maryhelena

Very serious, aa - very serious...

aa5874

You are at a dead end.

The evidence was handed to us in platter. We have hundreds of existing Codices, NT manuscripts and and copies of writings from antiquity.

1. Hebrews and the Entire Canon are 2nd century or later writings.

2. Jesus was a Myth and the Jesus cult originated in the 2nd century.

maryhelena

I think your wrong re dating Hebrews to the 2nd century or later.

Since Hebrews is the subject of this thread - I think I'll post an updated chart, in a new thread, re how I am now placing the development of the texts of the gospel JC story.

aa5874

Where is the evidence to support what you think of Hebrews?? What you think of Hebrews is irrelevant when you cannot provide any data.

There is absolutely no author of the NT Canon that was influenced by Hebrews and up to the mid 2nd century Epistle Hebrews was unknown to apologetic writers.

maryhelena

And the Pauline writer makes no mention of JC being baptized by JtB (gMark) - and yet your own position has gMark written prior to the Pauline epistles.

aa, people, writers, choose what they want to reference. That a writer did not mention a specific point or another - does not mean that specific info did not exist when they put ink to parchment. And when a writer does mention a specific point - does not translate into that point not being known prior to that writer mentioning it.

aa5874

And some Scholars claim the Four Canonised Gospels are after the Pauline writers even though none of the Gospel authors make mention of Paul.

I do not place the Pauline letters after the short gMark merely because the Pauline letters do not mention JtB.

I am not myopic.

I also take into account the theological contents of Pauline letters, Hebrews, gMark, the Gospels and other Apologetic sources.

The Pauline writings and Hebrews are far more advanced theologically than gMark and all the Gospels of the Canon.

There is a massive amount of evidence from antiquity that support late Pauline writings including Hebrews.

The theological content of Hebrews--the Christology of Hebrews is the Smoking Gun.

The Christology of Hebrews is far more sophisticated, far more refined, than the short gMark and the other Canonised Gospels.

The author of short gMark knew NOTHING about Jesus as the High Priest of the order of Melchesidek who was also a Sacrificial Lamb in the days of his Flesh.

Epistle Hebrews with Jesus as a High Priest and simultaeously the very Sacrifice itself is an extremely late theological development and UNKNOWN to ALL the authors of the Canon and even up to the mid 2nd century.

Hebrews is a Smoking Gun for the death of Doherty's argument.

jakejonesiv

Hi Bernard,

You are right, you and I have almost nothing in agreement aside from pointing out that Doherty has over-reached on his exegisis of Hebrews. But that is all it takes. If you disagree with Dogerty, you are put on his enemies list.

He acts more like a cult leader than a scholar. As you have observed above, he has set himself up as not only as a debater, but the judge also. That is why Earl Doherty's Hebrew 8:4 challenge is so absolutely worthless: to win the challenge you have to make Dogherty admit that he is wrong. :realitycheck:

AA has been ripping him to shreads the whole time. If anyone deserves to be declared the winner of the challenge, my vote goes to AA.



Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

TedM

I'm just curious--Earl and others explain the lack of details about the Gospel Jesus in Pauline letters by the idea that noone knew the details because the Gospels created for the first time a human Jesus, and were written AFTER the Pauline letters.

If in fact you are correct, how do YOU explain the lack of detail about the Gospel Jesus if the Pauline letters were written after the Gospels were written? Why don't those letters ever clearly reference Jesus as teacher or as a miracle worker, for example? Why don't they mention the 12 disciples, and frequently, since all of that was clearly established in the Gospels?

aa5874

Only those who are Myopic and illogical argue that the Pauline letters are earlier than the Jesus story in the Canon because they lack details about Jesus.

If we employ such absurdities then we can argue that Revelation by John was written BEFORE the Gospels and the Pauline letters because Revelation by John lacks details about Jesus and also lack details about the Pauline writers.

If we employ such logical fallacies then it can be argued the Epistle of James was composed BEFORE ALL the Gospels and ALL the Pauline letters because Epistle James lacks details about Jesus and the Pauline writings.

Again, if we employ such flawed methodology then it can be argued that the very Epistle Hebrews was composed BEFORE ALL the Gospels and the Pauline letters because it lacks details of Jesus and the Pauline writers.

In fact, if we use Only lack of details about Jesus to date the books of the Canon then it can be argued the Pastorals were composed BEFORE all the Gospels and the Pauline letters to the Churches because there is far less detail about Jesus in the Pastorals than the letters to Corinthians, Romans, Philippians and Galatians.

Those who claim the Pauline writings and Hebrews were composed before the Gospels because of a lack of details of Jesus are now CONFOUNDED by the fact that the Gospels contain ZERO details about the Revelation of Paul and the High Priest in the order of Melchesidek--A High Priest who Sacficied himself--theological ambiguous Mumbo-Jumbo.


If we use the very same methodology of lack of details about Jesus and Paul then ALL The Gospels, Revelation, the Pastorals, Epistle James were composed before the Pauline letter and Hebrews because of a lack of Details about the Pauline revealed gospel of the resurrected and the Ambiguous Mumbo-Jumbo in Hebrews--Jesus as Melchisedek the High Priest who was both a Sacrifice and a Priest.

It is NOT lack of details about Jesus or Paul alone that give clues of the chronology but it is the Theology that is the SMOKING GUN.

The teachings of the very character called Jesus in the short gMark is far less developed than those in the Pauline writings and Hebrews.

In the short gMark Jesus only claimed he would resurrect--that is all.

In the Epistles, Jesus was a Sacrificial Lamb who gave his life for the Remission of the Sins of ALL mankind.

TedM

GJohn says that too (for God so loved the world). Even Mark says he came to give his life as a ransom for many in 10:45:


Again I ask: Why didn't Paul refer to Jesus as a miracle worker or healer, or teacher clearly in any place at all when he certainly could have? Did those things mean nothing to 'Paul'?

Is it really all that surprising for an early 'advanced' theology to have developed out of a man who was killed on passover and who others said had been resurrected? It would have been OBVIOUS to any Jew who wasn't too repulsed by the crucifixion, that his death could have been seen as a sacrifice for sins, and the resurrection as the proof. It's not an advanced theology, aa. It is almost inevitable that such a theology would have quickly arisen if the most basic claims were believed.

I'm not saying there was no evolution of ideas, but I am saying that the ideas of someone like Paul could have easily come about very soon after the crucifixion.