Pauline Letters to the church.

[Minimalist]

Paul was the lead member of a team of people charged with spreading Xianity outside Israel.

Or, saul/paul was a fictional creation designed to fill that role.

[Brakeman]

The Pauline epistles were letters to the church from Paul telling them what to do on orders from god.

Weren't the church members praying already? Wasn't god already talking to them? Why the need for a stranger's claims of god messages? One can only conclude that the prayers from the church people were going unanswered and they were just talking to themselves during prayer time. Then they were taking at face value the god claims of a crazy person who said that he did hear god's voice.

What else fits?

I wonder if I might examine the OP in a different direction to so far.

I don't recognise the historical situation described. Paul's churches weren't looking to him to generate God-breathed scripture in the way described in the OP.

Paul was the lead member of a team of people charged with spreading Xianity outside Israel. Given the limited communications of the day, writing letters to deal with issues that came up was a sensible means of operating. These were supplemented by visits from his team and others (a visit by Peter is discussed in Galatians 2, for example).

There certainly was revelationary content emerging from prayer sessions, and in places like 1 Corinthians 14 he investigates some aspects of this.

The churches would have looked to him to give leadership guidance, and 2 Corinthians 12:12 gives a good reason for accepting this- Paul's activity amongst them showed very clear signs of God's action through him. “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works”.

Which, BTW, seems an odd comment to make if these things hadn't happened.

It makes no difference whether Paul was a part of a team, or whether he was truthful or not, that was not the point of the question.

The question was: "Why would any church at that time have any need to turn to a stranger outside of their own congregation when they have access to the perfect leader, jesus, in their prayers?"

[Minimalist]

The question was: "Why would any church at that time have any need to turn to a stranger outside of their own congregation when they have access to the perfect leader, jesus, in their prayers?"

One needs to have an understanding of Marcionism to get a grasp on that.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God, and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic, that is, they posit opposing gods, forces, or principles: one higher, spiritual, and "good", and the other lower, material, and "evil" (compare Manichaeism), in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that "evil" has no independent existence, but is a privation or lack of "good",[2] a view shared by the Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides.[3]

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the Hebrew God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge (see also God as the Devil). Marcion was labeled a gnostic by Philip Schaff,[4] while other scholars have rejected that categorization. Marcion's canon consisted of eleven books: A gospel consisting of ten sections from the Gospel of Luke edited by Marcion; and ten of Paul's epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the 27 book New Testament canon were rejected.[5] Paul's epistles enjoy a prominent position in the Marcionite canon, since Paul is credited with correctly transmitting the universality of Jesus' message. Other authors' epistles were rejected since they seemed to suggest that Jesus had simply come to found a new sect within broader Judaism.[citation needed] Religious tribalism of this sort seemed to echo Yahwism, and was thus regarded as a corruption of the "Heavenly Father"'s teaching.

Courtesy Wiki.

Marcion established the first xtian canon c 145AD. Much of "luke" and 10 epistles attributed to "Paul." No one had ever heard of "Paul" before that time. Marcion's vision of xtianity was shorn of any yahweh shit so who better for his "proponent" than a former jew who saw the light?

[Lemonvariable72]

So satan decieves people intentionally on god behalf,

Yuup. Adam and Eve, Those in 2thess paul mentions at the end times etc..

with a end result of those people being sent to hell for rejecting his word because satan decieved them.

Yuuup.

Yet god is not evil?

Nuup.
Why? Because 'good and evil' are not standards that exist outside of God's will. What is good is 'good/righteous' because God said it is. and what is sin/evil is so because God said it was bad.

Might makes right got it, You know that basically mean your god is evil as hell if he decides to got that morality, instead of following Moral utilitarianism right?

From the beginning with Adam and Eve, 'we/man' have been given the ablity to choose, but without someone to point out the choice we have we are not able to identify, any will outside of God's expressed will. That is why Satan was allowed into the Garden to tempt eve.

Satan repersents choice or the other half of biblically based 'free will.' If God repersents truth, then Satan must take the position of deception to provide the oppertunity for us to have a secondary option to choose from. The act of deception in of itself hold no intrinisically good or bad juju. It is how deception is used (in or against the will of God) that makes deception a sin or even an expression of evil.

ANd I'm sure such a important point would be very clear and detailed in the bible given if it was true right?

Before you ask another question it is important you understand this concept (That our deeds hold no 'moral' [for the lack of a better term] value in of themselves.) It is what we do in relation to what God has told us to do that make an action sinful or evil.

That's utter bullshit. Your god can't even be objectively proven to exist, but yet all of our morality is based from him? The same god that would have you kill your wife if she stop believing?
I personally recommend moral utilitarianism because it can be aptly demonstrated that it makes the world a far better place when applied on a large scale. It's where your human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from come from.

Like the bible?
Here are a few

[hide]
Destruction of egypt
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.[5]

This passage is one of the most erroneous in the entire Bible. Egypt has never been a desolate waste,

Are you high?
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4TSHB...d=0CBgQsAQ
egypt even in the time of Christ was a desolate waste land compare to what it was when the prophesy was made.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http...CEwQrQMwEA
According to some scholars it was the most lush region in that part of the world.

Here let me bold the important part for you.

there has never been a time when people have not walked through it, there has never been a period of forty years when Egypt was uninhabited, and it has never been surrounded by other desolate countries.[6]

Take another look at what egypt is...
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4TSHB...d=0CBgQsAQ
compared to what some say was a region that paralleled the Amazonian rain forrest when that prophesy was given.

well then by that the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, texas, and new mexico are all desolate too. I mean look at nevada

In Ezekiel 30:10-11 he further predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Egypt:

and he did...
What the problem is?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...Carchemish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carchemish
http://www.jrmi.org/the-battle-of-carchemish/

Don't tell me you just assumed the website you were quoting was telling the truth?!?!

Always double check, half that crap is made up the other half is cherry picked and glued back together, none of it repersents the truth. It's just the filler ichy ears want to hear.

They shall draw their swords against Egypt,
And fill the land with the slain.

Again they did that very thing.

12 I will make the rivers dry,
And sell the land into the hand of the wicked;
I will make the land waste, and all that is in it,
By the hand of aliens.
I, the Lord, have spoken.”

and He did, so again what the problem is?

However, Nebuchadnezzar was defeated in his only attempt to invade Egypt.[7]

you do have a citation to back up that little 'fact' outside of 'ihategodandiwillmakecrapupinordertodisprovehim.com don't you? Of course you don't.

Sure do
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/h...fulfilled/
http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/ess...Egypt.html
http://claudemariottini.com/2006/10/13/n...f-babylon/
Now got some good sources that say he did take egypt, because all I see is the same thing, that he won cachemish and did not follow up on the victory do to his fathers death.

Nile will dry up
Yep, still there

The orginal text does not mention the nile specifically. It say the rivers of eygpt. The Nile crosses into 11 countries not just egypt. All of egypts true rives (not flood plains) are gone.

funny the NIV, NASB, and RSV all say nile.

Ezekiel 30:12 continues with a prediction that the Nile River will run dry.

I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken. (NIV)

There is no evidence that this has happened in recorded history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/opinio....html?_r=0
Give it some time, we're not done yet.

Yeah, pretty much every generation since christ has made that claim.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.

This says do not marry an unbeliever. It does not say run from them.

Acts 13:10 ESV

And said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

You guys kill me, are you so desperate to make a point you would think I would not verify your passage?
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant.

6 Now when they had gone through the island[a] to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”

Clearly Paul is speaking a specific indivisual/self proclaimed wizard..

You believe in wizards? What about unicorns and dragons, there in there too

If a person can pervert the ways of the lord how much the devil who is far more powerful then us?

a lot more?

Matthew 5:22 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
(Now finish the passage and note the resolution contained with in the completed context of the message.)

23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 23:33 ESV

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

So?

Revelation 20:13-15 ESV

And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

So?

Need more? Because I think the bible is clear here, no matter what apologetic crap you come up with.

Yes please.

For the bible is very clear if you wipe the crud from your eyes and approach it with an open heart.

[Drich]

Might makes right got it, You know that basically mean your god is evil as hell if he decides to got that morality, instead of following Moral utilitarianism right?

Might makes right for the entire history of the world. We like to pretend that 'we' in this age are better than that, but we are not. Lets look at the nazis again. In the beginning the winners of WWI told germany because we are mighter than you, you will have to pay for the damage you caused. Then Germany rebelled when they relized that what was left of europe could not enforce their demands. Then the Germans began to round up jews because they were stronger than the jews. This practice became one's 'moral obligation to the father land.' Then they slaughtered them under the demands of their moral obligations. Till 'we' (bigger and stronger) said that was wrong, and we made them stop.

ANd I'm sure such a important point would be very clear and detailed in the bible given if it was true right?

Indeed it is that is why Thier is a whole book dedicated to it.

That's utter bullshit. Your god can't even be objectively proven to exist, but yet all of our morality is based from him?

No. Morality ALL Morality is a farse. It is an ever changing scale based on the evil man will allow in his soceities. God tell us that we and out morality are dirtier than used menstral rags to Him. That the only way we can cleans ourself is through redemption.

The same god that would have you kill your wife if she stop believing?

Book chapter and verse?

I personally recommend moral utilitarianism because it can be aptly demonstrated that it makes the world a far better place when applied on a large scale. It's where your human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from come from.

Until you wander into a different soceity or even outside the bounds of your current generation.

you do have a citation to back up that little 'fact' outside of 'ihategodandiwillmakecrapupinordertodisprovehim.com don't you? Of course you don't.

Sure do
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/h...fulfilled/
http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/ess...Egypt.html
http://claudemariottini.com/2006/10/13/n...f-babylon/

What are you talking about? These are all anti God sources I specifically asked if you had non-antiChristianity sources to quote from. Like I did I left quotes from the encyclopedia britinica, wiki, and one from some school. None of which were biased in trying to prove the existance of God nor were they trying to disproove it. They were simply reporting the defeat of Egypt at the Hands of King Nebacanezzar, which you said did not happen.

so I ask again do you have a legit source or just anti God web sites who are lying to people like you (People who do not care enough about truth to check their facts.) I believe sinny calls them sh-eople.

funny the NIV, NASB, and RSV all say nile.

And all three are translated from the Hebrew word I provided you.

Yeah, pretty much every generation since christ has made that claim.

My claim was that ALL THE RIVERS OF EYGPT HAVE DRIED UP JUST LIKE THE PROPHESY SAID, unless there is a flood situation. The Nile Is not a river only of Eygpt. It goes through a dozen or so other countries.

As far as it drying up, I said give it time.

[Drich=quote]
This says do not marry an unbeliever. It does not say run from them.


You guys kill me, are you so desperate to make a point you would think I would not verify your passage?
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant.

6 Now when they had gone through the island[a] to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”

Clearly Paul is speaking a specific indivisual/self proclaimed wizard..
[/quote]

You believe in wizards? What about unicorns and dragons, there in there too

I can almost predict your response that is why I used the word wizard rather than 'sourcer' Which that word/term used in the bible. in the greek is the same base word we get the word pharmacology. (or more specifically in this context a medicine man/witch doctor.) So that said despite what I believe the passage above written in the book of Acts has paul rebuking a witch doctor or wizard for his practices. Something you omitted and pretended that this rebuke was for all non believers rather than to one specific person.

That said, before i blast you for ignoring context and went for the attempt for a quick dismissal, do you want to address the actual content of my message?

[Minimalist]

So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia

So that's your idea of "verification" huh Drippy. How about providing evidence for your fucking Holy Spirit shit before claiming it can do anything.

You do not get to support one mythical statement by making another.

[Lemonvariable72]

Might makes right got it, You know that basically mean your god is evil as hell if he decides to got that morality, instead of following Moral utilitarianism right?

Might makes right for the entire history of the world. We like to pretend that 'we' in this age are better than that, but we are not. Lets look at the nazis again. In the beginning the winners of WWI told germany because we are mighter than you, you will have to pay for the damage you caused. Then Germany rebelled when they relized that what was left of europe could not enforce their demands. Then the Germans began to round up jews because they were stronger than the jews. This practice became one's 'moral obligation to the father land.' Then they slaughtered them under the demands of their moral obligations. Till 'we' (bigger and stronger) said that was wrong, and we made them stop.

Okay will disagree that has been often the result in history, no argument there. However ww2 if your going to use that as a example, then you must know that biggest reason they rebelled on the treaty of versaille was because of hitler, bluntly put nobody else in leadership of the weimar republic had the balls to do it. The same hitler that rose to power on a explicitly anti semetic platform because of centuries of lutheran and catholic doctrine scape goating jews.

ANd I'm sure such a important point would be very clear and detailed in the bible given if it was true right?

Indeed it is that is why Thier is a whole book dedicated to it.

Name it then

That's utter bullshit. Your god can't even be objectively proven to exist, but yet all of our morality is based from him?

No. Morality ALL Morality is a farse. It is an ever changing scale based on the evil man will allow in his soceities. God tell us that we and out morality are dirtier than used menstral rags to Him. That the only way we can cleans ourself is through redemption.

Bare assertion, even if god is saying it. And no it is not a ever changing scale at all, if it was there would be atleast one society where random murder was okay. Name one.

The same god that would have you kill your wife if she stop believing?

Book chapter and verse?

Deuteronomy 13
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

I personally recommend moral utilitarianism because it can be aptly demonstrated that it makes the world a far better place when applied on a large scale. It's where your human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from come from.

Until you wander into a different society or even outside the bounds of your current generation.

No the rules of " the action that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for the most number of people" does not change.

you do have a citation to back up that little 'fact' outside of 'ihategodandiwillmakecrapupinordertodisprovehim.com don't you? Of course you don't.

Sure do
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/h...fulfilled/
http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/ess...Egypt.html
http://claudemariottini.com/2006/10/13/n...f-babylon/

What are you talking about? These are all anti God sources I specifically asked if you had non-antiChristianity sources to quote from. Like I did I left quotes from the encyclopedia britinica, wiki, and one from some school. None of which were biased in trying to prove the existance of God nor were they trying to disproove it. They were simply reporting the defeat of Egypt at the Hands of King Nebacanezzar, which you said did not happen.

so I ask again do you have a legit source or just anti God web sites who are lying to people like you (People who do not care enough about truth to check their facts.) I believe sinny calls them sh-eople.

Read agian. One is apologetics site even

funny the NIV, NASB, and RSV all say nile.

And all three are translated from the Hebrew word I provided you.

So they lied when they translated the bible then

Yeah, pretty much every generation since christ has made that claim.

My claim was that ALL THE RIVERS OF EYGPT HAVE DRIED UP JUST LIKE THE PROPHESY SAID, unless there is a flood situation. The Nile Is not a river only of Eygpt. It goes through a dozen or so other countries.

As far as it drying up, I said give it time.

You still made the jesus is comming claim but whatever I do no care if you did or not. Fact is it does not matter if all the river dried up or not the prophecy is still unfulfilled.

[Drich=quote]
This says do not marry an unbeliever. It does not say run from them.


You guys kill me, are you so desperate to make a point you would think I would not verify your passage?
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they arrived in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They also had John as their assistant.

6 Now when they had gone through the island[a] to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”

Clearly Paul is speaking a specific indivisual/self proclaimed wizard..

You believe in wizards? What about unicorns and dragons, there in there too

I can almost predict your response that is why I used the word wizard rather than 'sourcer' Which that word/term used in the bible. in the greek is the same base word we get the word pharmacology. (or more specifically in this context a medicine man/witch doctor.) So that said despite what I believe the passage above written in the book of Acts has paul rebuking a witch doctor or wizard for his practices. Something you omitted and pretended that this rebuke was for all non believers rather than to one specific person.

That said, before i blast you for ignoring context and went for the attempt for a quick dismissal, do you want to address the actual content of my message?
[/quote]
Well do you believe in magic?
either way in this situation we basically have a man paul has condemned on zero evidence.

[Tonus]

God is not the only one who's business is to answer 'prayers.' Just because you get a petition/wish granted Does not mean it was granted by God. Satan 'grants wishes' to derail. That is why it is so dangerous to seek for 'signs and wonders' as your 'proof' of God. Ex: God if your real do this:________... Or God if your real let me have this girls as my GF, and I will do whatever...

Sorry for the late entry, but does that mean that Satan may provide good or beneficial things to people to lead them away from god?

[Vicki Q]

I don't recognise the historical situation described. Paul's churches weren't looking to him to generate God-breathed scripture in the way described in the OP.

Paul was the lead member of a team of people charged with spreading Xianity outside Israel. Given the limited communications of the day, writing letters to deal with issues that came up was a sensible means of operating...<snip>...

Which, BTW, seems an odd comment to make if these things hadn't happened.

Actually, I'm not sure you're correct there. The idea that the NT writers didn't think they were in some sense writing scripture isn't really sustainable today.

I would certainly agree that there is no way they would have expected to end up in a canon as part 2 to the OT. And questions of inerrancy would never have been considered.

But they were conscious that they were given authority from God, and official writing was one of the ways in which this authority was exercised. The Epistles were part of the means of bringing God's kingdom into the world, and Paul etc. would have been aware of this. He would have seen himself as authorised by his apostolic call to bring life, order and truth into the churches by his words.

---

Or, saul/paul was a fictional creation designed to fill that role.

What a fascinating theory! Could you point me in the direction of academic writing I could follow this up from?

No problem if you can't. Those people are overrated, and the Internet’s much better at this sort of thing.

---

It makes no difference whether Paul was a part of a team, or whether he was truthful or not, that was not the point of the question.

The question was: "Why would any church at that time have any need to turn to a stranger outside of their own congregation when they have access to the perfect leader, jesus, in their prayers?"

For pretty much the same reason we have church leaders these days. Not even the Quakers seem to be quite able to do without some sort of leadership.

The early church foundings would likely have started with a structural model similar to the Jewish synagogue, or the chaburah (dining society). Remember that Xianity is really modified Judaism. As such, there would be an authority structure in place. Also, the model for prayer you propose is very different to the normal one, and certainly different to the one the earliest churches would have employed.

A number of the churches would know Paul, as he had been instrumental in founding the first churches. Bart Ehrman believes he would have operated a leather goods shop in the towns for a time, and that's how he got things going.

[Minimalist]

What a fascinating theory! Could you point me in the direction of academic writing I could follow this up from?

I feel the need to correct you because this is not a "theory." It is a hypothesis and you should learn the difference before you go making a fool out of yourself.

The evidence thusfar for this hypothesis is the utter failure of the earliest xtian writers to know who the fuck "paul" is. He seems to be a mid-second century concoction....along with much of the rest of xtian nonsense.

Oh, and I am capable of thinking for myself. I do not need to run to some "authority" like you people. I reserve the right to THINK.

Try it some time.