Posted: Jul 24, 2022 1:49 am
by Leucius Charinus
dejuror wrote:Based on the evidence I have seen so far the writer called Paul in the NT is a product of fiction and forgeries invented extremely late, possibly the late 3rd century or early 4th century.
It is claimed that absence of historical evidence for the NT writer called Paul does not mean he did not exist however such a claim is really useless since absence of historical evidence for Paul does not mean he existed.

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

All fictitious characters have no historical evidence.

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

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

There multiple historical problems for the NT writer called Paul.

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

8. The only non biblical reference to the historical existence of Paul is found in the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca. The Christians prefaced their circulation of the literature of Seneca with this fabricated letter exchange for a thousand years before it was "removed from the evidence". What could possibly go wrong believing that Paul existed?