spamandham

The easiest solution, is to attribute this to multiple writers over time. If we *don't* start by assuming that the writers of the NT were modern investigative journalists dutifully attempting to record history as it actually happened, the analysis is both simpler, and more in line with what we know about both the culture and human nature in general.

kcdad

I don't necessarily hold a different opinion with your last statement, but why exactly would pretend to believe that such is a factual statement?

There is Chronological information... based on whose chronologies? Roman? Hebrew? Greek? Phonetician? Christian?

Which Herod do you think the author of Matthew referred to and why? How about Luke or Mark? Do you think they studied the same history books?

I get the idea you think that everything that has to do with anything religious was made up about 300 years ago and none of it is grounded in social situations with real people living in real history...

spamandham

To extend the analogy, the only known Picasso signatures are those on the paintings in the shop. There are no independent Picasso signatures anywhere else in the entire world. You know that, the shop owner knows that, the experts know that, and you all know that you all know that.

Now the experts tell you these are indeed the signatures of Picasso. Do you pay full price?

kcdad

Even easier is to realize that many people were involved in the turmoils of the Roman empire in the first century... and this one movement of anti-imperial communism caught some people's interest for different reasons. How would the Roman empire deal with a communist state like Palestine... a separatist state with a long history of avoiding pluralistic assimilation.

The Hebrews had three resistance movements to Rome (as did most societies) the Sadducees: assimilators who would go along to get along, the Zealots: violent resistors and The Pharisees: stick to our own cultural demands and whatever happens happens... Jesus and his followers, in the Pharisee tradition would not compromise their culture, however, what made Jesus' teachings unique was how he expanded the culture of Israel to include the Romans (and everyone else)... ALL people are now of "the Chosen". All people are now worthy, acceptable and fellow children of God. So now ALL cultures are equal, there is no culture to sacrifice... all that matters now is how we treat our fellow beings on Earth, irregardless of their or our culture.

NOTE: it is interesting that the history of Israel is replete with those demanding assimilation to get along... The Northern Kingdom for example, and those unwilling to assimilate, the Southern Kingdom...

Solo

What on earth are 'independent signatures' ?

What I have been telling you and you don't get in is that you rely on someone else's expertise in concluding this Pauline text or that Picasso painting is a fake, but you don't listen to the same experts when they tell you this Paul or that Picasso is an original.

Jiri

aa5874

300 years ago? No such thing happened at that time. You have the wrong idea.

aa5874

So, where does Paul fit into your scenario? And when did Jesus have followers before or after Paul?

Based on Philo, Josephus and Justin Martyr it would appear that it is unlikely there was anyone called Saul/Paul in the first century and there is no indication that Jesus of the NT existed.

You seem to think that Jesus' teachings were unique but as the story goes he was executed for blasphemy.

spamandham

The argument that the 'inauthentic' letters were not written by the same author as the 'authentic' letters is straightforward - the styles are observably different.

What this tells us is that at least ~1/2 the letters are phonies. It does not tell us anything about the author(s) of the other 7 letters.

Can you name some experts who have identified Paul as the author of the other 7 letters, and a brief summary of the method they used to determine it was actually Paul and not someone else writing in the name of Paul?

aa5874

Once it is admitted that up to seven of thirteen Pauline letters were not written by the same author then it should go without saying that it is becoming clearer and clearer that the chronology of events and the events themselves with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul as provided by the church writers were completely bogus.

The church writers gave erroneous information about the date of writing of the Gospels.

The church writers gave erroneous information about the very existence of Jesus the same God/man that the church writers themselves claim to worship.

It should be almost certain by now that there was no “Paul” in the 1st century preaching to anyone about Jesus, the god/man. The church writers fabricated “Paul” on the premise that Jesus was already believed to have actually existed as found in the gospel stories.

The fabrication of “Paul” is further solidified when Acts of the Apostles is examined. The very conversion of “Paul” as reported at least three times is just fiction, yet Acts is regarded as sacred scripture.

It should be obvious the Pauline letters needed Acts of the Apostles to appear to be an independent source for the activities or history of “Paul”. That independent source turned out to be, according to church writers, the very same “Luke” who wrote a gospel which in turn is completely filled with fiction about Jesus.

It is just mind boggling to me that after realizing that the first five books of the NT are filled with fiction and chronological errors, and that half of the Paul letters were mis-represented that some are still using the words of “Paul” alone as the truth and claiming in essence he was an heretic but was not known to be one or his writings were interpolated.

The letters of “Paul” and Acts of the Apostles were deliberately written or manufactured to falsely maintain the claim of the Church writers that their doctrine of salvation as stipulated by “Paul” was preached since the first century before the death of Nero all over the Roman Empire and was universally accepted by all the Christian churches.

But in reality, even from the internal church writings, it can be shown that there was no orthodoxy in “Christianity” until the 4th century since there was no single or central doctrinal authority until the arrival of Constantine.

Before Constantine there was a multiplicity of doctrines and historical accounts of Jesus after Constantine it was Acts of the Apostles and the revelation doctrine of “Paul”.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were final. They were written last.

Loomis

Afaik the appearance to James can only be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among those that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said, 'Bring a table and bread!' And immediately it is added that he took the bread, blessed it, and broke it and gave it to James the Just and said to him, 'My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man has risen from among those that sleep.

This story is dependent on the empty tomb story of Mark because Jesus is presented as buried with a linen shroud (Mark 15:45), which he then gives to the servant of the priest (cf. Mark 15:1).

That supports this chronology:

Gospel of Mark -> Gospel of the Hebrews -> 1 Corinthians 15.3-8

But now prove Paul was familiar with Luke or Matthew.

Note that Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15 omits any mention of appearances to Mary of Magdala or to "women" as in Matthew, Luke, and John.