aa5874

The Pauline letters just like Genesis support mythology. We may never know who wrote them but they both are compilation of Myth stories about the God of the Jews and his Son.

Who wrote the book called Job?

Does it not say that God had Sons in the book of Job?

The book of Job as it is found is a source of Mythology just as the Pauline letters are sources of fiction.

The claims made by Paul about the Son of God has not been corroborated.

If Jesus was not a Quickening Spirit then the Pauline letters are fiction and if Jesus was believed to be a Quickening Spirit then the Pauline writings are sources of Myth.

The Pauline letters do not support the claim that there were actual Christians in Jerusalem at any time before at least c 180 CE.

EarlDoherty

An excerpt from Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, Chapter 12: Conceiving the World of Myth (p.150-1)

As I said before, Shesh, the more you try to ridicule me, the more you betray your own ignorance. And speaking of "betray", are you not aware that the usage of this word in translations of 1 Cor. is determined by reading the Gospels into it? As I've said many times, the word means "to hand over" and is the same verb used by Paul elsewhere to speak of God "handing over" Jesus for our salvation. Did God "betray" Jesus? Considering that not a single epistle writer has a word to say about Judas, what are the odds that Paul here has the Gospel betrayer in mind, and why would he get such information "from the Lord himself" rather than through oral tradition? Are you not aware that virtually no critical scholar considers the Markan character of Judas historical?

Even Plutarch speaks of a legend of Osiris located in the heavens who is killed, dismembered, buried and resurrected by Isis. And if you had read anything by me on the subject, you would also understand why Paul includes "buried" in his gospel on the dying and rising Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 (something he does not state he derived from scripture), because it serves as a parallel to his mystical concept of being "buried with Christ" in the believers' "baptism into his death".

You are mired in your own naive literalist mind (not uncommon) and your ignorance on ancient mythical thought. The mythical mind does not concern itself with who might have taken Jesus off the heavenly cross, or what the heavenly nails were made of. You're in the same league with GakuseiDon who made this comment: "Christ couldn't be crucified or buried [in the heavenly world] since there was nothing to crucify him on and bury him in." Don was equally ignorant of the ancients' world of myth and the things that could go on in it, things described in writings like the above, in the Ascension of Isaiah and many other Jewish sectarian documents, even in pagan mythology. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the subject before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

But what is your evidence to the contrary, that the epistles are nothing but a mish-mash of interpolation/composites based on originals that did not have any references to a Christ? Why would you come up with such a scenario when it is impossible to demonstrate? To take the epistles as basically representative of a diverse faith movement which believed in a heavenly Son who had undergone a saving sacrifice, with the majority of them proceeding from an actual apostle of that Son and followers who later wrote in his name, is far more parsimonious and effective than your scattergun idea.

I could speculate that the Pauline epistles were dropped out of a spaceship, but does that make it compelling?

Earl Doherty

Duvduv

In terms of analyzing the content one finds very often parenthetical phrases in English set off from the rest of the sentence with prepositions, and in ways where those are the only clues that the letter had anything to do with Christ ("through Christ," "because of Christ," etc.) after mention of God previously. Indeed, take the example of Titus and remove the references to Jesus, you get an ordinary monotheistic letter that sounds like it was written by a Jewish sympathizer.

MrMacSon

That does seems likely, yet isn't that a scenario repeated in a number of narratives over a number of centuries?

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Earl, but I'm still not buying the mythology you are selling, and your continued insults are not particularly effective in persuading me that your theory is correct.

Yes, I agree and am aware that there were ancient mythological compositions that incorporated and syncretized Hellenic Philosophical concepts, as well as Zoroastrian dualism with Biblical Jewish figures, and that in the course of time these led to the creation of the NT writings.
Our differences are not over the early existence of 'Astrotheology' or the development out of Greek philosophical 'Logos' theology, of a distinctly Christian theology, but of the evidences supporting of the timing and sequence of the introduction of these Christian texts.

Justin writing circa 150 CE, blabbers on at great length about the 'Logos' and 'Christ' and 'uncircumcision' but displays no evidence at all of ever having heard of any 'Paul' or 'Pauline Epistles', and there are other writers of the same period, whom if these 'Pauline Epistles' had been known to them, would certainly have mentioned them when writing upon the same subjects.
This to me constitutes persuasive evidence that these 'Pauline Epistles' were NOT at the foundation of the Christian Church teachings that the earliest of Christian writers were familiar with.

Virtually all credible textual scholars, now acknowledge that large portions of this body of 'Pauline' texts were forged, and did not originate with any 1st century author named 'Paul'.
Which from my perspective puts your arguments re 'Paul' into the strange position of appearing to claim that 'Paul' wrote before there was any Paul to write.
And yet you can produce none of these pre-Christian 'Pauline' writings and no genuine 1st century or earlier quotations that evidence that any of these 'Pauline Epistles' were known to anyone in the 1st century.

The surviving historical evidences place the origin of the Christian religion, as a distinct recognizable belief system centered on a 'Jesus Christ' the son of David, in the 130s CE and the first appearances of 'Acts' and 'Paul' after 170 CE.

aa5874

The Pauline writer knew the Gospel of gLuke according to Church writers.

The Pauline writer was alive AFTER gMatthew, gMark and gLuke were composed based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew 1"and Church History 6.25.
The author of gMark claimed Jesus told his disciples that he would be DELIVERED up by men NOT God.

[u]Mark 9:31 KJVLuke 24:7 KJV Enough evidence from antiquity is in place to show that the Pauline writings are extremely late and were unknown.

Are you not aware that so-called critical Scholars do not agree with you?

Well, the same Plutarch wrote of the Myth Romulus and Remus.

It is claimed that Romulus and Remus, founders of the City of Rome, were human brothers born of a woman and that Romulus ascended to heaven.

Christians of antiquity did argue that Jesus was crucified under Pilate after a trial with the Sanhedrin after he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

There is no argument in the NT or apologetics that Jesus was crucified outside of earth.

maryhelena

Earl needs to face the fact that the gospel Jesus story has that figure crucified on earth under Pilate. While the dating of that story is of interest - dating does not change the story i.e. the gospel Jesus was crucified on earth under Pilate.

Earl can interpret the Pauline writing to be referencing a heavenly, a spiritual, 'crucifixion. This does not negate the relevance of the gospel Jesus being crucified on earth.

In other words; the NT has two stories; two Jesus stories; two Jesus figures. One story is centered on terra-firma - the context of the other story, the Pauline story, is heavenly, spiritual, philosophical, symbolic, figurative. Two completely different context. The one context, terra-firma, relates to Hasmonean/Jewish history. The other context, the heavenly or spiritual context, relates to theological or philosophical ideas. The Jerusalem above and the Jerusalem below. While reflections of one context may be found in the other - their realities retain their differentiation.

Earl can stand on the street corner all day long; he can caterwaul from the housetops all night long - but he will not get a hearing ear from NT scholars. Why? Simple really - any theory of early christian origins that refuses to deal with the gospel story of JC crucified on earth, on terra-firma, is irrational nonsense.

For all the good that Earl's Pauline 'crucifixion' interpretation could do in furthering understanding of Pauline philosophy - it is hamstrung by his refusal to face the fact that a literal, earthly, terra-firma, crucifixion was central to the writers of the gospel story.

outhouse

Agreed

He will have a tough time interpreting a heavenly Pilate.


Well he isn't running on like Carrier about Paul only getting his message from no "man" I always found that so weak when Paul obviously wants desperately to be a "real" apostle.


Did Paul hunt early Christians in heaven or earth according to Paul?

EarlDoherty

I have answered your objection about Justin's silence on Paul, an answer you have not even acknowledged, let alone countered with fresh argument. You simply repeat yourself.

And the nonsense that "Paul" could possibly be a product of a post-170 period has been set out at length, and that too remains unanswered by you.

And you'll have to list these "all credible textual scholars" who maintain that even if many of the Paulines are later forgeries (they're called "pseudo-Paulines in textual and other scholarship circles), that this supports your contention that the whole kit and kaboodle were first written in the post-170 period. We are not talking about surviving manuscripts, we're talking presumed autographs.

And I have already presented arguments and documentary evidence that there were writers who knew of Paul and his writings much prior to 170. That, too, you have ignored and made no attempt to answer.

When I demonstrate your ignorance, that is not insulting you. It is presenting the case for you having such. And to maintain that the Pauline literature is post-Gospels and even building on it is so outrageous and so contrary to any standard of common sense (let alone intimate knowledge of the epistolary texts themselves), you do everyone a disservice which cannot go unchallenged. Just where is "the evidence" that supports this sequence of yours for the "introduction of the Christian texts"? (I'd ask the same question of aa, but that would only produce more pointless repetition by him which I would have to ignore.)

Earl Doherty