ApostateAbe

Thanks, and sorry. I was getting that suspicion, because it is a sales technique that is common among authors who publish combative fringe theories, but I may have jumped to that conclusion too hastily.

arnoldo

Actually, a merely human Jesus was a definite option according to Ebionites.

aa5874

Although I agree based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity that Jesus of the NT was mythical I cannot comprehend how the Pauline writings could be pre-Gospel when the Pauline writers begin to hear from Jesus after he supposedly died and was resurrected, that is, the Pauline revelations begin AFTER the Gospels story of Jesus has ENDED.

The Pauline writers, unlike Theophilus of Antioch or Athenagoras, mentioned a character called JESUS by name over 200 times and wrote that he was betrayed in the night, crucified, shed his blood, died, and was raised from the dead on the third day.

It can be argued that Theophilus of Antioch or Athenagoras may be pre-Gospel since these writers did not mention Jesus at all. They wrote nothing at all about the birth, betrayal, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus unlike the Pauline writers.

The author of Acts presented the character Saul/Paul after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and the Church presented a tradition that Paul was aware of gLuke.

So, from apologetic sources there is no evidence that the Pauline writings predate the Gospels and there are NO other sources for the Pauline writers and even a Pauline writer placed himself AFTER the supposed resurrection.

The Pauline writings appear to have been written to propagate the notion (the false notion) that Jesus did INDEED resurrect as stated in the Gospels and DID reveal a Gospel to a Pauline writer from heaven.

It must be noted that the Pauline writers wrote about Jesus.

Jesus was not known as an heavenly entity until the Gospels made him a God/man.

maryhelena

Surely, the obvious answer is that Paul knows the whole Jesus storyline. In his writings he simply uses whatever he deems to be useful for his argument - a spiritual argument re a spiritual Jesus construct. Sure, the Damascus/Aretas text is assumed to place Paul shortly after the gospel timeline - but that is pure assumption. The gospels are giving Paul's spiritual Jesus figure a pseudo-history - working downwards from Paul's spiritual construct. In contrast, the historical Jesus assumption is working upwards, a development towards a high christology. That's the origin storyline. The evidence re early documents suggests that Paul's writing preceded the gospel writing - more in keeping with a downward development from Paul's theology/spirituality.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario re which came first, the written gospel storyline or Paul's ideas in his writing - but that really only relates to the written documents not to the conception of the Jesus storyline. The concept, the dying and rising god, the life, death and resurrection idea, is a composite idea that requires all three elements. Paul has to provide 'evidence' for all three i.e. he has to portray each of these elements in his overall theological/spiritual construct. The conception is complete (baring new insights, developments within it). It's how the conception has been implemented that gives rise to the chicken and egg scenarios. The conception itself is one of a piece...

The gospel storyline, it's timeline, is a result of its Jesus figure fulfilling OT prophecy. Consequently, that timeline is static - regardless of when the gospel were written. It's not a case of backdating later events - it's a case of putting a prophetic interpretation into the time slot that was deemed to be relevant, deemed to be appropriate. Thus, when it came to fitting Paul into that origin storyline - it's Paul that had to be backdated to following on that prophetic timeline of the Jesus story. In other words - whenever it was, most likely post 70 ce, that Paul writes his letters - his spiritual, crucified and resurrected, Jesus construct needed an assumed historicity, a pseudo-history. And the place to put that Jesus pseudo-history was back before Paul' own historical time slot - back into the historical time slot that was deemed to be prophetically relevant.

Basically, what all this means is that Paul's role in the Jesus scenario has been downgraded in the christian origin storyline. Paul becomes a Jesus follower instead of a Jesus innovator. Since, from a mythicist perspective, there was no historical, crucified carpenter, Jesus - then this downgrading of Paul is suspicious....(which would indicate that the origin storyline become more important than the real history that was behind it - which would mean that spirituality was the focus not any man - even one as innovative as Paul)

added later:

So, all the controversy re why did Paul not quote from the assumed historical Jesus of the gospels, why was Paul silent in this regard - the answer should be - why should he, why should he quote from an unhistorical figure. Paul is beholden to no man - especially not a figurative or symbolic man. This whole issue is the consequence of Paul being backdated to follow the gospel timeline, an assumed historical storyline - a backdating that makes Paul into a follower of the gospel Jesus instead of the originator of the spiritual Jesus as a dying and rising god, crucified and resurrected, construct.

Doug Shaver

A novel? You mean a work of fiction? That's what I believe the gospels are: works of fiction that some Christians, sometime during the second century, mistook for biographies of their religion's founder.

Doug Shaver

What disciples? Aren't you assuming your conclusion again? As best I recall, nobody referred to the leaders of the Jerusalem church as "disciples" until well into the second century. Paul himself certainly never called them that.

When? Name the first Christian writer who unambiguously affirms the humanity of Jesus. And please be prepared to defend your date of his writing if it's before the second century.

show_no_mercy

Also, the epistles of James, Jude, John, and Peter never refer to themselves as disciples either. They have the same spiritual Christ in mind as Paul.

Solo

Ah, the Achilles' heel of the mythicists ! The Jewish heretics who persisted in their heresy and no doubt inspired the Arians in theirs !

Jiri

maryhelena

Really? A purely human crucified Jesus - a Jesus impossible to locate - the Achilles heel of the mythicists - keep dreaming....

Mythicism revolves around the rejection of a historical crucified Jesus - supposedly from Nazareth. Mythicism does not, cannot, reject the idea that a historical figure was of interest to the pre-Paul, pre-christian, groupings, communities. Mythicists reject the claimed historicity of the crucified carpenter, named Jesus. A carpenter who supposedly had a mother named Mary and a 'father' named Joseph.

aa5874

It is NOT at all an assumption that a Pauline writer placed himself during the time of Aretas. See 2 Cor. 11.32-33.

You simply are using your PERSONAL assumptions as historical facts.

This is obviously an assumption. You have nothing but your imagination to support you. You reject the obvious and rely on your assumptions.

The gospels do NOT need the Pauline writings since they END before the revelations from the resurrected dead to the Pauline writers began.


There is NO evidence whatsoever from early documents that suggest the Pauline writings preceded the gospel writing.

You are SPREADING rumors or engaged in propaganda as a result of "Chinese Whispers."

No early document has been found to date the Pauline writings [/b]before the Fall of the Temple,[/b] or before the first Jesus story was written.

The Pauline story line is rather simple.
1. Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth and equal to God.

2. He was born of a woman.

3. He was betrayed in the night after he had supped.

4. He was crucified.

5. He shed his blood.

6. He died.

7.He was resurrected.

8. The Pauline writers SAW Jesus in a RESURRECTED state.

9. The Pauline writers were in communication with the RESURRECTED dead.

10. The Pauline writers were "EYEWITNESSES" to the completion of the Jesus story.


Well, once the concept of the dying and rising did NOT originate with the Pauline writings then it must be obvious that the Jesus story line did NOT need the Pauline writings.

It MUST be obvious that Greek/Roman mythology may have been used by the Jesus story since these myths about dying and rising gods predated the Pauline writings by HUNDREDS of years.


But, you are so wrong.

Prophecy inherently has NO static timeline. Prophecy is about future events where the timeline is almost always unknown or uncertain.

There is no prophecy in the OT that states precisely that Jesus was to be crucified under Pilate.



It makes absolutely no sense that the writings about the post-resurrected dead, the AFTERLIFE, predated the writings of his supposed Life before death.

The Pauline writings are attempts to corroborate the Jesus story that Jesus did RESURRECT just as he predicted in the Gospels.

The author of EARLY gMark was NOT sure that Jesus did RESURRECT but the Pauline writers were SURE. They both SAW and HEARD from the resurrected dead.

The Pauline writings were not downgraded at all. The Church writers placed a lot of emphasis on the Pauline writings and the compilation of the NT Canon b]totally[/b] contradicts you.

The Pauline writings were the sources that were used to corroborate the prediction of Jesus that he would be RAISED from the dead after the third day.


Mr 9:31 - 1Co 15:8 -