Early Pauline letters debunked.

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

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Early Pauline letters debunked.

#1  Postby dejuror » May 15, 2021 5:06 am

The arguments that Pauline letters are early are all flawed.

One of the grossly flawed arguments used is that the Pauline letters are early because they have little about the life and miracles of NT Jesus.

This argument is easily debunked by examining Epistles in and out the NT.

It is found that virtually all Epistles have little or nothing about the life of Jesus.

Examine the NT Epistles attributed to James, Peter, John, Jude and to the Hebrews and it is seen that there is little or nothing about NT Jesus of Nazareth.

Examine the Epistles attributed to Ignatius and Clement and again it will be shown that there is virtually nothing about the life and miracles of NT Jesus of Nazareth.

Epistles, in and out the NT, are all essentially non-biographical accounts of NT Jesus and deal mainly with doctrine, salutations and others matters arising with the function of the cult.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#2  Postby dejuror » May 24, 2021 5:42 am

The claim that the Pauline Epistles are early because they mention hardly anything on the life or miracles of Jesus is completely flawed since Epistles in and out the NT hardly have any information about the life and miracles of Jesus.

It is easily verified and cannot be contradicted that Epistles in and out the NT hardly have anything about the life and miracles of NT Jesus by simply examining them.

It is must also be noted that there are other Christian writings composed no earlier than c 169 [ after the death of Emperor Aurelius Verus ] which makes no mention whatsoever of the life and miracles of a character called Jesus.

"Theophilus To Autolycus" in 3 books attributed to Theophilus of Antioch was called a Christian who wrote sometime after the death Aurelius Verus c 169 CE mentioned nothing at all about NT Jesus. Nothing. The very name of Jesus is not even mentioned by the Christian Theophilus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/theophilus-book1.html

Theophilus to Autolycus 1
.... you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God.


"A Plea for the Christians" and "On the Resurrection of the Dead" attributed to Athenagoras a Christian also writing in the time of the Emperors Aurelius and Commodus or c 161-180 who mentioned nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html

"A Plea for the Christians"
But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong--nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government--you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.


"Octavius" atrributed to Minucius Felix a Christian writing composed no earlier than c 100 CE mentions nothing about the life and miracles of Jesus. Octavius claimed he was a Christian but never referred to the life and miracles of Jesus in his attempt to convert Caecillius to Christianity.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm

Minucius Felix "Otavius"
...if we Christians be compared with you, although in some things our discipline is inferior, yet we shall be found much better than you.


The 2nd century Christian writings attributed to Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens and Minucius Felix are clear evidence that debunk the claim that Christian writings which do not mention the life and miracles of Jesus should be assumed to be early.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#3  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 27, 2021 8:50 am

When I look in antiquity for the extra-biblical historical evidence to substantiate the historical existence of the Pauline figure I can only find Seneca. Just as Josephus was used as an extra biblical literary source to substantiate the historical existence of Jesus, Seneca was used as an extra biblical literary source to substantiate the historical existence of Paul.

Between the 4th and the 15th century the utterly corrupt Christians church INDUSTRY circulated the literature of Seneca - the Roman Stoic philosopher and stateman - prefaced with the Seneca/Paul letter exchange. Nobody in the ancient world outside of the church had ever heard of Paul. Nearly everyone in the ancient world had heard of Seneca.

That all the letters of Paul are forgeries is not a new proposition. It has a history as follows:

1838
• (Myth) BRUNO BAUER (1808–82) is often considered the first academic mythicist and was the enfant terrible of his time. He thought that “all the Pauline letters were inauthentic and that an historical person named Jesus very probably never existed” (H. Detering). Bauer was Karl Marx’s doctoral advisor in Berlin. Bauer’s views were so shocking that he was removed from his university position in 1842. Schweitzer devotes Chp. 11 of his Quest (1906) to Bauer’s thought.

1851
• Bruno Bauer, Kritik der paulinischen Briefe (“Critique of the Pauline Letters”). Bauer declared all of Paul’s epistles to be 2nd century forgeries.


1879
• Bruno Bauer, Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture. 359 pp. (Trans. 1999, Charleston House Pub.) Paul wrote none of the ‘Pauline’ epistles. The most important individual catalyst for Christian emergence was not Jesus (whom Mark created) but Seneca, many of whose maxims and ideals appear unaltered at the heart of the New Testament. Bauer was the ideological founder of the Dutch Radical School. (Dr. Price’s review).

1886
• (Semi-Myth) ABRAHAM DIRK LOMAN. Quaestiones Paulinae (“Questions on the Paulines”) contends that not only Galatians, but all of Paul’s Epistles are (following Bruno Bauer) 2nd century forgeries. Loman finds no evidence of the Paulinae before Marcion and considers the epistles to be Gnostic treatises. For him, Jesus is a 2nd century fiction though ‘some’ Jesus may have existed, quite buried in history. The Jesus of Christianity is an ideal symbol, a non-historical construction.


1888
• (Myth) RUDOLF STECK. Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den Paulinischen Hauptbriefen (“Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Galatians Epistle, and Critical Remarks on the Chief Paulines”). Steck was a Swiss scholar and ally of the Dutch School. He branded all the Pauline epistles as fakes and supported Pierson and Naber.

1896
• (Skep) WILLEM CHRISTIAAN VAN MANEN. His multi-volume Paulus was published 1890-1896. The first volume dates the Acts of the Apostles to 125-150 CE and argues that it was dependent on several writings including those of Josephus. The other two volumes were about Romans and 1st–2nd Corinthians. An exception in the Dutch Radical School, van Manen accepted the historicity of Jesus.


1909
• (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA, Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen. Van Eysinga concluded that there was no evidence for the existence of the Pauline writings before Marcion (contra Harnack). Unlike his teacher van Manen, van Eysinga rejected the historicity of Jesus

1930
• (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA, “Does Jesus Live, or Has He Only Lived? A Study of the Doctrine of Historicity.” (Perhaps better translated: “Does Jesus Still Live, or Did he Ever Live?”) Van Eysinga endorses the view that the epistles of Clement and Ignatius of Antioch are not genuine. There is no evidence of the Pauline epistles before Marcion, and all were produced by the Marcionite circle. Paul’s epistles are full of incongruities and he does not sound Jewish (in opposition to Harnack). No evidence is found in them for the existence of Jesus the Messiah.


2011
• DETERING, HERMANN. Falsche Zeugen: ausserchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (“False Witnesses: Non-Christian Witnesses to Jesus on Trial”).
The alleged witnesses to Jesus’ existence attest to neither a historical Jesus of Nazareth nor to the existence of Christianity in the first century CE. Detering places the canonical gospels well into the second century (the Little Apocalypse in Mk 13 came out of the Second, not the First Jewish War) and the Pauline epistles were originally Marcionite.



http://www.mythicistpapers.com/timeline ... mythicism/
"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: 856

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#4  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 06, 2021 1:40 am

James Tabor: "Thirteen of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are letters with Paul’s name as the author, and a fourteenth, the book of Acts, is mainly devoted to the story of Paul’s life and career—making up over half the total text. An English copy of the New Testament, Revised Standard Version, with text only and no notes or references, runs 284 pages total. The thirteen letters attributed to Paul, plus the book of Acts, add up to 109 pages of the total—just over one-third."

Tabor: " the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur.[ii] Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.


1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

Tabor: "almost universal agreement that a proper historical study of Paul should begin with the seven genuine letters, restricting one’s analysis to what is most certainly coming from Paul’s own hand. This approach might sound restrictive but it is really the only proper way to begin. The Deutero-Pauline letters, and the Pastorals reflect a vocabulary, a development of ideas, and a social setting that belong to a later time.[v] We are not getting Paul as he was, but Paul’s name used to lend authority to the ideas of later authors who intend for readers to believe they come from Paul. In modern parlance we call such writings forgeries, but a more polite academic term is pseudonymous, meaning “falsely named.”

/quote from Tabor

* The Quest for the Historical Paul, James Tabor, November 2012
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ical-paul/

QUESTION:

Is Tabor is too polite to introduce the 5th Paul:

5) Piously forged or Fraudulent Paul.

We find the 5th Paul in the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca.
"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: 856

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#5  Postby dejuror » Aug 25, 2021 6:14 am

It is claimed so-called Pauline Epistles are early because a supposed bishop called Ignatius wrote about a character called Paul and stated that Paul wrote letters however it is observed that all the Ignatian letters are really forgeries and do not establish that any so-called Pauline letter was written before c 70 CE.

In Christian writings it is stated that Ignatius was bound with chains and sent to Rome to be martyred because he Ignatius was a Christian and preaching about Jesus Christ even to Trajan the Emperor of Rome who reigned c 98-117 CE.

See https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0123.htm

The Martyrdom of Ignatius 2

Then Trajan pronounced sentence as follows: We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people. When the holy martyr heard this sentence, he cried out with joy, I thank you, O Lord, that You have vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love towards You, and have made me to be bound with iron chains, like Your Apostle Paul. Having spoken thus, he then, with delight, clasped the chains about him….


Now look at the supposed Ignatian letter to the Romans .

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse.


The very claim that Ignatius was clasped with claims about him and under guard by soldiers exposed the fiction that he could have written letters openly committing the same crime for which he was condemned to death.

It is also not credible at all that Ignatius a condemned criminal could have gotten a supply of ink, pen and papyri while being bound with ten soldiers.


It is clear that the so-called Ignatian Epistles are products of forgeries and fiction and do not establish the historicity of NT Paul or that Pauline letters were written before c 70 CE.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#6  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 27, 2021 8:38 am

dejuror wrote:It is claimed so-called Pauline Epistles are early because a supposed bishop called Ignatius wrote about a character called Paul .....


The main claim that the so-called "magnificent seven" Pauline letters are early is because biblical scholarship, sponsored for almost 1,700 years by the church industry, has convinced itself these letters are genuine relics from an historical Paul who lived and moved and had his being in the 1st century.

OTOH a number of scholars have explicitly argued that all the letters of Paul are forgeries. e.g., Bruno Bauer, Abraham Dirk Loman, Rudolph Steck, Willem Christiaan van Manen, G. A. Bergh van Eysinga, Hermann Detering, Robert Price and others theorise all of Paul’s letters are 2nd century forgeries



It is clear that the so-called Ignatian Epistles are products of forgeries and fiction and do not establish the historicity of NT Paul or that Pauline letters were written before c 70 CE.


Ignatius, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are unknown.
Likewise Paul is unknown.

Yes the Ignatian epistles are more fabrications of the church industry.
The "True Paul" is on full display in the letter exchange with Seneca.

Christian origins involves fraud.
"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: 856

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#7  Postby dejuror » Aug 28, 2021 4:53 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:
The main claim that the so-called "magnificent seven" Pauline letters are early is because biblical scholarship, sponsored for almost 1,700 years by the church industry, has convinced itself these letters are genuine relics from an historical Paul who lived and moved and had his being in the 1st century.

OTOH a number of scholars have explicitly argued that all the letters of Paul are forgeries. e.g., Bruno Bauer, Abraham Dirk Loman, Rudolph Steck, Willem Christiaan van Manen, G. A. Bergh van Eysinga, Hermann Detering, Robert Price and others theorise all of Paul’s letters are 2nd century forgeries...


One does not even need to be a scholar to recognize that the so-called Pauline Epistles have little or no historical value but are products of propaganda written after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The Epistle to the Galatians is one which directly exposes the fact that the so-called Pauline writer most likely used gLuke and Acts to concoct his conversion story, the fabrication that he was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the gospel and that he met Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem.

When the Epistle to the Galatians is examined, like the other Epistles, it is quickly realized that it is void of a single historical marker, that is, it is not known when any of the supposed events concerning Paul supposedly happened even if all the other Epistles were read.

For example, in Galatians 1 it is claimed God revealed his son to the writer but when did that happen? What year? Who can corroborate this fantastic event? Which Epistle gives a time period for the conversion?

In the very same 1st chapter of Galatians the writer claimed he persecuted the churches of Judea but again when did this suppose persecution happen according to the Pauline writer?

In Galatians 1.18-19, the writer claimed he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him for fifteen days and that he also met an apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Again, the questions remain. When did those events occur? Who is Peter? Who is James? Who are the Apostles/ When did this character called Peter live in Jerusalem? None of the Epistles answer those questions?

In order to answer those questions one must know of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

The earliest gospel, the short gMark, also gMatthew, do not have the Apostle Peter living in Jerusalem at all. The Apostles and Peter, a supposed Galilean fisherman, were with Jesus in Galilee and the apostles were told to return to Galilee after his crucifixion and resurrection in Jerusalem.

Now, examine the supposed words of Jesus in gMark.

Mark 14:28---But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

Look at gMatthew.

Matthew 26:32---But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
Look at gLuke.
Luke 24:49---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.
Look at Acts.
Acts 1:4---And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
The story has been changed in gLuke and Acts.. The apostles are now commanded to stay in Jerusalem by the resurrected Jesus in the later Gospel and Acts.

The claim in gLuke and Acts that the resurrected Jesus told the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem must be false whether or not Jesus lived.

The story by the Pauline writer in Galatians that he met Apostles Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days and also James in Jerusalem are a pack of lies concocted from the fallacious writings of gLuke and Acts.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#8  Postby RealityRules » Aug 29, 2021 12:36 am

Leucius Charinus wrote: a number of scholars have explicitly argued that all the letters of Paul are forgeries. e.g., Bruno Bauer, Abraham Dirk Loman, Rudolph Steck, Willem Christiaan van Manen, G. A. Bergh van Eysinga, Hermann Detering, Robert Price and others theorise all of Paul’s letters are 2nd century forgeries...

dejuror wrote:
One does not even need to be a scholar to recognize that the so-called Pauline Epistles have little or no historical value but are products of propaganda written after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

[omitted]

in Galatians 1 it is claimed God revealed his son to the writer but when did that happen? What year? Who can corroborate this fantastic event? Which Epistle gives a time period for the conversion?

In the very same 1st chapter of Galatians the writer claimed he persecuted the churches of Judea but again when did this suppose persecution happen according to the Pauline writer?

In Galatians 1.18-19, the writer claimed he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him for fifteen days and that he also met an apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Again, the questions remain. When did those events occur? Who is Peter? Who is James? Who are the Apostles/ When did this character called Peter live in Jerusalem? None of the Epistles answer those questions?

In order to answer those questions one must know of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Good points.

dejuror wrote:
... the so-called Pauline writer* most likely used gLuke and Acts to concoct his conversion story [in Galatians], the fabrication that he was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the gospel, and that he met Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem.

When the Epistle to the Galatians is examined, like the other Epistles, it is quickly realized that it is void of a single historical marker, that is, it is not known when any of the supposed events concerning Paul supposedly happened even if all the other Epistles were read.

* or a redactor


dejuror wrote: The earliest gospel, the short gMark, also gMatthew, do not have the Apostle Peter living in Jerusalem at all. The Apostles and Peter, a supposed Galilean fisherman, were with Jesus in Galilee and the apostles were told to return to Galilee after his crucifixion and resurrection in Jerusalem.

Yep.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2908

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#9  Postby dejuror » Aug 29, 2021 3:02 am

One of the most ridiculous argument that I read is that the Pauline writings are before the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and that the supposed Paul wrote to the Romans who worshiped Jesus Christ, a supposed Jewish Messiah as a God and Savior of mankind

The Epistle to the Romans is most blatantly anachronistic.

There were no Romans in any historical writings about the time period up to the fall of the Jewish Temple (c 7 BCE to c 70 CE) from King Herod the Great to the reign of Vespasian who wrote about Roman citizens worshipping a Jew as a God and Messianic ruler.

None whatsoever.

The fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was precisely because the Romans rejected the Jewish belief that their Messianic ruler would emerge during the War of the Jews c 66-70 CE.

It was Vespasian who was regarded by Romans citizens as their Savior.

Wars of the Jews 3.9
The next day Vespasian sent Trajan before with some horsemen to the citadel, to make trial of the multitude, whether they were all disposed for peace; and as soon as he knew that the people were of the same mind with the petitioner, he took his army, and went to the city; upon which the citizens opened to him their gates, and met him with acclamations of joy, and called him their saviour and benefactor.


Roman citizens worshiping a character called Jesus as their Savior and God is a post Vespasian phenomenon (post 70 CE).

Whoever wrote the Epistle to the Romans must have lived after c 70 CE or at least after the Lord and Savior of the Romans--the Emperor Vespasian.

We have writings attributed to Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Pliny the elder, Cassius Dio and others but they all mention nothing of Roman citizens worshiping a Jew (dead or alive) as their Messianic ruler and Savior pre 70 CE.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#10  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2021 3:22 am

dejuror wrote:Whoever wrote the Epistle to the Romans must have lived after c 70 CE or at least after the Lord and Savior of the Romans--the Emperor Vespasian.


That is the earliest possible date. The latest possible date outside of Christian literary sources (which are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst) may be deduced from the physical manuscripts is the early 4th century. Palaeographical dating in isolation used by some people to assert early Christian papyri manuscripts is extremely problematic, especially in the upper bounds. The definitive work on this is Brent Nongbri's "God's Library".

https://www.amazon.com.au/Gods-Library- ... B07G5FYQKC

So what about the references considered to be INDEPENDENT of the utterly corrupt church industry, such as those found in pagan writers of the first three transcendental centuries"

We have writings attributed to Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Pliny the elder, Cassius Dio and others but they all mention nothing of Roman citizens worshiping a Jew (dead or alive) as their Messianic ruler and Savior pre 70 CE.


The Christian references in Josephus are commonly regarded as interpolated from the age of enlightenment when it was written by the Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, in the year 1762, that the TF was "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too".
See further - Chronological Summary of the "Testimonium Flavianum" (TF) and its Censure.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Censure_of_the_TF.htm

The Christian reference in Suetonius is often regarded as interpolated and the earliest Suetonius manuscript is from the 9th century and in extremely close proximity to the Latin forgery mill known as Pseudo-Isidore operative out of Corbie Abbey.
See: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_suetonius.htm

The Christian reference in Tacitus was not cited by any author between the 2nd and the 15th century at which time the Tacitus manuscript was suddenly and unexpectedly "discovered" in the archives of the utterly corrupt church industry after rewards were offered in 1513 by John de Medici (Pope Leo X) who increases the price of rewards to persons who procured new manuscript copies of ancient Greek and Roman works.
See: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_Tacitus.htm

The Christian references in the letter exchange in the 10-book collection between Pliny and Trajan was suddenly and unexpectedly "discovered" in 1499 by Father Giovanni Giocondo of Verona in a minuscule manuscript [P] and who made a copy designated as (I) of the ten books of Pliny's Letters. In 1508 Aldus Manutius, the publisher, uses copy (I) for his edition of the Letters but absolutely no trace of P -- the original manuscript - has ever come to light since the publication of the edition of Aldus. It was "lost". Its a fucking tragedy.
See: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/autho ... Trajan.htm

Christianity is never mentioned in Plutarch's works.

The Christian references in the history of Cassius Dio occurs in the sections preserved in the epitome of Xiphilinus, a Christian Byzantine monk of the 11th century.

The results of this study do not look good because the utterly corrupt Christian church industry seem to have fabricated references to their prior existence in a selection of supposedly independent pagan literature. The church industry between the 4th century and the later middle ages has simply corrupted non-Christian literature with interpolations and forgeries designed to support the assertion that a “nation of Christians” coexisted in the empire before the 4th century. What motivated the church industry to do this? Could it be that they had problems substantiating their original claims? Setting aside the church dogma and our beliefs, what does the archaeological evidence have to say?

Archaeology and Inscriptions = New Testament archaeology is an oxymoron
"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: 856

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#11  Postby Leucius Charinus » Aug 31, 2021 3:56 am

RealityRules wrote:
dejuror wrote:
... the so-called Pauline writer* most likely used gLuke and Acts to concoct his conversion story [in Galatians], the fabrication that he was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the gospel, and that he met Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem.

When the Epistle to the Galatians is examined, like the other Epistles, it is quickly realized that it is void of a single historical marker, that is, it is not known when any of the supposed events concerning Paul supposedly happened even if all the other Epistles were read.


* or a redactor


Or a forger.

In the 4th century the so-called Pauline writer was bolted into history as a result of the Nicene church industry publishing the letter exchange with Seneca as a preface to the writings of Seneca. Until the 15th century the historicity of Paul was authoritatively supported by the "closet Christian" Seneca. A source supposedly external and totally "independent" of the church industry.

Is Paul a transcendental figure?
"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: 856

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#12  Postby dejuror » Aug 31, 2021 4:14 am

There is no historical evidence whatsoever to support the history of the so-called Pauline writer. The only book in the NT, Acts of the Apostles, which makes mention of stories about a character called Saul which was later changed to Paul is regarded as fiction.

Acts of the Apostles was a very late writing composed after the Gospels but what is most striking is that the name Paul was a late addition in Acts, that is, the original did not include Paul.

The very title of the book, Acts of the Apostles, indicates that the original author did not write about Paul since the list of the Apostles can be found in Acts 1 and do not include Paul.

The original author of Acts claimed that in order to be an apostle one had to be with Jesus from the baptism to the resurrection.

Examine Acts 1.13-26.

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.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


The character called Paul does not even qualify to be called an apostle in Acts since he was not with Jesus and the other apostles from the baptism to the resurrection.

The original Acts was about the supposed eleven Apostles of Jesus and the additional apostle called Matthias who was chosen by the eleven.

Again, remember the title of the book--Acts of the Apostles.

Now examine Acts of the Apostles. The NT book contains 28 chapters

From Acts chapter 16-28 there is nothing about the acts of the 12 Apostles.

From Acts 16-28, 13 chapters, there are stories about Paul who was not an apostle and did not qualify to be an apostle but nothing about the acts 12 apostles.

Paul is mentioned over 100 times from Acts 16-28 but not a mention about the acts of the apostles.

It is clear what has happened. Acts of the Apostles is a corrupted writing where stories about a character called Paul was later inserted.

The character called Saul introduced in Acts chapter 7 was not an Apostle but a persecutor whose name was later changed to Paul in Acts chapter 13.

It can also be seen that the author of Acts did not know of and did not write about Paul since there are no references to any of the so-called Pauline letters--none.

Based on the evidence the original Acts of the Apostles most likely did not include a character called Paul or the acts of Paul since he was not an Apostle.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#13  Postby chairman bill » Aug 31, 2021 3:29 pm

dejuror wrote:... It is must also be noted that there are other Christian writings composed no earlier than c 169 [after the death of Emperor Aurelius Verus] which makes no mention whatsoever of the life and miracles of a character called Jesus ...

"Theophilus To Autolycus" in 3 books attributed to Theophilus of Antioch was called a Christian who wrote sometime after the death Aurelius Verus c 169 CE mentioned nothing at all about NT Jesus. Nothing. The very name of Jesus is not even mentioned by the Christian Theophilus ...


It's set me thinking ... Could early Christianity have simply been a sect of those who considered themselves 'annointed by God'?
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28335
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#14  Postby dejuror » Sep 01, 2021 3:17 am

chairman bill wrote:
dejuror wrote:... It is must also be noted that there are other Christian writings composed no earlier than c 169 [after the death of Emperor Aurelius Verus] which makes no mention whatsoever of the life and miracles of a character called Jesus ...

"Theophilus To Autolycus" in 3 books attributed to Theophilus of Antioch was called a Christian who wrote sometime after the death Aurelius Verus c 169 CE mentioned nothing at all about NT Jesus. Nothing. The very name of Jesus is not even mentioned by the Christian Theophilus ...


It's set me thinking ... Could early Christianity have simply been a sect of those who considered themselves 'annointed by God'?


There were many so-called "Christian" cults with different beliefs as found in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus.

In Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" written c 138-161 CE it is claimed that even those who blasphemed Jesus were called Christians.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho"
And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.' There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.

(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names..


In effect, so-called Christian cults could have existed long before the time of Pilate and did not require a character called Jesus. Followers of a single or multiple Messianic claimants could be called Christians at any time in antiquity so it would be extremely difficult to determine what supposed Christians first believed.

In any event, based on writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius there was no Jewish Messianic ruler up at least the time of the Jewish War against the Romans c 66-70 CE.

Acts of the Apostles claimed there were thousands of Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and worshiped him as a God and was persecuted by a character called Saul around the time of Pilate, but not one ancient historical source corroborates such events.

Acts 8:1

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.


The Pauline writer repeated the bogus non-historical claims in Acts and claimed he persecuted the Church in Jerusalem.

Galatians 1:23

But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.


There was no Christian Church in Jerusalem up to c 70 CE where Jews worshiped a character called Jesus as a Messianic ruler and son of God in any historical writing.

Josephus' "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4
But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle, that was also found in their sacred writings; how “About that time one, from their country, should become governor of the habitable earth.” The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular: and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.


The so-called Pauline writer used Acts of the Apostles to fabricate his non-historical story about persecuting "the faith" in Jerusalem.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post

Re: Early Pauline letters debunked.

#15  Postby dejuror » Sep 09, 2021 3:55 am

The so-called Pauline Epistles have a single reference to Aretas in the second Epistle to the Cotinthians in which the writer claims he is not lying.

Examine the passage in 2 Corinthians 11.

2 Corinthians 11.31-33
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:
33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

As expected, it will be seen that the so-called Pauline writer is lying. There was no governor under Arestas in Damascus. Syria was under Roman control at least from the reign of Tiberius and after Vespasian.

We have writings attributed to Josephus which clearly show there were no governors under Aretas in Damascus.

In facts, it was the Roman Emperors who installed the “presidents” or governors of Syria and matters pertaining to the governorship of Syria were under direct control of the Roman Emperors never Aretas.

Examine the writings attributed to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews ) and Tacitus Histories and it will be seen that there was no mention of Aretas at all with regards to the installing of governors or governorship of Syria.

Antiquities of the Jews 15.10.1
......they complained to Varro, who was then president [of Syria;]..


Antiquities of the Jews 15.11.4
......until the time of Tiberius Cesar. Under whose reign Vitellius, the president of Syria….


Antiquities of the Jews 15.11. 4
.....But after that, Cassius Longinus, who was president of Syria and Cuspius Fadus, who was procurator of Judea…


Antiquities of the Jews 16.8.6
..... Herod made a reconciliation between Archelaus, and Titius, the president of Syria…


Antiquities of the Jews 16.9.1
About which there was an hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria….


Antiquities of the Jews 17.5.2.
........Now Quintilius Varus was at this time at Jerusalem: being sent to succeed Saturninus, as president of Syria…..


Antiquities of the Jews 17.10.1
....And letters came from Varus, the president of Syria, which informed Cesar of the revolt of the Jews…



Antiquities of the Jews 18..2.4
.....he delivered up himself to Silanus, the president of Syria…


Antiquities of the Jews 18.6.2
...So he went to Flaccus, one that had been consul, and had been a very great friend to him at Rome formerly, and was now president of Syria….


Antiquities of the Jews 18. 8. 2.
...Hereupon Caius, taking it very hainously that he should be thus despised by the Jews alone, sent Petronius to be president of Syria, and successor in the government to Vitellius…


Antiquities of the Jews 19.6.4
.........Nor was it long before Marcus succeeded Petronius as president of Syria….


AJ 20.1.1. [A.D. 44–45.]
Upon the death of King Agrippa, which we have related in the foregoing book, Claudius Cesar sent Cassius Longinus, as successor to Marcus; out of regard to the memory of King Agrippa; who had often desired of him by letters, while he was alive, that he would not suffer Marcus to be any longer president of Syria…


AJ 20.6.2
..... But the principal of the Samaritans went to Ummidius Quadratus, the president of Syria, who at that time was at Tyre; and accused the Jews of setting their villages on fire…


Wars of the Jews 4.10,6
Vespasian then removed from Cesarea to Berytus: where many ambassages came to him from Syria, and many from other provinces: bringing with them from every city crowns; and the congratulations of the people. Mucianus came also, who was the president of the province…


[Tacitus Histories
Tiberius, however, had removed Creticus Silanus​ from Syria — he was a marriage connection of Germanicus, whose eldest son, Nero, was plighted to his daughter — and had given the appointment to Gnaeus Piso…


There was no governor under Aretas in Syria and none installed by him in any historical writings .

The so-called Pauline writer was not a contemporary of Aretas and the supposed writer did not know of or was not acquainted with the governorship of Syria which implies the epistles were written very late.
dejuror
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4733

Print view this post


Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest