On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
But, your argument is contradictory since you now claim Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp mention Paul
Not only they mention Paul, but also Paul wrote epistle(s). And I don't claim that without pinpoint evidence.
And I don't have any idea why my so-called argument is contradictory.
Christian writers must have reason to mention those who supposedly preached the Gospel. The fore-mentioned writers knew nothing of a character called Paul who preached the Gospel and wrote letters anywhere in the whole world.
Not anywhere in the whole world, but addressed to only Galatia, Corinth, Rome, Colosse, Thessalonica and Philippi.
And written from Thessalonia, Ephesus and Corinth.
And these aforementioned writers did not know personally Paul, but they knew about some of his letters.
Romans 11 is not the only evidence that the Epistles were written after 70 CE. There are multiple sources of evidence. We have the short gMark, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles, Aristides' Apology, the works of Justin Martyr, writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, Philo, Pliny the elder, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Celsus and others.
I replied: "Argument from silence. Almost all these texts and authors had no reason to mention Paul wrote epistles in their writings."
And your so-called evidence is not POSITIVE evidence. Mine, about 1 Clement, "Ignatius" and Polycarp is POSITIVE.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:But, your argument is contradictory since you now claim Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp mention Paul
Bernard Muller wrote:Not only they mention Paul, but also Paul wrote epistle(s). And I don't claim that without pinpoint evidence.
And I don't have any idea why my so-called argument is contradictory.
Your argument is contradictory because you imply that even Christian writers had no reason to mention Paul but then immediately claimed Christian writers mentioned Paul.

The mention of a character called Paul and that he wrote Epistles does not mean that such a person was Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Surely you must be aware it is argued that many Christian writers were falsely using the name of Paul.

It is argued by many Scholars that Epistles under the name of Paul were forgeries so claiming Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp mention the name Paul may not be evidence at all.

Now, please tell me what pinpoint evidence you have to show which Paul is found in the writings attributed Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp and when they were written?
hakeem wrote:Christian writers must have reason to mention those who supposedly preached the Gospel. The fore-mentioned writers knew nothing of a character called Paul who preached the Gospel and wrote letters anywhere in the whole world.
Bernard Muller wrote: Not anywhere in the whole world, but addressed to only Galatia, Corinth, Rome, Colosse, Thessalonica and Philippi.
And written from Thessalonia, Ephesus and Corinth.
And these aforementioned writers did not know personally Paul, but they knew about some of his letters.
Christians writer claimed it was the twelve apostles of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world. They don't know anything about Paul, his evangelism and his letters.

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


kakeem wrote:Romans 11 is not the only evidence that the Epistles were written after 70 CE. There are multiple sources of evidence. We have the short gMark, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles, Aristides' Apology, the works of Justin Martyr, writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, Philo, Pliny the elder, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Celsus and others.
Bernard Muller wrote:I replied: "Argument from silence. Almost all these texts and authors had no reason to mention Paul wrote epistles in their writings."
And your so-called evidence is not POSITIVE evidence. Mine, about 1 Clement, "Ignatius" and Polycarp is POSITIVE.
Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp are not evidence that a character Paul, a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

The writings never mentioned all those Epistles except perhaps one

Your argument is derived from dead silence.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Your argument is contradictory because you imply that even Christian writers had no reason to mention Paul but then immediately claimed Christian writers mentioned Paul.
Not all Christian writers; only the ones you put in your list: short gMark, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles, Aristides' Apology, the works of Justin Martyr, writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix.
Where do you think short Mark would fit Paul writing letters? Same question for Revelation, and others.
Acts of the Apostles is the exception, but the others do not even mention Paul.
The mention of a character called Paul and that he wrote Epistles does not mean that such a person was Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.
So what other Paul would it be?
Surely you must be aware it is argued that many Christian writers were falsely using the name of Paul.
Certainly, but that does not prevent the real Paul to have written epistles.
It is argued by many Scholars that Epistles under the name of Paul were forgeries so claiming Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp mention the name Paul may not be evidence at all.
Actually, not so many writers claim(ed) that all Epistles under the name of Paul were forgeries.
Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp do more than mentioning Paul, they say he wrote letter(s).
Now, please tell me what pinpoint evidence you have to show which Paul is found in the writings attributed Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp and when they were written?
I already indicated that in one of my earlier posts:
But "Ignatius" did mention Paul writing epistle(s): to the Ephesians 12:2
As also 1 Clement: 47:2
As also Polycarp to the Philippians: 3:2

When they were written? not later that 150 AD and (for 1 Clement) as early as 80 AD.
That would be before Justin Martyr, writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix.
Christians writer claimed it was the twelve apostles of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world.
That legend started in the 2nd century. Earlier, Acts of the Apostles, have the disciples staying in Jerusalem, and then Paul doing his preaching, not in the whole world, but in a part of the North East of the Roman empire.
They don't know anything about Paul, his evangelism and his letters.
Just because these writers have the unrealistic claim of the twelve apostles of Jesus preaching the Gospel to the whole world. that does not mean they did not know about Paul.
Let's take Irenaeus: he had Paul having written epistles in Against Heresies, and he knew about Acts, but in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 41 [160], we read:
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily [161] resurrection--these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles, showing to mankind the way of life, to turn them from idols and fornication and covetousness, cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit they had received of the Lord, and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established the Churches"

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:10 pm
hakeem wrote:Your argument is contradictory because you imply that even Christian writers had no reason to mention Paul but then immediately claimed Christian writers mentioned Paul.
Not all Christian writers; only the ones you put in your list: short gMark, Revelation, Acts of the Apostles, Aristides' Apology, the works of Justin Martyr, writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix.
Where do you think short Mark would fit Paul writing letters? Same question for Revelation, and others.
Acts of the Apostles is the exception, but the others do not even mention Paul.
Well, if all those writings I mentioned were really after Paul evangelised the Roman Empire, founded Churches and wrote Epistles then I would expect those supposed later writings to acknowledge Paul as an early evangelist and make references to his teachings and Epistles.

If it was already preached by the supposed Paul, documented in his Epistle and known in the Roman Empire that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus then I would expect the author of GMark to make a similar assertion.

The author the short GMark contradicted the Pauline writer and claimed the visitors saw an empty tomb and ran away trembling and terrified saying nothing to anyone.

Even Acts of the Apostles which mentions a character called Paul, and supposedly traveled and preach with him, does not state that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus. But even worse, the author of Acts knew nothing about Paul writing letters to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire and did not quote a single sentence or half a sentence from any of the Epistles.

It is clear to me that no NT author ever saw Paul, saw him preach or read his supposed Epistles.
hakeem wrote:The mention of a character called Paul and that he wrote Epistles does not mean that such a person was Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.
Bernard Mueller wrote: So what other Paul would it be?
I will let Ignatius answer you. He knows someone called Paul who wrote to the Ephesians.

Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians.
And ye are, as Paul wrote to you, "one body and one spirit, because ye have also been called in one hope of the faith.
Ephesians 4:4........
one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling
hakeem wrote:Surely you must be aware it is argued that many Christian writers were falsely using the name of Paul.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Certainly, but that does not prevent the real Paul to have written epistles.
Well, if Saul was the real Paul he certainly did not write any Epistles to anyone at any time.

Read Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul wrote nothing.
hakeem wrote:It is argued by many Scholars that Epistles under the name of Paul were forgeries so claiming Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp mention the name Paul may not be evidence at all.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Actually, not so many writers claim(ed) that all Epistles under the name of Paul were forgeries.
Ignatius, Clement and Polycarp do more than mentioning Paul, they say he wrote letter(s).
You have many problems.

The author of Acts who claimed to have traveled, preached and prayed with Saul/Paul did not state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote letters to anyone or any Church up to c 61-64 CE.

It is the opposite--Saul/Paul received letters and delivered them.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was held in bond at Caesarea awaiting trial in Rome.

Acts 25:14
And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix

Now, look at the Epistle to the Romans.

The Pauline writer claimed he would go to Rome on his way to Spain.

Romans 15:24
Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you.....
Romans 15:28
When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.

No such claim is found in Acts of the Apostles.

When did the Epistle writer go to Spain?

Who was the real Paul? Was there a real Paul?

So many Pauls in the NT.

hakeem wrote:Christians writer claimed it was the twelve apostles of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world.
Bernard Mueller wrote:That legend started in the 2nd century. Earlier, Acts of the Apostles, have the disciples staying in Jerusalem, and then Paul doing his preaching, not in the whole world, but in a part of the North East of the Roman empire.
The legend that Paul founded Churches started even later.
hakeem wrote: They don't know anything about Paul, his evangelism and his letters.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Just because these writers have the unrealistic claim of the twelve apostles of Jesus preaching the Gospel to the whole world. that does not mean they did not know about Paul.
What you say does not mean they knew Paul.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Let's take Irenaeus: he had Paul having written epistles in Against Heresies, and he knew about Acts, but in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 41 [160], we read:
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily [161] resurrection--these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles, showing to mankind the way of life, to turn them from idols and fornication and covetousness, cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit they had received of the Lord, and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established the Churches"

Cordially, Bernard
Please, don't forget that Irenaeus claimed his Jesus was crucified when he[Jesus] was about to be fifty years old and also stated he [Jesus] was about to be 30 years in the fifteenth year of Tiberius which would mean Irenaus' Jesus was crucified sometime around 48-49 CE.

Surely the supposed Paul in Irenaeus Against Heresies could not have preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 if he [jesus] was crucified c 48-49 CE.

Who was the Paul in "Against Heresies".

So many Pauls I can't count them.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
Paul evangelised the Roman Empire
Only a small part of it. And he was not the only one.
I would expect those supposed later writings to acknowledge Paul as an early evangelist and make references to his teachings and Epistles
Some of them did.
If it was already preached by the supposed Paul, documented in his Epistle and known in the Roman Empire that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus then I would expect the author of GMark to make a similar assertion.
In the time of Paul, Gentile Christianity was starting and likely not known, at least in any details, all other the Roman empire.
The part including the 500 persons is most likely part of an interpolation: see http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
The author the short GMark contradicted the Pauline writer and claimed the visitors saw an empty tomb and ran away trembling and terrified saying nothing to anyone.
There are many, many contradictions in the NT texts, starting by the very different accounts of the empty tomb in the Synoptic gospels.
Even Acts of the Apostles which mentions a character called Paul, and supposedly traveled and preach with him, does not state that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus. But even worse, the author of Acts knew nothing about Paul writing letters to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire and did not quote a single sentence or half a sentence from any of the Epistles.
The interpolation with the 500 was likely written after Acts. Just because Acts does not mention Paul's epistles does not mean they did not exist yet. And Paul did not write letters to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire, but only in a small part of it in the North East, such as Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth. The only exception is Rome.
Read Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul wrote nothing.
Argument from silence. Acts does not say Paul did not write any epistles.
It is the opposite--Saul/Paul received letters and delivered them.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was held in bond at Caesarea awaiting trial in Rome.
Where does it say that Paul delivered letters?
Now, look at the Epistle to the Romans.

The Pauline writer claimed he would go to Rome on his way to Spain.
Paul wanted to go to Rome before going to Spain.
No such claim is found in Acts of the Apostles.

When did the Epistle writer go to Spain?

Who was the real Paul? Was there a real Paul?

So many Pauls in the NT.
Paul very likely did not go to Spain but Acts says he went to Rome as a prisoner and then Acts ends.
And it is not a claim about going to Rome & Spain, just a wish by Paul, something he wanted to do after going to Jerusalem.
The legend that Paul founded Churches started even later.
How do you know that? Evidence please.
Please, don't forget that Irenaeus claimed his Jesus was crucified when he[Jesus] was about to be fifty years old and also stated he [Jesus] was about to be 30 years in the fifteenth year of Tiberius which would mean Irenaus' Jesus was crucified sometime around 48-49 CE.

Surely the supposed Paul in Irenaeus Against Heresies could not have preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 if he [jesus] was crucified c 48-49 CE.
Irenaeus was trying to make a point against the common understanding that Jesus' ministry lasted one year. And of course, a long ministry is better than a flash in the pan. Of course he was wrong, because Jesus was executed during Pilate's rule (the gospels, Marcion, Tacitus) ending in 36 AD.
And I wonder from where did you get "Christ crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41"?

About the dating of Acts and Paul's external evidence: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html and http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:Paul evangelised the Roman Empire
Bernard Muller wrote: Only a small part of it. And he was not the only one.
Argument from silence.
hakeem wrote:I would expect those supposed later writings to acknowledge Paul as an early evangelist and make references to his teachings and Epistles
Bernard Muller wrote: Some of them did.
No, No!!! I am referring to the writings I mentioned. None of them made mention of his Epistles.
hakeem wrote:If it was already preached by the supposed Paul, documented in his Epistle and known in the Roman Empire that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus then I would expect the author of GMark to make a similar assertion.
Bernard Muller wrote: In the time of Paul, Gentile Christianity was starting and likely not known, at least in any details, all other the Roman empire.
Argument from silence.
Bernard Muller wrote:The part including the 500 persons is most likely part of an interpolation: see http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
Ok. I understand now. Whatever does not support your position must be an interpolation.
hakeem wrote:The author the short GMark contradicted the Pauline writer and claimed the visitors saw an empty tomb and ran away trembling and terrified saying nothing to anyone.
Bernard Muller wrote:There are many, many contradictions in the NT texts, starting by the very different accounts of the empty tomb in the Synoptic gospels.
Likewise there are many Pauls in the NT --one went to Spain while the other was in Jail
hakeem wrote:Even Acts of the Apostles which mentions a character called Paul, and supposedly traveled and preach with him, does not state that over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus. But even worse, the author of Acts knew nothing about Paul writing letters to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire and did not quote a single sentence or half a sentence from any of the Epistles.
Bernard Muller wrote: The interpolation with the 500 was likely written after Acts. Just because Acts does not mention Paul's epistles does not mean they did not exist yet.
Argument from silence.
Bernard Muller wrote: And Paul did not write letters to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire, but only in a small part of it in the North East, such as Galatia, Macedonia and Corinth. The only exception is Rome.
Acts of the Apostles does state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire or that Saul/Paul would go Rome on his way to Spain.
hakeem wrote:Read Acts of the Apostles.

Saul/Paul wrote nothing.
Bernard Muller wrote: Argument from silence. Acts does not say Paul did not write any epistles.
Argument from silence.
hakeem wrote:It is the opposite--Saul/Paul received letters and delivered them.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was held in bond at Caesarea awaiting trial in Rome.
Bernard Muller wrote: Where does it say that Paul delivered letters?

Acts 15:30
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle

Bernard Muller wrote:]Now, look at the Epistle to the Romans.

[The Pauline writer claimed he would go to Rome on his way to Spain.
Bernard Muller wrote: Paul wanted to go to Rome before going to Spain.
You make me laugh.

This other Roman Epistle Paul said he is going to JERUSALEM to give money to the poor before he goes to Spain.

Romans 15:25
But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
Saul/Paul is in jail in Acts while Epistle Paul is traveling to Jerusalem.

So many Pauls in the NT.
Bernard Muller wrote:Paul very likely did not go to Spain but Acts says he went to Rome as a prisoner and then Acts ends.
And it is not a claim about going to Rome & Spain, just a wish by Paul, something he wanted to do after going to Jerusalem.
Acts ends without a mention of Spain or Epistles.
The legend that Paul founded Churches started even later.
Bernard Muller wrote:How do you know that? Evidence please.
The Christian writings which claimed Epistle Paul founded Churches are supposedly from the late 2nd-3rd century.
hakeem wrote:Please, don't forget that Irenaeus claimed his Jesus was crucified when he[Jesus] was about to be fifty years old and also stated he [Jesus] was about to be 30 years in the fifteenth year of Tiberius which would mean Irenaus' Jesus was crucified sometime around 48-49 CE.

Surely the supposed Paul in Irenaeus Against Heresies could not have preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 if he [jesus] was crucified c 48-49 CE.
Bernard Muller wrote: Irenaeus was trying to make a point against the common understanding that Jesus' ministry lasted one year. And of course, a long ministry is better than a flash in the pan. Of course he was wrong, because Jesus was executed during Pilate's rule (the gospels, Marcion, Tacitus) ending in 36 AD.
It is virtually impossible for an actual presbyter and bishop of a Christian Church to make such a mistake. "Against Heresies" is a corrupted writing with multiple authors. Anyone who has read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles at the lowest level could not argue and document such stupidity.
The author who wrote that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old could not have known or accepted the NT Gospels and Acts.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
No, No!!! I am referring to the writings I mentioned. None of them made mention of his Epistles.
You are very selective: Mentioning the writings which do not have Paul writing epistles and ignoring those who say he did.
Likewise there are many Pauls in the NT --one went to Spain while the other was in Jail
How did you come to that? Nothing says Paul went to Spain (except suggested in the greatly exagerated 1 Clement 5: 5-6). Only that Paul wanted to go to Spain. That does not mean he went to Spain:
Romans 15:24-25: "I hope to see you [Christians of Rome] in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.
At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints."

Acts of the Apostles does state anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles to anyone anywhere in the Roman Empire or that Saul/Paul would go Rome on his way to Spain.
In Acts, Paul goes to Rome (as a prisoner).
Saul/Paul is in jail in Acts while Epistle Paul is traveling to Jerusalem.
According to Acts, Paul is in jail in Cesarea, THEN goes to Rome. No conflict here, same Paul.
The legend that Paul founded Churches started even later.
Bernard Muller wrote:
How do you know that? Evidence please.
The Christian writings which claimed Epistle Paul founded Churches are supposedly from the late 2nd-3rd century.
That's no evidence for the Pauline epistles being written so late. And what about Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles?
So, when do you think the Pauline epistles were written?
It is virtually impossible for an actual presbyter and bishop of a Christian Church to make such a mistake. "Against Heresies" is a corrupted writing with multiple authors. Anyone who has read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles at the lowest level could not argue and document such stupidity.
The author who wrote that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old could not have known or accepted the NT Gospels and Acts.
Actually, Irenaeus developped many arguments for his fifty years along a whole chapter (AH 2, Ch. XXII) and within that chapter (section 5) he named Luke and quoted from gLuke. So he knew about gospels when he wrote that chapter about the fifty years.
And in his books against heresies, Irenaeus indicated he knew about the gospels and even pushed four of them to a near canonical condition.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: You are very selective: Mentioning the writings which do not have Paul writing epistles and ignoring those who say he did.
I am not selective at all. I examined NT Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Revelation and non-Pauline Epistles and none them claimed Saul or Paul wrote Epistles around the Roman Empire. The only non-Pauline Epistle which mentions Paul is 2 Peter but is regarded as a forgery by Christian writer Eusebius.

Writings which mention Paul as an Epistle writer who heard the voice of the resurrected Jesus are generally forgeries or very late like 2 Peter, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus.
hakeem wrote:Likewise there are many Pauls in the NT --one went to Spain while the other was in Jail
Bernard Muller wrote:How did you come to that? Nothing says Paul went to Spain (except suggested in the greatly exagerated 1 Clement 5: 5-6). Only that Paul wanted to go to Spain. That does not mean he went to Spain:
Romans 15:24-25: "I hope to see you [Christians of Rome] in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.
At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints."
That is precisely the problem. In Acts, when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome he did not have any letter and no-one in Rome received a letter from or about him.

The Saul/Paul in Acts is not Paul the Epistle writer.

Acts 28:21
And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee.

hakeem wrote:The Christian writings which claimed Epistle Paul founded Churches are supposedly from the late 2nd-3rd century.
Bernard Muller wrote:That's no evidence for the Pauline epistles being written so late. And what about Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles?
So, when do you think the Pauline epistles were written?
There is no historical evidence Paul lived much less write anything. You have no evidence at all to show that some-one named Paul actually wrote Epistles and when they were written except you use arguments from silence.
hakeem wrote:It is virtually impossible for an actual presbyter and bishop of a Christian Church to make such a mistake. "Against Heresies" is a corrupted writing with multiple authors. Anyone who has read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles at the lowest level could not argue and document such stupidity.
The author who wrote that Jesus was crucified when he was about to be fifty years old could not have known or accepted the NT Gospels and Acts.
Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, Irenaeus developped many arguments for his fifty years along a whole chapter (AH 2, Ch. XXII) and within that chapter (section 5) he named Luke and quoted from gLuke. So he knew about gospels when he wrote that chapter about the fifty years.
And in his books against heresies, Irenaeus indicated he knew about the gospels and even pushed four of them to a near canonical condition.

Cordially, Bernard
Again, if Irenaeus was a presbyter and bishop of Lyons and knew the NT Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles it would complete stupidity for him to have argued that his Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

You seem to forget that stories of Jesus should have been known and circulated for well over a hundred years before "Against Heresies" was composed.

The argument for a fifty year old crucified Jesus must be from another writer.

"Against Heresies" must be a corrupted writing where the manuscript was manipulated by a Christian hand.

Based on Against Heresies 2.22, the original author appears to have been an heretic who did not accept the Gospels.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Hakeem,
Writings which mention Paul as an Epistle writer who heard the voice of the resurrected Jesus are generally forgeries or very late like 2 Peter, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus.
Of course these writing were not written by Peter, Ignatius (according to my study: http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html) or possibly not from a Clement of Rome.
But they were written before the ones of Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens and Municius Felix.
That is precisely the problem. In Acts, when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome he did not have any letter and no-one in Rome received a letter from or about him.
Acts is not to be fully believed: "Luke" tried to elevate Paul to formidable heights by his trip to Rome and more so his house arrest in Rome (with a guard he pays himself) and where he would receive many Jewish guests. That does not make sense.
I trust a lot more that passage in a 2nd century made up Pauline epistle, and probably coming from an early source:
2 Timothy 1:16-18: The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day); and in how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
There is no historical evidence Paul lived much less write anything. You have no evidence at all to show that some-one named Paul actually wrote Epistles and when they were written except you use arguments from silence.

So far, you did not prove Paul did not live and much less write anything. And you did not answer my question from an earlier post: So, when do you think the Pauline epistles were written?

My evidence is in the epistles themselves, where Paul is a preacher on the run, whose credentials are doubted, who has competition and had to fight to keep his converts, who is trying to solve problems with these troublesome Corinthians (and at times being rejected by them), etc.
Why would a Pauline author go into that? And why choose a non-eyewitness of Jesus to propagate Christianity in a corner of the Roman empire?
Why would this Pauline author says Paul admitted of making pious lies (http://historical-jesus.info/5.html) and trying to correct his own writing: http://historical-jesus.info/55.html?

Compare Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon with the rather stern pseudo-Pauline Ephesians, 1& 2 Timothy and fake 1 Peter.

About time of writing, and with Paul having written Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, considering:
Jerusalem was still standing, Paul met the brother of the Lord (Jesus), started to be active during the rule of Aretas IV (died in 40 AD), a mid 1st century AD for the epistles of Paul makes sense. Added to that, Acts has Paul in Corinth, when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (only from 51 to 52 AD).

According to my study, the genuine Pauline epistles were written in 50 (1 Thessalonians) and then from 53 (1 Corinthians) to 57 (Romans). Details and justifications in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
BTW, "Mark", who wrote his gospel soon after the events of 70 AD, knew about 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/66.html

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:Writings which mention Paul as an Epistle writer who heard the voice of the resurrected Jesus are generally forgeries or very late like 2 Peter, Ignatius, Clement and Irenaeus.
Bernard Muller wrote:Of course these writing were not written by Peter, Ignatius (according to my study: http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html) or possibly not from a Clement of Rome.
But they were written before the ones of Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens and Municius Felix.
Argument from dead silence.
hakeem wrote:That is precisely the problem. In Acts, when Saul/Paul arrived in Rome he did not have any letter and no-one in Rome received a letter from or about him.
Bernard Muller wrote:Acts is not to be fully believed: "Luke" tried to elevate Paul to formidable heights by his trip to Rome and more so his house arrest in Rome (with a guard he pays himself) and where he would receive many Jewish guests. That does not make sense.
I trust a lot more that passage in a 2nd century made up Pauline epistle, and probably coming from an early source:
2 Timothy 1:16-18: The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day); and in how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.
I don't trust NT Epistles under the name of Paul. I understand that they are products of multiple unknown writers pretending to be Saul in Acts. They didn't realize Acts of the Apostles was total fiction with respect to the resurrected Jesus, the Apostles and Saul.

hakeem wrote:There is no historical evidence Paul lived much less write anything. You have no evidence at all to show that some-one named Paul actually wrote Epistles and when they were written except you use arguments from silence.

Bernard Muller wrote:So far, you did not prove Paul did not live and much less write anything. And you did not answer my question from an earlier post: So, when do you think the Pauline epistles were written?
You are the one who must provide historical evidence for NT Paul since you argue he existed. All characters that did not exist have no evidence of their existence. I will always argue that NT Paul did not exist because you have never provided any historical evidence of his existence.

NT Epistles under the name of Paul were probably written sometime after c 175 CE or after Celsus' True Discourse".

In Origen's "Against Celsus" it is claimed Celsus wrote " True Discourse" against Christians but failed to mention anything about Paul.

Origen's "Against Celsus"1.63
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

How could Celsus say anything about Paul when he [Celsus] did not write about events which are found in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles?

Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were not yet invented in the time of Celsus' 'True Discourse'..
Later non-apologetic writers , after Celsus, who wrote against the Christian religion did mention Paul which implies Acts of the Apostle and Epistle were written later than Celsus' True Discourse.

Bernard Muller wrote: My evidence is in the epistles themselves, where Paul is a preacher on the run, whose credentials are doubted, who has competition and had to fight to keep his converts, who is trying to solve problems with these troublesome Corinthians (and at times being rejected by them), etc.
Why would a Pauline author go into that? And why choose a non-eyewitness of Jesus to propagate Christianity in a corner of the Roman empire?
Why would this Pauline author says Paul admitted of making pious lies (http://historical-jesus.info/5.html) and trying to correct his own writing: http://historical-jesus.info/55.html?
Your methodology is the very worst. Your approach is similar to Christian believers. You believe the Epistles so Paul must have written them.
Bernard Muller wrote: About time of writing, and with Paul having written Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, considering:Jerusalem was still standing, Paul met the brother of the Lord (Jesus), started to be active during the rule of Aretas IV (died in 40 AD), a mid 1st century AD for the epistles of Paul makes sense. Added to that, Acts has Paul in Corinth, when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (only from 51 to 52 AD).

Argument from dead silence. How old was the brother of the Lord in 40 CE?

By the time the Epistle to the Romans was written the Jewish Temple had already fallen.

Romans 11:22
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Bernard Muller wrote:According to my study, the genuine Pauline epistles were written in 50 (1 Thessalonians) and then from 53 (1 Corinthians) to 57 (Romans). Details and justifications in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
BTW, "Mark", who wrote his gospel soon after the events of 70 AD, knew about 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/66.html

Cordially, Bernard
Argument from silence.

You invented those dates simply because Acts of the Apostle claimed Saul/Paul preached in those cities or region.

There is one act that is not mentioned in Acts -- Saul/Paul writing letters.
Post Reply