b. it is an address to Paul and his brethren.
c. something else?


18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Nothing primary there, and seemingly no tie for anything to be a secondary source, either.
.
Last edited by RealityRules on Dec 31, 2011 8:17 am, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#36  Postby RealityRules » Dec 31, 2011 8:05 am

Galatians 2
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Is Paul a ghost, too? - ie. is he a fictitious character?
.
User avatar
RealityRules
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#37  Postby RealityRules » Dec 31, 2011 8:59 am

.
The Spuriousness of So-called Pauline Epistles
Exemplified by the Epistle to the Galatians

G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga

Chapter 3, in Radical Views About the New Testament (London: Watts, 1912).
Translated from the Dutch by S. B. Slack , 59-90. Original page numbers are given in brackets.

In The Epistle to the Galatians -

The relation in which Paul as writer stood to his readers is a mystery. ....

The tradition, then, that Paul wrote this Epistle to the Galatian churches is anything but probable. ...

In the Conclusion:

Everything, therefore, points to the origin of Paulinism in Gnostic sources. It does not emanate from Palestine. If Rabbinical dialectic is to be found in the letters, this is to be explained by the nature of the polemic; the writer who is arguing against Jews, brought up in the traditions of Pharisaic Legality, is most likely to be successful by using their own methods of argument. But the Four Letters also contain a number of passages which show points of contact, both in form and matter, with the Cynic Diatribe - i.e., with the missionary preaching of ethical teachers of the Cynic and Stoic schools.

The writers of the Pauline letters speak Greek and think in Greek. When Paul in Rom 1:14 (cf. 1 Cor 14:11), calls himself a debtor, both to "Greeks and barbarians," such an expression proceeds from the national consciousness not of a Jew, but a Greek. That the man should pray with uncovered head and the woman with her head covered was a Greek and Roman custom; it is Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 11:4-7. Whenever he speaks of Jews and Judaism, he always leaves the impression that he himself occupies an outside standpoint. Take for example the following passages:
"If thou (proudly) namest thyself a Jew, and reliest on thy possession of the Law, and dost glory in standing in a special relation to God..." (Rom 2:17);
"Is God a God of the Jews alone, and not also of the Gentiles?" (Rom 3:29);
"I became a Jew unto the Jews, in order to win the Jews" (1 Cor 9:20)
.
No one who [88] read these words without knowing who is supposed to have written them could possibly regard the writer as a born Jew.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1178458628/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=1278548962&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0062507761&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0JXAN45GPSZ8EM673727

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Radical_views_about_the_New_Testament.html?id=CcRKAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
.
User avatar
RealityRules
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#38  Postby paarsurrey » Dec 31, 2011 9:07 pm

Jesus mentioned no mystery; he was a straightforward Jew who followed Moses. it is Paul who invented the Christianity with evil designs; as reality did not support his theology so he had to base it on mysteries which he himself could not understand to explain.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/
We believe:
• Quran- authored by the Creator God; 100% accurate if correctly interpreted
• Sunnah-always existed with Quran; it derives its accuracy from Quran.
• Hadith- accurate only if it does not differ with Quran.
User avatar
paarsurrey
Banned User
 
Posts: 2594

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#39  Postby RealityRules » Jan 01, 2012 4:38 am

paarsurrey,
Paul may be a fictitious character, as may Jesus, as may Mohammad ...
User avatar
RealityRules
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2867

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the authenticity of the "Pauline" documents

#40  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 01, 2012 2:05 pm

RealityRules wrote:paarsurrey,
Paul may be a fictitious character, as may Jesus, as may Mohammad ...


They are all fictiticious just the products of the minds of ignorant camel shagging desert ejits.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest