andrewcriddle

IIUC you are saying that if Paul knew that Kurios in LXX Joel 2:32 goes back to Hebrew Yahweh then he would not have used the verse in the way he does.

I can see why you think that if Paul knew this, then he would have been unjustified in using the verse in the way he does, but I'm not sure why you are confident that Paul would not make what you would regard as unjustified exegetical moves.

Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge

No, you just need to understand that:-

could itself be a lie, or just wrong, for any number of reasons. You have no way of testing that nugget of writing for truth.

The other option is that he had a visionary experience of Jesus ("I got the gospel from no man ....") - i.e., in real-world terms (that match the externality of the source I was testing the numbers with, and that we are both testing a human Jesus with), he had a hallucination of talking to an entity that he took to be a spiritual being who had recently been incarnated on earth, been killed and resurrected. He doesn't need to have been mad to have had that kind of experience either.

The GLuke quote doesn't negate this possibility because you have no way of telling whether it's true, and factual, or a mistake, or fiction.

Yes, and as I've explained to you, I was comfortable ascribing lying in that instance because exaggerating or lying about numbers is a thing people do, so if you don't find the numbers add up externally, it's reasonable to think that IF a movement existed at that time, either the numbers were exaggerated at the time, or later - OR there was no movement at that time.

But I see no comparable reason, from external evidence, to suggest that the "Paul" writings are lying about seeing Jesus Christ, because seeing Jesus Christ (or, to be precise, seeing something - e.g. a hallucination - one thinks is Jesus Christ, or takes to be Jesus Christ) is a live possibility. That sort of thing does happen.

The writings might be making that up, they might be dated later, and by somebody not called "Paul" (or even "Saul", or even "Simon (Magus)"), but on the face of it, if they're dated as standard dating has it, there's simply no reason not to take "Paul" at his word - that it sure seemed to him like he was talking to a divine entity who had recently incarnated, been killed and resurrected.

This explanation is also compatible with there being no human or divine Jesus Christ entity in fact or in reality.

The "sources of antiquity" is the existence of an NT Canon, the existence of a Christian religion dating from at least somewhere roundabout the middle of the 2nd century, and (according to its own testimony, which is not to be automatically believed, but not totally negligible either) probably before that. IF A CHRISTIAN RELIGION EXISTED AT ALL circa 50 CE, it MUST, LOGICALLY, HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY SMALL.

A Christian religion may not have existed at that time at all - certainly there seems to be no archaeological evidence, but then one wouldn't expect much evidence for a teensy-weensy movement at that time.

Re. the visions: once again, if the "Paul" writings do date from 50 CE, and are genuine, then there's no reason to doubt "Paul"'s word, that it seemed to him that he got his gospel from Jesus Christ. That's what visionary experience is sometimes like - it can seem like a real entity talking to you.

None of the "evidence" you've given really puts the standard dating into any especial doubt (see below).

Not necessarily true. Some scholars have noted "Pauline" themes in GMark. Also there are hints of gnosticism in GJohn, as there is in "Paul".

And how do you know that claim is correct?

So what? Why would you expect him to?

Again, so what? Why should we believe him?

Yes I agree. I think the gospels and Acts were mostly written between 70-150 CE, and probably more toward the latter end. GLuke has also been deduced to have some layering, and perhaps contain some independent material older than GMark. But GLuke being older is no problem for a Paul dating - "Paul" shows no knowledge of GLuke - your apologetic writer notwithstanding (again: who is he, and why should we believe him about "Paul"?)

Loomis

Nope.

Numbers 13:16
These are the names of the men Moses sent to explore the land. (Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)

Barnabas 12:8
What again saith Moses unto Joshua the son of Nun, when he gave him this name, as being a prophet, that all the people might give ear to him alone, because the Father revealed all things concerning his son Joshua?

Sirach 46:1
Joshua son of Nun was mighty in war,
and was the successor of Moses in the prophetic office.
He became, as his name implies,
a great savior of God’s elect

Philippians 2:8-9
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name

Loomis

But don’t forget about the readers. Paul’s readers had to be naïve too or else the whole thing would never fly. Note that Acts 2:21 makes the same blunder.

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

That suggests to me that Acts was written by the same author as Romans 10, or else the saying had to be reasonably popular (lots of naïve readers).

See what I mean?

There’s also an allusion to it in Matthew 7:21

“Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

It requires isolation. Either time or distance or both.

Loomis

Yes and no. I agree with aa5874 on this one. ‘Paul’ never existed. ‘Paul’ is fiction. The Pauline letters were fabrications to make the church look older than it actually was.
Because Paul taught his readers to ‘call on the name of the Lord’ (meaning the name Jesus). And he used Joel 2:32 as a proof text.

The idea of calling on Jesus because Joel 2:32 says so is incongruent with the idea of not uttering the name in Joel 2:32.

Do you see what I’m trying to say?

The dissonance would not have allowed it. It would only fly in an environment where Paul and his readers were unaware of the prohibition against saying the name. They had to be ignorant about Yahweh.

Loomis

As a general rule Theos was a substitute for Elohim (singular). Not Yahweh. But there are some exceptions.

There’s some good info here:

http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/05_2/troyer_names_of_god.htm

aa5874

But, Joshua was not a title. In the Bible stories also, Jesus called Simon by the name of Peter or Cephas. Peter or Cephas was a NOT title.

There is no indication in Josephus that Jesus the Son of Ananus, the declared madman, was given the name of Jesus long after he was born or because of prophecy.

"Messiah" was a title not Joshua or Peter/Cephas.

Loomis

Sure it was. It was a designation signifying nobility. Philippians 2:9 says Jesus earned the name ‘Jesus’ as a result of dying on the cross. Numbers 13:16 says that Joshua was originally named Hoshea. Sirach 46:1 says “Joshua” implies change and means “a great savior of God’s elect.”

“Joshua” is probably based on Jeremiah 23:6.

This is the name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh our righteousness’.

That passage probably inspired thousands of real-life mothers to name their real-life baby boys Jesus/Joshua. Nevertheless Joshua was originally an honorary designation signifying nobility. It was earned. It was a title.

Jesus said there would be many false Jesuses.

Mark 13:6
Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.

Loomis

Hebrews 1:4
Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.

What name is Hebrews 1:4 talking about?

John 10:25-26
I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me

What name is Jesus talking about?

Deuteronomy 18:18-19
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

What name is Yahweh talking about?

John 7:40
On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet."

What prophet are the people talking about?

spamandham

My perspective of the ancients is that they had the same innate intellectual capacity as we do, but it went undeveloped in most. Most were illiterate, illogical, and lived their entire lives driven 99% by emotion (lot's of people today still fit that description).

I don't think it would be hard to find gentiles who either weren't familiar with the nuances of the Jewish scriptures, or simply didn't care, and gentiles were Paul's audience.

While I think it's possible that Paul's letters are *much* later than usually assumed, I don't think that's necessary based on this discussion.