ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th September 2020, 11:17 PM   #1
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Paul - a late invention.

In the NT there are 13 Epistles under the name of Paul and a character with the same name [Paul] is also found in Acts of the Apostles.

It is said that NT Pauline Epistles were written before the NT Gospels because they contain very little about the Jesus character as mentioned in the Gospels but such an observation is of little chronological value since virtually all Epistles in and out the NT also mention almost nothing or very little about Jesus of Nazareth.


Examine the NT Epistles attributed to James, Peter, John and Jude.

There is virtually nothing or very little about the Jesus character in those Epistles.

For example, the character called Jesus or Christ is only mentioned twice in the James' Epistle with no mention of his apostles, birth, baptism, crucifixion and resurrection.

By contrast the Epistle to the Galatians mentions Jesus or Christ about 37 times and the writer claimed that he met apostles of Jesus Christ who was God’s son made of a woman, that he was crucified and raised from the dead. See Galatians 1.1, 1.19, 3.1, 3.27,4.4.

It is easily seen that the so-called Pauline Epistles contain far more claims about Jesus Christ and the apostles than in all non-Pauline Epistles combined.

The so-called Pauline writers appear to be using stories of Jesus that that were already known to them and falsely claiming to have gotten them from a resurrected being in the third heaven.

In the Epistles the supposed Pauline writer claimed he was a persecutor of the faith.

As a persecutor of believers the writer must know and identify what the Jesus cult believe and taught in the churches about their God Jesus.

In fact, in the Epistle to the Galatians, the writer stated that he persecuted those who were preaching the very same faith.

Galatians 1:23
Quote:
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
It is virtually impossible that a dead man, buried for around three days, or a non-human entity, could have given the Pauline writers any information about actual past events.
The Pauline writers got no information from the supposed dead and resurrected Jesus.
They simply used information from believers and/or the Gospels or their sources.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 11:22 PM   #2
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
The claim that NT Pauline Epistles were composed before the NT Gospels because they hardly contain accounts of Jesus is flawed.

All Epistles in and out the NT contain very little about the activities of the supposed Jesus.

Examine all the Epistles attributed to Ignatius written no earlier than the 2nd century and after the Gospels should have already been written.

The Ignatius Epistles to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyrnæans and the Epistle to Polycarp do not mention the miracles of Jesus or the empty tomb.

Examine any Epistle attributed to Clement supposedly written when he was bishop of Rome or no earlier than c 96 CE. Again, it will be found that there is very little about the life of NT Jesus and nothing about an empty tomb.

Epistles in and out the NT are not biographical writings of their Jesus but almost always dealing with doctrinal issues.

The chronology of the composition of the NT Epistles can be easily determined by comparing their contents with other Epistles and those of the Gospels.

For example, it can be deduced quite easily that Ignatius and Clement Epistles were composed after so-called Pauline Epistles.

1. In the Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians a character called Paul is mentioned who wrote Epistles.

2. In the 1st Clement Epistle it is implied that a character Paul wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.

Those simple clues, without going into more details, alert the reader that the Ignatius and Clementine Epistles were most likely composed after NT Pauline Epistles.

Now, it is easily seen that the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after NT Gospels or their sources.

One of the primary clues that so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after at least the Synoptics or their sources relates to the post-resurrection story.

The earliest NT Jesus story is found in the short gMark in which the last chapter [ch16] only contains 8 verses.

In the short gMark the resurrected Jesus did not appear to the disciples and neither did the resurrected being commission them to preach the Gospel.

All NT writings which claim the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples and commissioned them to preach the Gospels are late additions.

The late additions are in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Corinthians.

Examine the Sinaiticus short gMark 16.

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...8&zoomSlider=0



Sinaiticus gMark 16.5-8
Quote:
And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
There is nothing at all about the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples and telling them to preach the Gospels to anyone.

Now, look at 1 Corinthians 15.

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...r&zoomSlider=0

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Quote:
For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles.

8 But, last of all, as to the one born out of due time, he appeared to me also....
The post-resurrection appearances of the resurrected Jesus in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians is late addition-- later than the short gMark.

All NT Epistles to the Corinthians were composed after the short gMark.

In Christian writings it is claimed Bible Paul died under Nero or no later than c 68 CE.

Bible Paul could not have written the Epistles to the Corinthians if he was dead no later than c 68 CE and the Corinthian Epistles were written after the short gMark which was composed no earlier than c 70 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 14th September 2020 at 11:23 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 10:31 PM   #3
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles were late additions and were unknown to or had no influence on supposed early Christian writers.

Examine Galatians 4.4.

Sinaiticus Galatians 4.4
Quote:
but when the fulness of the time had come. God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under law..
Christian writers in and out the NT claimed their Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin not a mere woman.

It was the author of gMatthew or his source who had influence on early Christian writers and for almost two thousand years.

Examine Sinaiticus Matthew 1.23
Quote:
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, when translated, God with us.
The author of gLuke who is claimed to be a close companion of the supposed Paul did state his Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Sinaiticus Luke 1. 26
Quote:
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 to a virgin betrothed to a man, whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.
Outside the NT we see that the story that Jesus was born of a Virgin is found in virtually all apologetic writings which mention his birth.

Look at an Ignatian Epistle to the Symrnaeans
Quote:
..... He was truly born of a virgin...
Aristides' Apology
Quote:
.... it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh..
Justin's Apology
Quote:
.... we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin,...
Terullian's On the Flesh of Christ 2.
Quote:
The conception in the virgin's womb is also set plainly before us...
Origen Against Celsus 7
Quote:
For who is ignorant of the statement that Jesus was born of a virgin...
Eusebius' Church History 3.27.3
Quote:
..... the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...
It is clear that from gMatthew down to at least the 4th century Christian writers claimed their Jesus was born of a Virgin.

The so-called Paul and the Epistles had no early influence on the Jesus cult.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 02:46 AM   #4
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,871
So where is it that you think the religious carp originated?

It cannot be "god", "Jebus", "Paul", "apostles", because you claim none of those existed, so what is the origin?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2020, 12:05 AM   #5
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
The NT and Christian writings show that Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles are late and had no influence oN early apologetic writings.

Look at the the supposed Pauline version of the second coming.

Sinaiticus 1 Thessalonians 4.16
Quote:
because the Lord himself, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, shall descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall arise first;

17 then we, the living, who remain over, shall, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we always be with the Lord.
The character Paul was supposed to have been an evangelist who traveled around the Roman Empire multiple times telling people that on the second coming of Christ that the dead and living in Christ would ascend to meet their Jesus in the air.

But again, we see the Pauline version of the second coming had no influence whatsoever on the author of Revelation [the Apocalypse].

The author of Revelation, also claiming to have visions from the Lord Jesus, stated that in the second coming there would be a new Jerusalem on earth and that believers would reign with their Savior for a thousand years.

Sinaiticus Revelation 20. 6
Quote:
Blessed and holy is he that has part in this first resurrection; over such the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Sinaiticus Revelation 21:1-3
Quote:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away; and the sea was no more.

2 And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying: Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men and he will dwell with them; and they shall he his people, and God himself will be with them, their God.
Justin Martyr in his First Apology, writing c 138-161 CE, makes no mention of the Pauline version of the second coming but refers to Revelation for his teaching.

Dialogue with Trypho 80
Quote:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Dialogue with Trypho 81
Quote:
And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem...
The character Paul and the Epistles were unknown in the time of Justin Martyr c 138-161 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 17th September 2020 at 12:07 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2020, 10:55 PM   #6
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
The more one examines the NT and Christian writings of antiquity it becomes quite pellucid that the character called Paul and the Epistles were late inventions and had no influence at all on the early Jesus cult.

It is claimed in Christian writings that a character called Luke, a supposed close companion of NT Paul, wrote a Gospel which is in the NT Canon however Scholars argue that gLuke was falsely attributed to Luke.

Bart Ehrman in his "Argument for the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" argued that the NT Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Examine Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

Against Heresies 3.1
Quote:
.....Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.
Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History 3.4.8
Quote:
. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Christian writers invented a bogus character called Luke and then falsely claimed he wrote one of the Canonised Gospel.

Then NT Paul is falsely claimed to be a companion of the bogus Gospel writer called Luke.

It is extremely important to understand that Church writings admit the character called Paul was alive after gLuke was written as can be seen in Church History 3.4.8.

Now, when was gLuke written??

It is claimed that gLuke was probably written c 80-130 CE.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


The very words of Christian writers have convicted them of their deception.

The character called Paul must have lived sometime between c 80-130 CE since he referred to gLuke as his gospel.

Examine Tertullian's Against Marcion

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Against Marcion 5.5
Quote:
For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.
The NT author called Paul must have been alive after gLuke was written.

Last edited by dejudge; 24th September 2020 at 11:00 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2020, 10:40 AM   #7
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,871
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The more one examines the NT and Christian writings of antiquity it becomes quite pellucid that the character called Paul and the Epistles were late inventions and had no influence at all on the early Jesus cult.

It is claimed in Christian writings that a character called Luke, a supposed close companion of NT Paul, wrote a Gospel which is in the NT Canon however Scholars argue that gLuke was falsely attributed to Luke.

Bart Ehrman in his "Argument for the Historical Jesus of Nazareth" argued that the NT Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Examine Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

Against Heresies 3.1

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History 3.4.8

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Christian writers invented a bogus character called Luke and then falsely claimed he wrote one of the Canonised Gospel.

Then NT Paul is falsely claimed to be a companion of the bogus Gospel writer called Luke.

It is extremely important to understand that Church writings admit the character called Paul was alive after gLuke was written as can be seen in Church History 3.4.8.

Now, when was gLuke written??

It is claimed that gLuke was probably written c 80-130 CE.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


The very words of Christian writers have convicted them of their deception.

The character called Paul must have lived sometime between c 80-130 CE since he referred to gLuke as his gospel.

Examine Tertullian's Against Marcion

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Against Marcion 5.5

The NT author called Paul must have been alive after gLuke was written.
Sure. Let all of them be fake for all I care. Imagine that you could demonstrate that every single name you just dropped never existed. That will convince no christians at all, and I fail to see how it convinces me, or any other atheist to be somehow more of an atheist.

So what is your point? I can see no rational objective in this behaviour.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2020, 11:20 PM   #8
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. Let all of them be fake for all I care. Imagine that you could demonstrate that every single name you just dropped never existed. That will convince no christians at all, and I fail to see how it convinces me, or any other atheist to be somehow more of an atheist.

So what is your point? I can see no rational objective in this behaviour.
Please, you wasting your time talking about convincing people. You have no idea whatsoever how much people are convinced by arguments.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2020, 01:28 AM   #9
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
In post #7 I showed that Christians writings state that it was claimed that gLuke was ascribed to Paul and he [Paul] meant to refer to gLuke wherever he mentioned "my gospel" in the Epistles.

However, there is more.

Christian writings also state the the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after the Revelation of John.

Examine a Christian writing called the Muratorian Canon.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...uratorian.html

Quote:
..... as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans......
Examine Revelation 1.11
Quote:
saying, “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What thou seest, write in a book and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
What are the probably dates for the Revelation of John?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

According to some Revelation was written c 90-95 CE.

Based on the admittance that the Pauline writer knew of gLuke and Revelation in Christian writings, [Eusebius' Church History, Tertullian's Against Marcion and the Muratorian Canon] the writer called Paul must have been alive at least sometime between 90-130 CE.

It must also be noted that in the NT itself and in Acts of the Apostles, nowhere is it stated or claimed that the Pauline writer died under Nero. Acts of the Apostles is believed to have been written sometime between c 80-130 CE and the character Paul is mentioned over a hundred times and at least 15 chapters dedicated almost exclusively to the supposed writer.

The first extant writing outside the NT to claim Paul wrote epistles to Churches is "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus supposedly composed c 175-185 CE. This Christian writing mentions Paul over a hundred times yet failed to state that Paul died under Nero.

The story that Paul was killed under Nero appears to be a late fabrication no earlier than after "Against Heresies" or after c 175-185 CE.

It would appear that whoever wrote the Epistles knew of gLuke and Revelation which would mean they were alive between 90-130 CE and wrote the Epistles at least during that time period.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2020, 06:41 AM   #10
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,929
From what I remember participating in earlier threads he feels like a lot of these concepts were floating around in general at the time. Who knows how they coalesced and who knows how they progressed from early Christianity to modern Christianity exactly. It’s kind of lost in the mist of time but it definitely didn’t happen the way the fictional writer fictionally said it happened. It just bothers Dejudge a lot that so many people buy that particular version of events and that particular writer character when it is so obvious to him that it is bunk.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2020, 11:40 PM   #11
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,954
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Please, you wasting your time talking about convincing people. You have no idea whatsoever how much people are convinced by arguments.
Now I see why you started this thread - so you could insult anyone foolish enough to enter into the 'discussion'.

I'll say one thing though - your arguments have convinced at least one person to reconsider their position. If anyone could turn someone away from the mythicist theory of Christianity it would be you.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:58 AM   #12
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Now I see why you started this thread - so you could insult anyone foolish enough to enter into the 'discussion'.

I'll say one thing though - your arguments have convinced at least one person to reconsider their position. If anyone could turn someone away from the mythicist theory of Christianity it would be you.
You still have no idea whatsoever who is or would be convinced by any argument.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:39 AM   #13
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,222
I think everyone has seen the very same typical arguments you propose here. It more often than not ends up being someone of another "faith" trying to push their version of "Skydaddy" agenda.

You fail to convince with your opinions as that's all they are. Religion or the lack of it is fine either way as long as there is morality. As long as nobody gets hurt.

So let the Christians have Jesus, let the Muslims have Muhammad, let the Buddhist have Buddha, let the Atheists have the Universe and random chance.

When you strike out to turn others against one thing or another regarding religious beliefs that means you're vested in something else. And that makes you and your motives suspect. I mean really, if you were confident and secure in your own views, why throw rocks at others? Isn't it enough knowing that you have all the answers and they're all the correct ones?

Chris B.
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:04 AM   #14
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I think everyone has seen the very same typical arguments you propose here. It more often than not ends up being someone of another "faith" trying to push their version of "Skydaddy" agenda.

You fail to convince with your opinions as that's all they are. Religion or the lack of it is fine either way as long as there is morality. As long as nobody gets hurt.

So let the Christians have Jesus, let the Muslims have Muhammad, let the Buddhist have Buddha, let the Atheists have the Universe and random chance.

When you strike out to turn others against one thing or another regarding religious beliefs that means you're vested in something else. And that makes you and your motives suspect. I mean really, if you were confident and secure in your own views, why throw rocks at others? Isn't it enough knowing that you have all the answers and they're all the correct ones?

Chris B.
What you say fails to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:27 AM   #15
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,871
Duplicate
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; Yesterday at 06:37 AM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:33 AM   #16
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,871
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Please, you wasting your time talking about convincing people. You have no idea whatsoever how much people are convinced by arguments.
But I do know that hurling insults never convinces anyone of anything.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
In post #7 I showed that Christians writings state that it was claimed that gLuke was ascribed to Paul and he [Paul] meant to refer to gLuke wherever he mentioned "my gospel" in the Epistles.

However, there is more.

Christian writings also state the the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after the Revelation of John.

Examine a Christian writing called the Muratorian Canon.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...uratorian.html



Examine Revelation 1.11

What are the probably dates for the Revelation of John?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

According to some Revelation was written c 90-95 CE.

Based on the admittance that the Pauline writer knew of gLuke and Revelation in Christian writings, [Eusebius' Church History, Tertullian's Against Marcion and the Muratorian Canon] the writer called Paul must have been alive at least sometime between 90-130 CE.

It must also be noted that in the NT itself and in Acts of the Apostles, nowhere is it stated or claimed that the Pauline writer died under Nero. Acts of the Apostles is believed to have been written sometime between c 80-130 CE and the character Paul is mentioned over a hundred times and at least 15 chapters dedicated almost exclusively to the supposed writer.

The first extant writing outside the NT to claim Paul wrote epistles to Churches is "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus supposedly composed c 175-185 CE. This Christian writing mentions Paul over a hundred times yet failed to state that Paul died under Nero.

The story that Paul was killed under Nero appears to be a late fabrication no earlier than after "Against Heresies" or after c 175-185 CE.

It would appear that whoever wrote the Epistles knew of gLuke and Revelation which would mean they were alive between 90-130 CE and wrote the Epistles at least during that time period.
Don't care. Don't believe any of it. All this wordy baloney does not make me more of an atheist.

And the stream of constant insults is unlikely to deconvert any theist. From long experience, any theist will simply respond to you by playing the faith card. You know how that goes, right? With all your vast experience? Right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM   #17
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
 
ChrisBFRPKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What you say fails to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
Yep, Muslim.

Chris B.
__________________
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” President Donald John Trump
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:45 AM   #18
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
It is without any reasonable doubt that Acts of the Apostles was composed before all the so-called Pauline Epistles.

If there was one NT writing which we would expect to mention the supposed Epistles of Paul it would be Acts of the Apostles.

Virtually every other story of Saul/Paul is mentioned except the act of writing a letter.

In fact, in Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul was not a letter writer but was like a "courier" delivering letters to churches.

Examine Acts 9.1-2

Acts 9
Quote:
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
Examine Acts 15.22-30

Acts 15
Quote:
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia......................... So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle....
It was the Jerusalem Church which wrote letters and gave to Saul/Paul and his traveling companions.

It is claimed in Acts that Saul/Paul was held during the time when Felix was governor of Judaea c 52-60 and was still in custody in the time of Festus c60-62 CE awaiting to be sent to Rome for trial.

Examine Acts 28 -When Saul/Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner c 60-62 CE he had no letter for the brethren.

Saul/Paul wrote no letter at all in Acts.

Saul/Paul healed the sick and raised the dead but he wrote no Epistles in Acts.

The author of Acts of the Apostles knew nothing whatsoever of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

The so-called Pauline Epistles are later than Acts.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:04 AM   #19
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,667
When I write letters or emails and stuff, they do not reflect the sum total of my knowledge of a given subject.Sometimes they are limited in scope. Why should we assume that any biblical authors were composing complete synopses for future generations scrutiny? Weren't they just kicking out letters to others that we have latched onto?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:41 AM   #20
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,657
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The so-called Pauline writers appear to be using stories of Jesus that that were already known to them and falsely claiming to have gotten them from a resurrected being in the third heaven.
The bible isn't true and was manipulated to serve political ends?

I am shocked.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles were late additions and were unknown to or had no influence on supposed early Christian writers.
Which is of less consequence than whether Harry Potter really did live under the stairs, since christianity (which I've long stated should really be called Pauline christianity, or simply Paulianity) has had 1700 years to cement its game and what happened prior to Augustine has very little relevance in the 21st century.

Are you looking to start a new "One True Christianity"? Or are you just having an intellectual discussion on the content of the bible?

If the former - good luck with that.
If the latter - fine, but I'm not sure what the point of it is.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The so-called Paul and the Epistles had no early influence on the Jesus cult.
Sure, but I'm sorry to tell you it's not news.

You appear to be re-hashing the arguments of Ferdinand Christian Baur from 200 years ago, so I'd love to know what you're trying to achieve, or even say.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:58 AM   #21
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
When I write letters or emails and stuff, they do not reflect the sum total of my knowledge of a given subject.Sometimes they are limited in scope. Why should we assume that any biblical authors were composing complete synopses for future generations scrutiny? Weren't they just kicking out letters to others that we have latched onto?
Most people do not write letters or e-mails with 6000 words.

To compose a hand-written letter of 6000 words in antiquity would be quite a feat and time consuming using a reed or quill pen and papyri.

Surely the author of Acts, if he was a close and traveling companion of Saul as claimed, he should have seen Saul/Paul writing these extremely long letters to Churches.

The author of Acts wrote nothing at all about Pauline letters- absolutely nothing.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:19 AM   #22
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The bible isn't true and was manipulated to serve political ends?

I am shocked.
Well, I am shocked that people are using Acts of the Apostles to date the composition of the so-called Pauline Epistles.

You can use Acts of the Apostles to date the time period when it is claimed Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud or the time when the holy Ghost came down from heaven. There are stories about those events in Acts.

There is no story at all in Acts that Saul or Paul wrote a single letter to anyone or any church.

Originally Posted by The Atheist
You appear to be re-hashing the arguments of Ferdinand Christian Baur from 200 years ago, so I'd love to know what you're trying to achieve, or even say.
You are not making much sense. You seem to imply that arguments made hundreds of years ago are useless.

By the way, these arguments are from dejudge, not from Baur.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:21 AM   #23
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,667
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Most people do not write letters or e-mails with 6000 words.

To compose a hand-written letter of 6000 words in antiquity would be quite a feat and time consuming using a reed or quill pen and papyri.

Surely the author of Acts, if he was a close and traveling companion of Saul as claimed, he should have seen Saul/Paul writing these extremely long letters to Churches.

The author of Acts wrote nothing at all about Pauline letters- absolutely nothing.
And that's exactly my point. If some guy was writing a letter to other churches, there would be no point in going through the effort of referencing peripheral things that both parties were or were not aware of. As you say, it was enough work just to compose what they were trying to communicate. I would not expect a fairly random collection of letters to reinforce each others historical narratives. I wouldn't expect the author of Acts to have randomly referenced Pauline letters for any reason. I mean, those letters weren't even yet collected together as significant, right? How would that come up? "Hey man, you know that other letter some other guy wrote to someone else?" I just wouldn't expect biblical writings to present a coherent narrative. They were not written to be.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:51 AM   #24
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,657
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Well, I am shocked that people are using Acts of the Apostles to date the composition of the so-called Pauline Epistles.
What I'd like to know is why you think any of it matters?

You're not going to convince the Romans about it now - As I said, they've been following Augustine for 1700 years, and with the benefit of self-ascribed divine intervention, they're sure as hell not going to give a rat's arse what any non-approved scholars come up with.

You're not going to convince evangelicals who believe that a 400-year-old weak English translation is the inerrant word of god.

What are you trying to prove?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You can use Acts of the Apostles to date the time period when it is claimed Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud or the time when the holy Ghost came down from heaven. There are stories about those events in Acts.

There is no story at all in Acts that Saul or Paul wrote a single letter to anyone or any church.
Yep, you've repeated that several times, so I'll repeat my question - what are you trying to achieve?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You are not making much sense. You seem to imply that arguments made hundreds of years ago are useless.
Nope, I'm just pointing out that it's not new, and it's never made a skerrick of difference so far.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
By the way, these arguments are from dejudge, not from Baur.
Goodo, but I was merely pointing out the similarity.

If you're just looking for confirmation of your ideas, then yes, you've raised very good points and appear to have researched them well.

I'd recommend you try them on a christian forum, though - there are very few people here with any investment in the bible.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #25
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
And that's exactly my point. If some guy was writing a letter to other churches, there would be no point in going through the effort of referencing peripheral things that both parties were or were not aware of. As you say, it was enough work just to compose what they were trying to communicate. I would not expect a fairly random collection of letters to reinforce each others historical narratives. I wouldn't expect the author of Acts to have randomly referenced Pauline letters for any reason. I mean, those letters weren't even yet collected together as significant, right? How would that come up? "Hey man, you know that other letter some other guy wrote to someone else?" I just wouldn't expect biblical writings to present a coherent narrative. They were not written to be.
Well, the author of Acts did reference supposed letters [plural] from the Jerusalem Church and also did mention the contents of those letters.

And not only did the author of Acts mention the contents of the Jerusalem letters, it is stated that they were given to Paul and his companions and that they delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is directly about what the Apostles did after the ascension of their resurrected Jesus.

Saul/Paul is mentioned over 150 times in Acts, far more times that even Jesus and Peter combined, where it is claimed he persecuted believers, blinded by a bright light, carried out miracles, raised the dead, was shipwrecked, imprisoned and preached in synagogues around the Empire.

One act is missing about Saul or Paul from Acts.

The act of writing a letter.

All the so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:38 PM   #26
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 11,667
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Well, the author of Acts did reference supposed letters [plural] from the Jerusalem Church and also did mention the contents of those letters.

And not only did the author of Acts mention the contents of the Jerusalem letters, it is stated that they were given to Paul and his companions and that they delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles, as the name implies, is directly about what the Apostles did after the ascension of their resurrected Jesus.

Saul/Paul is mentioned over 150 times in Acts, far more times that even Jesus and Peter combined, where it is claimed he persecuted believers, blinded by a bright light, carried out miracles, raised the dead, was shipwrecked, imprisoned and preached in synagogues around the Empire.

One act is missing about Saul or Paul from Acts.

The act of writing a letter.


All the so-called Pauline Epistles were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.
I would most humbly submit that many, many acts allegedly performed by S/Paul are missing. Is there a chapter on "Paul spanketh his monkey"? The author of the Acts may not have seen the need to include writing letters, prolific though they may or not have been. When my followers write of my exploits, they might not refer to my postings here either. Not because they are not awesome, but because they don't matter in context. Paul's writings were not collected yet; the author of Acts may have had no idea about their volume or significance yet.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; Yesterday at 12:39 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:22 PM   #27
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,699
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I would most humbly submit that many, many acts allegedly performed by S/Paul are missing. Is there a chapter on "Paul spanketh his monkey"?
Paul spanketh a monkey? I am not arguing that Paul spanketh a monkey.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The author of the Acts may not have seen the need to include writing letters, prolific though they may or not have been. When my followers write of my exploits, they might not refer to my postings here either. Not because they are not awesome, but because they don't matter in context. Paul's writings were not collected yet; the author of Acts may have had no idea about their volume or significance yet.
Well, based on your maybe argument, you forgot to mention that the author of Acts may not have written about the so-called Pauline Epistles because they were not yet written.

I am not dealing maybe this and maybe that. I deal with existing evidence.

Some argue that Pauline Epistles were composed before c 70 CE.

I argue, based on the existing evidence, that Paul was a fabricated character and that the Epistles were all written no earlier than c 175 CE.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.