Before Celsus: 1 Clement, "Ignatius", Polycarp, Basilides, the Naasseenes, Marcion, Ptolemy knew Paul wrote 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.
Note: For Basilides, the Naassenes & Ptolemy, see http://historical-jesus.info/64.html then "find" on: 2)
Are you thinking all the texts from these authors were written after 175 AD?
Also check:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical"ones
http://historical-jesus.info/66.html Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?
I already provided evidence Paul existed in my previous post. What additional kind of historical evidence do you expect?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.
Earlier than Celsus, Epistula Apostolorum (written some 25 years before Celsus) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apostolorum.html, shows it knows about Acts: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?
30-31 "But he [resurrected Jesus] said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel ... And unto the others also will I give my power, that they may teach the residue of the peoples.
31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected. Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven."
It's not dead silence when I give positive evidence and arguments about the dating of Paul's public life and his epistles. And do you think your Pauline & Acts writers would have known these dating details (Gallio as proconsul of Achia, Aretas, etc) some 125 years later?Argument from dead silence. How old was the brother of the Lord in 40 CE?
How old was James in 40 CE? Why would that matter? What matters is that Paul met him. So James, the brother of Jesus was alive then.
We went through that earlier:By the time the Epistle to the Romans was written the Jewish Temple had already fallen.
"them" stands for unbelievers according to Ro 11:20 and 23.
Yes unbelievers, not Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
And the rest of your evidence is: this author or text does not mention Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts.
That's what I call evidence from dead silence, more so because there are POSITIVE evidence to the contrary, that they are authors and texts mentioning Paul, Paul wrote letters, Acts, all of that before Celsus.
No, it is from long research, mostly from Paul epistles, with a bit of Acts. Of course, you did not read my web page I posted where I explain everything.Argument from silence.
You invented those dates simply because Acts of the Apostle claimed Saul/Paul preached in those cities or region
So, do you have positive evidence of other cities where Paul preached, other than the ones mentioned in Acts and Paul's epistles? I guess not.
Cordially, Bernard