aa5874

That is not true at all. There is no Evidence from antiquity that WE KNOW of whichs show that Paul wrote before the time of Marcan material.

In fact it is the REVERSE.

WE KNOW there are apologetic sources that claimed Paul was aware of gLuke and WE KNOW from the Pauline material that JESUS was ALREADY DEAD, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED by the time Paul wrote.

WE KNOW that the early SHORT ending of gMARK did NOT include the post-resurrection meeting with the apostles but found in the Pauline writings.

WE KNOW that the early SHORT ending of gMark did not include the 500 people who saw the post-resurrected Jesus but found in the Pauline writings.

WE KNOW that the early SHORT ending of gMark did NOT include the ascension of Jesus but found in the Pauline writings.

WE KNOW that the early SHORT ending of gMark did NOT include speaking in tongues but found in the Pauline writings.

The claim in Galatians 1.19 cannot be accepted or assumed to be true when the Pauline writers made statement about Jesus and his own whereabouts that may have been false.

The author of Acts who claimed to be a close companion of Paul did not confirm Paul's whereabouts after he was blinded by a bright light.

The PAULINE writings are NOT even corroborated by apologetic sources in many instances.

The described identities of the Lord and the apostle Thomas make Galatians 1.19 irrelevant.

The Pauline text CANNOT be studied in ISOLATION when it may have been PRE-POLLUTED.

The Pauline writings like all the NT Canon have passed through the POLLUTING hands of the Church.

judge

Maybe Jesus did not exist, maybe he did. I dont care. It makes no difference to me as far I can see.
Out of interest what is this "well argued"theory that Jesus didnt exist?

I have followed Spin's ideas here for quite a while and have never seem him argue that. He is far too circumspect to stick his neck out where it would be too much of an easy target.

All that Spin ever argues is that we cant know that he did exist, if we follow proper procedure WRT history.

I do stand to be corrected on this though.

judge

So Paul uses kurios" (lord) to refer to god when he quotes the hebrew bible?
Big problem is that paul uses theos (or a variation) to refer to god about 6 times before he finishes the first chapter of galatians.

So in the very first chapter of galatians Paul refers to god as theos and the one time he uses kurios , the one time, you expect us to blindly believe he means god also?
All this despite the fact you ackowledge that Paul uses kurios in 1 corhinthians to refer to Jesus. Even though you'd like to wish them away.

The whole case for galatians 1:19 reading god rather than brother is just very very weak.

bacht

I may be reading too much into this, but the whole point of modern scholarship is to avoid getting trapped in one's own perspective. The aim is to make one's arguments clear enough to be understood by others in the same area of interest, and to submit one's conclusions to recognized peers. The rules of logic are meant to be more or less universal and transparent, like mathematical proofs.

Obviously life isn't perfect, and we never have perfect information or evidence for any theory. But the process is supposed to be consistent from one researcher to the next. Otherwise we end up with millions of competing subjective opinions, with no clear way to discriminate between solid and shaky reasoning.

ApostateAbe

Yes, you are completely right. Much of the time arguing on this forum, I have learned that people do not share my general outlook nor my methods of forming conclusions. Historians and critical scholars may have a universally-agreed set of rules that form the basis of how they debate, but the people in this forum have a large variety of ways of fundamental reasoning; which will mean that, when there is a disagreement, there is simply no way to resolve it, except by saying, "...this is the way that I think, and I am not going to ask you to accept it--I only hope that you will understand it." For example, try as you might, you will never convince aa5874 of anything. He has made conclusions with reasoning that seems ludicrous to the rest of us, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince him. There are some people like aa5874 to a lesser extent. There are other people who think the evidence is simply not strong enough for any conclusion, and they make no apparent conclusions at all. I often see the differences in the strength of the evidence to be drastic, but, somehow, Toto sees it differently. I read a book she recommended to me (Derrida for Beginners (or via: amazon.co.uk)) about a philosopher who would seem to advocate taking all of the interpretations on the reading of a text, all of the positions at the same time, as long as the interpretations are possible (not just probable or plausible). That is indeed the underlying methodology that Toto seems to have, if any, though she may deny it. There seems to be no possible way that I can convince her of anything about what the texts probably imply, either. But, she remains a very good source of knowledge on this subject. Toto is the one who referred me to the Argument to the Best Explanation.

aa5874

But do we have millions of competitors?

In any event the conclusion of some scholars appear to expose that the rules of logic have been suspended not only by them but also their peers.

For example, it is logically reasonable to assume that the author of gMark or gMatthew copied from one another since almost 100% of gMark can be found in gMattthew.

And it is also logically reasonable to assume the author of gLuke may have used gMatthew and gMark since a very large percentage of information in gLuke can be found in gMatthew and gMark.

But, when dealing with the Pauline writings it would appear that all LOGICS was suspended.

Although the Pauline writings contain almost ZERO details on the life of Jesus ON earth or almost ZERO information found in the Synoptics and that the Pauline writers claimed to be in contact Jesus AFTER he was dead yet some scholars still claim the Synoptics were derived from the Pauline writings.

The Pauline source of information must be logically assumed to be false or most unreliable. Paul's source was a resurrected DEAD MAN.

It must be logically assumed that PAUL used some other source to find out about Jesus it logically could not have been a resurrected dead man.

Now, only the NT CANON mentioned JESUS who was betrayed in the night, was crucified, shed his blood, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

PAUL either got his information from a RESURRECTED DEAD or a GOSPEL source.

Logically I assume Paul used a human written source, a GOSPEL source.

It is just NOT LOGICAL that PAUL used the RESURRECTED DEAD as a primary source for his HISTORY of JESUS.

Chaucer

This is an essential question, and it's time for aa5874 to resolve this clear contradiction.

Chaucer

aa5874

But, the claims from AtheistGamer are essentially erroneous and illogical.

First, I do NOT use the Pauline writings to construct the origins of Jesus believers.

It must be noted that I prefer not to use the AMBIGUOUS word "Christian".

It is my view that the Gospels were originally ANONYNOUS so I prefer to use the MEMOIRS of the Apostles as stated by Justin Martyr as more likely to be the first writing of the Jesus story.

It must be noted that the Canonised Mark is a late version since it has the LONG late ending.

A most significant statement by Justin Martyr is that, in the middle of the 2nd century, the "MEMOIRS of the Apostles" was READ in the churches.

And I also am of the view that the first Jesus story was written after the complete writings of Josephus and that it was AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem, c 70 CE, seemingly prophesied in Hebrew Scripture, that the JESUS CHRIST entity was invented for the Jews as an alternative.

I do NOT use the Pauline writings to construct the origins of Jesus believers.

The Pauline writings are the "Memoirs of the RESURRECTED DEAD" that is, the Pauline visions BEGAN after the JESUS story or life ENDED.

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" BEGIN at the CONCEPTION and BIRTH of Jesus.

Now, let us examine the fallacies of AtheistGamer.



Now, ONCE the FIRST Jesus story was invented at the end of 1st century and the mythical God/man character was placed in Galilee up to the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, c 30 CE, and some LATER writer, after the end of 1st century, under the name of Paul, wishing to historicise the mythical God/man and his apostles, fabricated stories where the writer himself claimed he met the apostles of the mythical God/man and SAW and HEARD from the myth after it was resurrected then it is NOT necessary for Paul to predate the FIRST Jesus story at all.

In the Jesus story, his apostles SAW Jesus on earth and he TAUGHT them on EARTH until he died.

In the Pauline writings, Paul was the APOSTLE of the RESURRECTED DEAD and his gospel REVEALED by the RESURRECTED DEAD.

Listen to the Pauline writer.

Galatians 1:1 &11-12 Now, Paul has OPENED the flood-gates of MYTHICISM. Paul placed himself in a basket in Damascus during the reign of Aretas, (see 2 Cor. 11.31-32) he was supposed to be a contemporary of Jesus yet he did NOT write ONE single time that he SAW Jesus ALIVE, Paul did NOT CERTIFY that Jesus was alive, but he CERTIFIES his GOSPEL was from the resurrected DEAD and that he was an Apostle of the resurrected dead.

PAUL has opened the flood-gates to MYTHICISM. Paul CERTIFIED the resurrection of Jesus the God/man, the MYTH.

spin

Nothing new here.

The non-titular κυριος for Jesus is only securely used in 1 Corinthians. We know for sure that at least one instance of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus is an interpolation in 1 Cor because of the manuscript tradition.

Paul has no problem using both θεος and the non-titular κυριος for god. One expects that he does it. The problem arises when the non-titular κυριος is used for Jesus in 1 Cor because if it were original to Paul there would be no way of knowing when Paul refers to Jesus or to god when he uses it.

Let me put this as clearly as I can: there is no case based on what Paul has written to justify a reading of Jesus in Gal 1:19. It is tendentious, based on nothing more than eisegesis.

When are people going to admit that the non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus is a later development in the christian tradition? It is not found in the post-Pauline Mark or Matthew. This would suggest that if it was used in Paul, it disappeared in these two gospels before returning to use in select parts of Luke and John. It would be a case of on-off-on terminology.

It is far simpler to see that it is a later development retrojected into Paul's text and we have a simple example of such an interpolation in 1 Cor 11:29, when someone added του κυριου to the end of the verse, showing an inadequacy perceived in the state of the text, which I've argued elsewhere is because of a previous interpolation disrupting the text (the inclusion of the last supper with another non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus in the middle of Paul's discussion of the Corinthians' behavior in his religious meal).


spin

judge

But you yourself already admiited that in 1 Corinthians Paul uses Kurios to refer to Jesus, and that you have no evidence that these instances arent genuine.
What you seem to be saying is that you wish these instances werent there, or you wish you could find away to show these instances are interpolations.*

But you cant show that.


When you provide the necessary evidence.

I know you have convinced yourself (although I have reason to doubt even that), and that you might convince some anonymous internet posters...but so what?

What we are left with is Paul using kurios (lord) to refer to Jesus in 1 Corinthians, and you wishing it wasnt there, and like a true fundamentalist, trying rationalise it away.

* Of the many times Paul uses kurios to refer to Jesus you have one lonely instance of possible interpolation.