James The Least

This is why I think the Pauline writings may post-date Mark's gospel. Note that the synoptic gospels were not attributed to the apostles themselves. The original idea was that the apostles did not write anything and they had all died mysteriously. But this left the churches with the need of having someone with apostolic authority to articulate the church's position. So "Paul" the Pharisee who saw the light after Jesus appeared to him was invented to answer that need. Letters were written specifically without internal data references and then retrojected into the past. This all happened around 80-120. They were presented to the churches as having been written shortly after the time of Jesus.

By the time John's gospel was written, the original ban on the concept of having the apostles themselves write gospels was forgotten or ignored, and soon we had gospels from Peter, Thomas, et al.

Horatio Parker

What you ignore or don't understand is that imagination is central to the story. The ambiguity, generally, not necessarily this verse but throughout, is intentional, to stimulate thought. Religious and spiritual thought is often communicated via negative definitions.

But you're too rigid to admit that more than one interpretation is possible.

Horatio Parker

What I find interesting about the Paul/Marcion theory is that it makes "Paul" both early and late. His ministry was early, and his epistles late.

aa5874

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

The gospel according to Mark considered the earliest Canonised Gospel has the most variants per page but the Pauline letters have some of the lowest variants per page and are even less than Acts, Revelation, the Epistles of James, Jude and Peter.

All the elements to support early Pauline letters are missing.


The Pauline letter are filled with Anachronism.

1. Galatians 1.19 was lifted from Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 composed c 93 CE.

2. Galatians 1.18 was composed AFTER gMark was composed SOMETIME AFTER c 93 CE.

3. Romans 1.18 was composed AFTER gMark or after c 70 CE.

4. Romans 11.17-21 was composed AFTER c 70 CE or after the Fall of the Temple and the calamities of the Jews.

5. 1 Cor. 15 was composed AFTER gMark or at least AFTER 70 CE.

6. Philippians was composed AFTER gMark or at least after c 70 CE

You are absolutely right. Every time we find a "high christology" it is considered later than the Synoptics yet the Pauline writing with the Highest Christology in the Canon is considered earlier than the Synoptics.

This is completely unacceptable.

The Christology of the Pauline letters are even Far more advanced than gJohn.

Not even Jesus Christ in gMark knew that he would die for the Sins of all the World and that without the resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins for all mankind.

The abundance of evidence overwhelmingly support very late Pauline letters.

outhouse

This is more accurate in details of Paul, as well as dealing with pauls historicity.

It also dates him by multiple attestation in the first century.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~kathrynv/w...cal%20Paul.pdf

a. Was there a Paul of Tarsus?

While in the early 1800’s some German scholarship suggested that this person was not in actuality, an historical person. However, these investigations were not convincing and virtually all scholars agree that Paul was indeed an historical person.


b. Sources

Some of the more convincing evidence for the Apostle Paul's existence is found in the following ancient literature.

i. Clement of Rome cites Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth (c. 95 C.E.).

ii. Irenaeus (140-202 C.E.) cites Paul in his work "Against Heresies."

iii. There is also a description of Paul's physical appearance in the apocryphal work "Acts of Paul and Thecla."

iv. Then, of course, there is Peter's reference to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15 and

v. Luke's discussion of Paul's ministry in the book of Acts.

aa5874

You are not making much sense.

I am arguing in support of what is written in the short gMark and you are arguing about what you imagine.

This is BC&H--NOT Sunday School.

In gMark, the AUTHOR CLAIMED his Jesus was the Son of God, that his Jesus WALKED on the SEA, that his Jesus Transfigured and that his Jesus Resurrected.

That is NOT imagination but Physical written statements.

I no longer accept imagination as evidence.

stephan huller

What is the evidence that the epistles were late?

tanya

jakejonesiv, post 1

What is the evidence that the epistles preceded Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho"?

If you had written a comparable work, Stephan, would you have omitted reference to the "paraclete's" texts?

Either "Paul" was not viewed by Justin as the "paraclete", else, Justin never heard of "Paul".

aa5874

What is the evidence that the Pauline Epistles were early??

James The Least

I think that having the synoptics attributed to people other than the apostles themselves doesn't get enough thought or attention. Who wrote them? The church could have made things much easier for themselves if they just said Peter, James, and John wrote them instead of Mark, Mattathias, and Luke. Why didn't they?