AtheistGamer

Sherlock Holmes is rolling in his grave. In order for that logic to work you have to assume that the gospel stories didn't slowly develop over time before finally being written down about 70 A.D.



That's not what I said at all. I would say that the book of Q shows that the gospel stories slowly developed over time. Also the gospels themselves considering that they can easily be place in evolutionary order from simplest to most complex.




Considering that he only knew of a halfway fleshed out gospel story I think it's pretty obvious that he wrote before the gospels.

Paul doesn't say he saw Jesus rise up to heaven. He says he knows people who saw it happen. Jesus only appeared to Paul in a vision. Paul is only reporting what other people tell him.







Thank you for once agian distorting what I said.

Paul didn't write tall tales that he made up himself. Get a grip.

Or.... Luke got the last supper story from Paul's writings. And later fleshed it out. When paul says he got the last supper from the lord he means he had a vision, not that the actual Jesus told him while he was still alive.

According to scripture is probably a reference to OT prophecy. Not to mention how do you know that he wasn't talking about some "other" pre-gospel scriptures that have been lost to time.

All your "dating methods" are based on massive assumptions. You are just as bad as christians who try to use Cor 15.3-7 in order to say that the gospels "predate" 70 A.D.

Oh noes!! Jesus doesn't appear in writings that are thousands of years before his time! I bow to your logic oh great and powerful crazy dude from the carribean.

Except where paul talks about most of them in his letters to churches.


*sigh* And christians will use that very same logic to assert that the Gospels must have been around pre-70 AD. Unfortunaly I don't have my copy of "who wrote the Gospels" with me. But in it Burton Mack shows how Paul goes out of his way to argue in favor of certian theological positions when he could have just quoted a gospel.

So here is aa5874's theory of christian origins.

Some random dude just woke up one day and wrote the first gospel. Next some guy named paul came along and wrote some letters. And this guy named paul's works are the best information concerning the origins of christianity even though his writings come after the gospels. And based on paul's writings being the best information on early christianity (even though they are somehow after the gospels) jesus mythicism follows. In fact it somehow "OPENS THE FLOODGATES TO MYTHICISM" even though the gospels predate it!?!?!

I am on the verge of just ignoring his dumb ass.

Toto

You know that the book of Q does not exist, right? It is a hypothesis based on the assumptions of people who think that the gospels evolved over time.

It is quite reasonable to see the gospel stories evolving over time, but there is no real direct evidence.

AtheistGamer

Well Toto scholars have gone through the three main gospels and found that they share certian verses or phrases in common. I'm sure you already know all that though.

DCHindley

Toto,

There are numerous other meanings for "kurios" than YHWH or Christ! Why leap to the conclusion that the NT writers saw Jesus as a son of a God? There are at least three Greek words that translate into English as "lord," meaning the NT authors were using one of many available words, each with a somewhat different nuance.

kurios
A.
I.
1. of persons, having power or authority over, lord or master of, authority to do, am entitled to do; able to
2. having authority, authoritative, supreme, to have authority, the ruling power in a state, the authorities.
II.
1. not of persons, authoritative, decisive, dominant, supreme; of more authority.
2. authorised, ratified, valid; to appoint by authority
3. of times, etc., fixed, ordained, appointed, the appointed time, regular or ordinary.
4. legitimate, regular, proper.
5. of words, authorised, vernacular.
B.
I.
1. as Subst. a lord, master, of gods, etc.: the head of a family, master of a house, -later, kurie was a form of respectful address, like our sir
2. mistress or lady of the house
II. the LORD, = Hebr. JEHOVAH, LXX.;
in N.T. esp. of CHRIST.

despotEs
I.
1. a master, lord, the master of the house; properly in respect of slaves
2. of Oriental rulers, a despot, absolute ruler, whose subjects are slaves,
3. of the gods
II. generally, an owner, master, lord,

turannos
I.
1. an absolute sovereign, unlimited by law or constitution: not applied to old hereditary sovereignties such as those of Homer's stories or of Sparta; for the term rather regards the irregular way in which the power was gained, than the way in which it was exercised. However, the word soon came to imply reproach, like our tyrant,
2. in a wider sense, the tyrant's son, or any member of his family,
II.
1. as Adj. kingly, royal,
2. imperious, despotic,

I think it is especially interesting that Julius Africanus said the relatives of Jesus called themselves "desposunoi" meaning "(ones) who belong to a master" and thus "one's heirs." They could just as easily have used kuriakoi ("(ones) pertaining to a lord").

DCH

Toto

It seems clear to scholars that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and added to and embellished the story.

Other than that, everything is not so clear. Were there original stories about Jesus that evolved into Mark's gospel, or did Mark write the entire gospel from his own literary creativity? Did Luke have access to Matthew? Were there other sources?

aa5874

It is illogical for you to claim Paul was pre-gospel once it is admitted that there were Jesus believers before Paul.

Paul Admitted he persecuted Jesus believers

It is illogical to claim Paul was pre-gospel when Paul preached the FAITH that Jesus:

1. was BORN of a woman,

2.was BETRAYED in the night after he Supped,

3. was Crucified,

4. SHED his Blood,

5. Died,

6. Buried,

7. was Raised from the Dead on the Third Day,

8. was SEEN by the apostles after his resurrection,

9. was in heaven.

10. The Pauline revelations BEGAN after Jesus went heaven.

Paul Admitted that the FAITH he NOW preached was ALREADY preached by those he persecuted.

It is illogical to claim Paul was pre-gospel when the Pauline revelations began when the Jesus story ended on earth.

Well, the Synoptics are far more simpler than the Pauline writings. The Synoptic Jesus did not teach his disciples that without his death there would have been no salvation for mankind.


There is no such thing as a halfway fleshed out gospel story. The Pauline story is a post-ascension story.

Paul did claim that the FAITH was preached by those he persecuted and that he was NOW preaching the FAITH that Jesus was born of a woman, was betrayed, crucified, shed his blood, died, buried, was raised from the dead and went to heaven.

What is a "halfway fleshed" out character? How do you KILL a "halfway fleshed" out character?

Paul claimed he got his gospel from no man and that his gospel is NOT of men.

And Paul claimed he SAW Jesus in a resurrected state which is very likely to be false.

How did Paul see a RESURRECTED halfway fleshed out[ entity?


This is a partial list of some of the TALL TALES of the Pauline writers.

1. It is a TALL TALE that Paul met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

2. It is a TALL TALE that Paul stayed with the apostle Peter for fifteen days in Jerusalem.

3. It is a Tall Tale that Paul saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

4. It is a TALL TALE that Jesus was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth.

5.It is a TALL TALE that JESUS was resurrected.


NO WAY. It has been deduced that the author of gLuke USED Hebrew Scripture, gMatthew, gMark and possibly some other source called "Q".

The author of gLUKE could have used either gMatthew or gMark for his "Last Supper" story.

How did Paul get a vision from YOUR halfway fleshed out Jesus? Paul most likely lied.

So how do you know Paul was pre-gospel? Tell me what have been lost or interpolated about Paul.

Now, please show me where in Hebrew Scripture you can find the words Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ son of God our LORD and Saviour, and that Jesus Christ was betrayed, was crucified, died, resurrected and was seen by the apostles and ascended to heaven?

What massive assumptions are you talking about? You have NOT identified any massive assumption except when you claimed Paul was pre-gospel.

And did you not ASSUME Paul predated the gospel?

The Pauline writers did NOT claim that they predated the gospel and did NOT claim that they were the FIRST to preach the FAITH.

It is your assumption that Paul predated the gospels that is MASSIVE. Your ASSUMPTION goes against ALL the Evidence supplied by the NT and Church writings.

But, perhaps you have amnesia, you just claimed that when Paul wrote that Jesus DIED for our Sins, was BURIED, and RESURRECTED according to the Scripture that Paul got his information from the OT.

Please identify a single verse in Hebrew Scripture where a character called Jesus Christ of Nazareth is named by a prophet of the OT to DIE for the sins of all mankind, was buried, resurrected AND SEEN BY HIS APOSTLES.

Except that the churches BEFORE Paul talked about JESUS.

You fail to understand that in the NT Canon that JESUS was BEFORE PAUL.

It was the resurrected and ascended JESUS who converted PAUL.

Paul was POST-Gospel.


Well it is really unfortunate that you have nothing to show to support your assertions.

Please hurry up and get your book so that you can argue. But it won't make any difference. I have my books and I am waiting.

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
No mythicist claims that at all !

The point is that is does NOT say "brother of Jesus", a false claim about the passage which YOU repeated yourself.

The issue is what it MEANS to say "brother of the Lord".
Paul elsewhere talks of "brothers in the Lord" meaning followers.
Being "children of God" is a common theme of the time.

Why do YOU believe "brother of the Lord" means "brother of Jesus" ?


K.

Doug Shaver

Reputed by whom? It doesn't matter what anyone was saying a century later. To know what Paul was likely to have meant by "the lord's brother," you have find out what Paul's contemporaries were saying about Jesus.

Doug Shaver

I think I understand stand how much intellectual inertia a meme can pick up over the course of 18 centuries.

Doug Shaver

How do you know that? I mean, aside from the fact that Christians belonging to the cult that won the doctrinal wars have been saying so for as long as anyone can remember?