The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

The Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER c 180 CE

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

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#1  Postby dejuror » Oct 26, 2013 3:15 pm

I can say with reasonable certainty based on the evidence from antiquity that the entire Pauline Corpus is a compilation of forgeries unknown to the Jesus cult of Christians up to at least c 180 CE.

The Entire Pauline Corpus played NO role in the early development of the Jesus cult up to at least c 180 CE.

Acts of the Apostles is the first clue that the Pauline Corpus was unknown at least before c 62 CE and the writing of Acts.

In Acts of the Apostles, a character called Saul/Paul, a supposed Persecutor of the Jesus cult, was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice of Jesus. The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul immediately preached that Jesus was Christ in the synagogues and confounded the Jews after consulting with the disciples in Damascus.

Acts 9
.....Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 21 All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, "Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests ?" 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.


In Acts, there is no indication at all that Saul/Paul was commissioned to preach to Gentiles [the uncircumcision].

In Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul preached on the Sabbath of the Jews and in the Synagogues of the Jews.

Now, in Acts of the Apostles, the author wrote more about Saul/Paul than Jesus, the Son of God, and all the other supposed disciples including Peter.

For example, there are 13 chapters of Acts [ch 16-28] where Peter is NOT mentioned at all but Saul/Paul is mentioned in all 13 chapters [ch 16-28] about 120 times.

Act 16-28

1. Peter---ZERO times
2. Jesus ---25 times
3. Saul/Paul--120 times

Saul/Paul was the most significant character in Acts of the Apostles.

The author of Acts claimed he traveled with Saul throughout parts of the Roman Empire where Paul preached in the Synagogues of the Jews.

The author of Acts wrote NOTHING at all of Saul/Paul letters.

How could the author of Acts forget the most significant letters of Saul/Paul which were Canonised??

The author of Acts documented that Saul/Paul outperformed Jesus, the Son of God, and Peter.

There are 13 CHAPTERS of 'details' in Acts about Saul/Paul from the time as Persecutor to the time in Rome and nothing about a single Saul/Paul letter to a Church, Assembly or an acquaintance.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown when Acts of the Apostles was composed. The story in Galatians that Paul was commissioned to preach to the uncircumcised by the resurrected Jesus was invented AFTER Acts of the Apostles was already written.

There are no non-apologetic writings which show that there was a Jesus cult among Non-Jews in Rome, Corinth and other major cities in the Roman Empire since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all documented that a Jewish Messianic ruler was expected c 66-70 CE---not since the 33 CE. There was NO Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus up to the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Next, it will be seen that all writings which supposedly mention Paul up to at least c 180 CE are most likely forgeries.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#2  Postby dejuror » Oct 26, 2013 10:14 pm

In Acts of the Apostles, the author claimed that he has already written about the acts and teachings of Jesus .

Acts 1 NIV
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.


Before Acts of the Apostles was composed the Jesus story was already known and written from conception by a Holy Spirit to ascension in a cloud.

The author of Acts knew the post-resurrection story of Jesus found in gLuke but wrote nothing of the post-resurrection story in the Pauline Corpus.

In 1 Corinthians 15, it is claimed that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus but such an event is not known in any of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline post-resurrection appearances of the resurrected Jesus in the Pauline Corpus was fabricated AFTER Acts of the Apostles.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#3  Postby dejuror » Oct 27, 2013 4:05 pm

The purpose of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus was to historicize the supposed disciples and the chosen apostles of Jesus of which there was no previous history up to at least c 180 CE.

In the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, a Zombie, a resurrected character called Jesus, commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

But, the obvious fiction story gets more hilarious when the same Zombie, the resurrected Jesus, tells his disciples to WAIT in Jerusalem for another ZOMBIE to give them POWER to preach the Gospel.

Acts 1 NAS
... Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me;

5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now ." 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel ?"

7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority ; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."


Those events in Acts are complete monstrous fables which the Pauline writer attempted to corroborate.

Only the LATE Gospels, not the short gMark, claim a resurrected Jesus commissioned his disciples and promised to send a Spirit which would make them talk in tongues.

There is NO commission by the resurrected Jesus and No promise of the Holy Spirit in the short gMark.

The Pauline writers knew the LATE Gospels.

The Pauline writer claimed he was commissioned to preach the Gospel, that he received the Promise of the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Luke 24:49 KJV
And, behold , I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.


Long LATE version Mark 16:17 KJV
And these signs shall follow them that believe ; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues..


Acts 2:4 KJV
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance .


1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all


Galatians 3:14 KJV
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#4  Postby Clive Durdle » Oct 27, 2013 5:06 pm

Xianity might be valuable in helping to construct a history or archaeology of gods.

Big god fella tramps around Sinai, shows bum. Has demigod son who gets deaded. Then introduce spirit god...

Later merge them.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4874

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#5  Postby Clive Durdle » Oct 27, 2013 5:09 pm

Back to the OP, instead of historicising and using the term forgery, what if they were trying to understand the relationships between their god stories and other god stories they were hearing, and wrote new stories?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4874

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#6  Postby Byron » Oct 27, 2013 8:04 pm

"Forgery" is the right term: the authors of pseudo-Paul were trying to pass their work off as Paul's.

Bart Ehrman's Forgery and Counterforgery, or his mass-market summary, Forged, explain it well. Critical scholars don't think the entire Pauline corpus is forged, let alone after A.D. 180; current estimates are about half: the pastorals for sure; Ephesians, Colossians, and 2nd Thessalonians probably. Even dogmatists have given up the ghost on Hebrews.
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Kirk, Enterprise

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 12881
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#7  Postby dejuror » Oct 27, 2013 8:12 pm

Byron wrote:"Forgery" is the right term: the authors of pseudo-Paul were trying to pass their work off as Paul's.

Bart Ehrman's Forgery and Counterforgery, or his mass-market summary, Forged, explain it well. Critical scholars don't think the entire Pauline corpus is forged, let alone after A.D. 180; current estimates are about half: the pastorals for sure; Ephesians, Colossians, and 2nd Thessalonians probably. Even dogmatists have given up the ghost on Hebrews.


You have not presented the evidence for early Pauline writings. We already know that scholars have PRESUMED without a shred of evidence that some Pauline writings are early.

There is NO corroboration at all in the very Canon that any Pauline letters were composed by Saul/ Paul and NO corroboration that any so-called Pauline letter was composed before c 62 CE.

There is an abundance of evidence that shows that the Entire Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 2nd century and was not used in the Churches or Assemblies of the Jesus cult .

By the way, it has already been argued by scholars that the Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#8  Postby Byron » Oct 27, 2013 8:32 pm

Which scholars have argued that?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone had, scholars have argued most everything, but that's not a mainstream position. There's no corroboration for the authorship of a ton of ancient documents. It's not a requirement for authentication.
I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Kirk, Enterprise

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 12881
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#9  Postby dejuror » Oct 28, 2013 2:52 am

Byron wrote:Which scholars have argued that?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone had, scholars have argued most everything, but that's not a mainstream position. There's no corroboration for the authorship of a ton of ancient documents. It's not a requirement for authentication.


There is no known evidence for so-called authentic Pauline letters. Mainstream is irrelevant without evidence.

What is the evidence for Pauline writings before c 62 CE?

We already know that it has been PRESUMED that Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE WITHOUT a shred of corroborative evidence.

The quantity of presumptions about the Pauline Corpus has no value as evidence.
Last edited by dejuror on Oct 28, 2013 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#10  Postby dejuror » Oct 28, 2013 4:14 am

The Only BIOGRAPHY of Saul/Paul in the NT Canon is Acts of the Apostles.

There is no mention whatsoever of the Pauline Corpus in Acts after Saul/Paul is mentioned over 140 times.

Up to the writing of Acts there was NO Pauline Corpus.

Now, the first non-Canon writing to mention the Pauline Corpus except Philemon is "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

It would appear that Irenaeus corroborates the Pauline Corpus was known in the 2nd century.

But, there is a massive problem.

In Against Heresies 2.22 Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years of age or 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

Irenaeus implies Jesus was crucified no earlier than c 49 CE.

As soon as Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified no earlier than c 49 CE then he has CONTRADICTED the Entire Pauline Corpus.

How in the world could Paul preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE when according to Irenaeus Jesus was not yet crucified, Not yet Resurrected and Not yet Ascended until some time around or after c 49 CE??

It is extremely important that we understand the serious implications when Irenaeus PUBLICLY argued and documented his argument that Jesus was crucified at least no earlier than c 49 CE.

Irenaeus publicly argued Jesus was an OLD man when he was crucified.

Irenaeus not have used the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles when he argued that Jesus was crucified when he was an Old Man.

Those whom Irenaeus argued against did NOT have the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles.

If Paul had actually founded Churches since 37-41 CE then it would have been idiotic for Irenaeus to publicly argue Jesus was an Old man when crucified.

"Against Heresies" is a forgery or mutilated source.

"Against Heresies" could not be the product of a Presbyter of the 2nd century Church.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#11  Postby RealityRules » Oct 28, 2013 5:16 am

and isn't there a view by several ppl that Acts is based on some writings of Joesphus?
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2927

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#12  Postby RealityRules » Oct 28, 2013 8:44 am

This is by/about Berlin pastor Hermann Detering http://www.egodeath.com/TheFabricatedPaul.htm
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2927

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#13  Postby Zwaarddijk » Oct 28, 2013 11:52 am

dejuror wrote:
In Acts, there is no indication at all that Saul/Paul was commissioned to preach to Gentiles [the uncircumcision].


If you can't even get this much straight, how do you expect anyone with any kind of knowledge on these matters to take you seriously? See Acts 14 and 15. Sure, no explicit 'commission' to do so is mentioned, but it's still made pretty clear that Saul supposedly did work for the spread of the faith among the gentiles.


How could the author of Acts forget the most significant letters of Saul/Paul which were Canonised??

I DUNNO LOL MAYBE THE CONCEPT OF A CANON HADN'T CROSSED ANYONE'S MIND. Fuck, you really think the authors of the Bible had modern Christianity in mind when they made their stuff?


Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all documented that a Jewish Messianic ruler was expected c 66-70 CE---not since the 33 CE. There was NO Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus up to the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

We know of Messianic pretendents that appeared before Jesus' supposed existence - how do you square that with your claim? There may very well have been any number of different groups of Jews expecting the messiah at different times. You are putting a huge lot of stock in what those historians wrote after a huge war had ravaged the Jewish country, and they wanted to provide explanations as to why such a war had happened. Messianic fervor is a simple explanation for it - do you think they would've taken care to list every small outbreak of messianic fervor though, especially those of which no significant notable results (= towns burned down, thousands upon thousands of dead) came about?

Your selective reading of facts is curiously stacked against any chances of learning anything from history.
Zwaarddijk
 
Posts: 4334
Male

Country: Finland
Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#14  Postby RealityRules » Oct 28, 2013 12:28 pm

Zwaarddijk wrote:We know of Messianic pretendents that appeared before Jesus' supposed existence - how do you square that with your claim? There may very well have been any number of different groups of Jews expecting the messiah at different times. You are putting a huge lot of stock in what those historians wrote after a huge war had ravaged the Jewish country, and they wanted to provide explanations as to why such a war had happened. Messianic fervor is a simple explanation for it - do you think they would've taken care to list every small outbreak of messianic fervor though, especially those of which no significant notable results (= towns burned down, thousands upon thousands of dead) came about?

Yep - plenty of 'Messianic pretendents' before, during and after the 1st C AD/CE and not many documented, especially b/c of several wars.

Some of those groups of Jews were "hellenised", increasing the diversity & ongoing diversification of various sects.

It seems feasible the Pauline documents are conflated & redacted stories from more than one of those sects, as may be other NT texts.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2927

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#15  Postby Zwaarddijk » Oct 28, 2013 12:48 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:We know of Messianic pretendents that appeared before Jesus' supposed existence - how do you square that with your claim? There may very well have been any number of different groups of Jews expecting the messiah at different times. You are putting a huge lot of stock in what those historians wrote after a huge war had ravaged the Jewish country, and they wanted to provide explanations as to why such a war had happened. Messianic fervor is a simple explanation for it - do you think they would've taken care to list every small outbreak of messianic fervor though, especially those of which no significant notable results (= towns burned down, thousands upon thousands of dead) came about?

Yep - plenty of 'Messianic pretendents' before, during and after the 1st C AD/CE and not many documented, especially b/c of several wars.

Some of those groups of Jews were "hellenised", increasing the diversity & ongoing diversification of various sects.

It seems feasible the Pauline documents are conflated & redacted stories from more than one of those sects, as may be other NT texts.

Yeah, I guess an important point I should've made is that I don't assign much value to early Christianity or anything, but I think dejuror's reasoning skills when it comes to such things are beyond abysmal, and thus any conclusion he reaches, even if it happens to be correct, will be correct by accident more so than by good reasoning.
Zwaarddijk
 
Posts: 4334
Male

Country: Finland
Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#16  Postby RealityRules » Oct 28, 2013 12:54 pm

Zwaarddijk wrote:... I don't assign much value to early Christianity or anything ...

in terms of ... ??
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2927

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#17  Postby dejuror » Oct 28, 2013 2:31 pm

dejuror wrote:
In Acts, there is no indication at all that Saul/Paul was commissioned to preach to Gentiles [the uncircumcision].

Zwaarddijk wrote:
If you can't even get this much straight, how do you expect anyone with any kind of knowledge on these matters to take you seriously? See Acts 14 and 15. Sure, no explicit 'commission' to do so is mentioned, but it's still made pretty clear that Saul supposedly did work for the spread of the faith among the gentiles.


Your story is not straight. You have very little knowledge of Acts of the Apostles .

People here cannot take you seriously.

Saul/Paul was NOT commissioned by the resurrected Jesus [Zombie Jesus] to preach ONLY to Gentiles.

Saul/Paul preached that Jesus was the Son of God in the synagogues of the Jews and confounded the Jews immediately AFTER he consulted with the disciples in Damascus.

In Acts 15, Peter declared that long ago God CHOSED him to preach to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:7 KJV
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up , and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe....


In Acts, Peter preached that Jesus was the Son of God BEFORE Saul/Paul.

In Acts 1.8, the resurrected Jesus [Zombie Jesus] COMMISSIONED his disciples, including Peter, to preach the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the Earth---NOT Saul/Paul.

Galatians 2 is a LATE invention and was composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles and the Canonised Gospels.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#18  Postby dejuror » Oct 28, 2013 4:50 pm

In the NT Canon, outside the Pauline Corpus, there are two books which mention a character called Paul.

1. Acts of the Apostles
2. 2 Peter

It will be noticed that the author of Acts did not claim Paul wrote Epistles to Churches and the Pastorals.

It was the author under the name of Peter who implied Paul wrote to the Church.

2 Peter 3:15 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you...


But, 2 Peter is an acknowledged forgery even by the Church itself.

At least 1600 years ago, a fake author, claiming to be Simon Peter, attempted to attest that Paul wrote to the Church.

Church History 3.3.1
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon....


Outside the Pauline Corpus, The ONLY book in the Canon to assert Paul wrote to the Church is a known and identified forgery.

This is precisely why forgeries such as 2 Peter are fabricated to deceive the reader into believing that Paul wrote to the Church when the supposed Simon Peter was alive.

2 Peter is completely useless to corroborate that Paul wrote to Churches and useless to determine when the Pauline Corpus was composed.

In effect, the NT Canon provides NO corroborative evidence for Paul as an author of the Pauline Corpus and when they were composed.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#19  Postby willhud9 » Oct 28, 2013 7:47 pm

Look dejuror quotes his own opinions and presents them as facts. Nothing new here and its the same old tired bullshit.

He also has a problem understanding what he reads apparently.
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: 19376
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: The Entire Pauline Corpus is a forgery

#20  Postby dejuror » Oct 29, 2013 1:51 am

willhud9 wrote:Look dejuror quotes his own opinions and presents them as facts. Nothing new here and its the same old tired bullshit.

He also has a problem understanding what he reads apparently.


Willhud has a problem understanding what he reads and thinks his opinions are facts.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4754

Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest