boneyard bill

aa5874 writes:

Which could also argue for a common source. The words you cite are used in liturgy today and sound very much like words that would have been used in liturgical practices which may have preceded both Paul and Luke.

Why don't these claims qualify as Chinese Whispers?

aa5874

I am NOT promoting Chinese Whispers. Please provide the SOURCES of antiquity for what you BELIEVE could have happened.

If you have NO sources then you may be just repeating "Chinese Whispers".

Please provide a source of antiquity that can show that the Pauline claim that he saw the resurrected Jesus is the product of Chinese Whispers.

It is the Pauline who is claiming that the resurrected Jesus was SEEN by him.

If you have NO SOURCES of antiquity then you may be PROMOTING "Chinese Whispers".

mountainman

Was Bilbo Baggins an historical figure? Paul seems to be mentioned at Nag Hammadi in the 4th century - The Hypostasis of the Archons (The Reality of the Rulers)Translated by Bentley Layton

aa5874

Again, you may be promoting Chinese Whispers or logical fallacies if you have ZERO sources of antiquity to show that the Pauline writings "were duly "improved".

When were the Pauline writings composed and were they IMPROVED by the very same authors called "Paul"?

The author of "Against Marcion" claimed he DULY IMPROVED his own writings about Marcion.

So far, I am only seeing claims that may be based on Chinese Whispers.

Not ONE single poster can come up with any CREDIBLE sources of antiquity to show that the Pauline writers did ACTUALLY compose a single epistle BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Stringbean

Paul's claim of seeing jesus was fiction. What Paul saw and heard was a resurrected myth, James also saw and heard a resurrected MJ. It should also be noted that the author of Acts whoever he was did not write that Paul saw a resurrected jesus.

Paul can hardly be trusted here since he stated that he saw a resurrected jesus which accounts for no more than a lie on his part because jesus did not exist.

aa5874

Exactly. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. The Pauline writings appear to be historically a PACK of LIES for the glory of God.

Up to the middle of 2nd century, Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge any character called "Paul" who preached Jesus Christ crucified to the Gentiles all OVER the Roman Empire.

Justin Martyr claimed it was TWELVE ILLITERATE MEN who preached the Gospel to EVERY RACE of Man.

"First Apology" XXXIX In the NT Canon, "Paul" was not claimed to be illiterate.

Another writer called Aristides also did NOT acknowledge that "Paul" preached Christ all over the Roman Empire.

It was the TWELVE disciples of Jesus who preached Christ to the known world Based on Aristides.

Aristides "Apology" Even apologetic sources appear to CONTRADICT the Pauline writings.

The claim that the Pauline writings are the earliest sources for the Jesus stories is EVIDENTLY based on Chinese Whispers.

Not one POSTER can provide a single corroborative historical source for a single Pauline writer before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Pauline Myth is busted.

boneyard bill

Paul says, by your own testimony, that there were believers and scriptures which preceded him. We have no evidence for the existence of the canonical gospels before the early 2nd Century. We know that there were Hebrew scriptures, both presently canonical ones and many non-canonical ones dating to, and before, the period that the gospels describe. We know that some writings existed that have not survived.

It is not possible to conclude, on the lack of evidence, that the cononical gospels must have preceded the Pauline writers. We do not know what Paul was referring to when he said, "according to scriptures." That the Pauline writers and the gospel writers had common sources in either Hebrew or Greek, both written and oral is entirely possible if not probable.

You still have not established why your claim that the book of Acts is fiction is not a Chinese whisper.

You still have not established why the claim that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus is fiction is not a Chinese whisper.

Indeed, if gLuke preceded Paul it is entirely reasonable to suggest that Acts did as well. Thus the Pauline writers were taking on the name of a pre-established character, and Acts would have to be accepted as the account closest to the events and therfore, likely the more reliable.

What the Pauline letters reveal is the existence of a pre-Pauline Christian movement. It's organization is rudimentary with no bishops or ecclesiastical authority until we get to the Pastoral letters. But it does have regular meetings and some sort of rituals. It seems likely that some of its beliefs were written down.

Furthermore, as I previously noted, the most reasonable interpretation of John is that the author was not the beloved disciple but that he was writing from a previous written source. Likewise Luke claims to be writing based on the eye-witness testimony of others.

Thus, I think we have plenty of evidence that there were other common sources, written and oral, which preceded both Paul's letters and the canonical gospels.

What about Philo of Alexandria? Could not his writings have been among the "scriptures" that Paul is referring to? They incorporate the Greek "logos" into Hebrew thought and are almost proto-Christian.

Stringbean

This may sound stupid and I am fairly new here but what the hell is a Chinese Whisper?

boneyard bill

A rather circular argument don't you think? Is Paul's claim a lie because Jesus did not exist or did Jesus not exist because Paul's claim is a lie? Paul claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus. He did not specify the nature of what he saw, or the nature of the resurrection. But, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven," it seems unlikely that he was claiming to have seen a physical Jesus.

boneyard bill

I don't get your point. The absence of evidence does not refute. So we have any evidence at all of a first century Christian movement? Maybe some questionable statements in Josephus? But does that mean that a first century Christian movement did not exist?

We have no evidence prior to the mid-19th Century that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. Does that mean that George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree?