Sheshbazzar

FORUM name. Only a matter of Forum etiquette and of maintaining good manners. I remain essentially anonymous.
I would hope Toto, that you not suffering under any mistaken delusions that I, 'Sheshbazzar', am a big name scholar of international fame?

Some I do, some I don't. Depends on the subject and their position. And I think that is the way most people with any integrity make their decisions.
Do you personally agree with every 'established authority' Toto? I wonder how you manage that when these 'established authorities' hold diverging opinions.

The fact that a self-promoting someone has written a book, and blathers their opinions far and wide by every means available, does not entail that I need be impressed by their arguments or even engage them.
I am just as dismissive of Mr. D's opinions and theory as he is of mine.
I remain unimpressed by his speculations, his arguments, his assertions, his volume, nor his fan club.

spin

Let's face it: this thread started off as a split from another thread and hasn't been able to keep on its new topic. It started because Shesh couldn't cope with his inability to do what was asked of him after he made a preposterous claim, ie that "the 'Pauline epistles' are earlier than, and preceeded [sic] the written Gospels... is a very controversial position on Christian history". Shesh was asked to justify this claim and has assiduously shirked his responsibility to do so. The thread has gone off topic with a massive dodge to shift the burden from demonstrating the controversy onto justifying the status quo dating of the Pauline epistles.

This is a tacit admission by those involved in the burden shift that the datings are anything but controversial.

That means that the topic split has resolved its issue and doesn't need to continue. What we have now is a derail, which includes various people displaying a total disregard for forum etiquette and scholarly procedure. I think the thread has clearly served out its life, resolved its initial question and doesn't need this zombie afterlife.

Moderators, could you please put an end to the voodoo and put the thread in its grave?

Toto

I'll give the participants one last chance to make some intelligible comment

spin

Aah, ever hopeful!

aa5874

Toto, you are the one who plastered the dates of the Pauline Corpus and now admit or imply that they are based on presumptions and guessing.

You are the one who said there is no controversy with the dating of the Pauline before the Gospels.

You have taken a contradictory dogmatic position by claiming that the dates for the Pauline letters are not controversial when you yourself do not agree with them.

Examine excerpts from your own post.

Your assertion is fundamentally worthless because you NOW admit that you do NOT agree with the dating of the Pauline letters.

I must repeat the FACTS because you keep on making claims that are wholly and blatantly erroneous.

You knew all along that the dates for the Pauline Corpus was controversial and was based on Presumptions and Guessing.

Please, present the evidence for what your claim. Who are these ANONYMOUS Scholars? Please, Identify your anonymous Scholars that use Presumptions, Guessing and the work of FICTION called Acts.

Toto, you claimed Acts is Fiction so why are you telling us about Acts?

You promote double standards.

Again, Toto what is the evidence in Fiction Acts that shows the author knew of the Pauline letters?

The rules of the forum mandate that you provide the supporting evidence.

It is most astonishing that Toto admits the very same FICTION ACTS, was used by Scholars to date Pauline letters.

It must be noted that the author of Acts did not write the Fiction that Paul wrote the Pastorals and letters to Seven Churches before the time of Festus, procurator of Judea, c 58-62 CE.

The Pauline Corpus was unknown in the 2nd century based on the abundance of evidence.

And not only that, the Pauline writer attempted to alter the story of the Jesus cult.

The Pauline writer claimed that without the resurrection there would be No Salvation or remission of sins.

No such thing is in the earliest Jesus story.

In the earliest Canonised story of Jesus he was a NOT a universal SAVIOUR and did NOT offer Universal Salvation by Sacrifice or the Resurrection.

The Pauline revealed Gospel is a far later invention than the Gospel that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

In gMark NO-ONE was even told Jesus was raised from the dead.

The Pauline Corpus is historically and chronologically bogus.

Mark 1

spin

And you don't get its purpose, which is your problem. You don't understand that those dates were a reflection of the status quo regarding the Pauline epistles, which show such dating is not controversial, ie they are specifically dealing with the thread topic. Nobody is asserting them as reflective of any reality other than that they are the convention. Sheshbazzar was asked to support his assertion that such dating is controversial and he has failed to do so.

Your whinging about the conventional dating here does not help his failure. It is only you showing you don't understand the topic.

stephan huller

I think there is a sizable minority here who simply aren't capable of rational thought. "Paul" is a known commodity. Our civilization was founded on an understanding of who that person was and when he wrote his letters. You can't just say "there are problems" with this understanding and then to make up new shit. I mean you can I guess, but you will be ignored.

For better or worse we don't start with a clean slate with respect to Paul. Deal with it.

Duvduv

That is incorrect. Our civilization was "founded" on a BELIEF of who that person was. NO ONE can prove he existed. NO ONE can prove he ever wrote any letters in the first century. NO ONE can prove any of the alleged communities he wrote existed in the first century. NO ONE can prove anyone ever received any letters from this person. NO ONE can prove the epistles ever existed as anything other than a SET together with the gospels in a canon, such that texts complemented one another.

And considering that our favorite heresiologists believed this Paul had a predecessor named John and wrote his very own Gospel, the extent of total confusion is quite large starting with the contradictions in the canon all the way to the apologists, with an inability to follow the same talking points as things went along.

One key hint is Galatians 1:13:
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

This only made sense to the reader who had access to the Book of Acts to complement Galatians. And since there is no evidence at all regarding the alleged existence of the recipients of the this letter, it is safe to say it wasn't actually written to anyone but simply formed part of the set of writings for the new Roman religion.

spin

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. Are you really claiming that the only way that the readers of Galatians could or would have, let alone did, come by the information that is/would have been necessary for them to make sense of what Paul says in Gal 1:13 is by having read Acts? If we take seriously the data in Galatians that Paul had spent considerable time with them prior to writing this letter (did they then only talk about the weather?), that he expected when he first came to them not to be welcomed by them, and that those who came to the Galatians after Paul left them did so to throw doubt upon the validity of Paul's credentials as an apostle, not to mention his trustworthiness, and the uprightness of his character, this seems not only unlikely, but preposterous.

Jeffrey