Bingo the Clown-O

Bingo.

aa5874

Why are people here TERRIFIED to show that ALL the Pauline writings are LATE based on ACTUAL WRITTEN statements?

There is no need to be terrified. The Pauline writings--P 46-- has been dated and they were NOT written BEFORE the Fall of the Temple based on paleography.

The evidence is BEFORE us.

People appear to be terrified by the EVIDENCE.

The Pauline writings are HISTORICALLY a Pack of Lies for the Glory of God and the Roman Church.

You will NEVER NEVER EVER FIND the BLASPHEMY in Hebrew Scripture that Jesus Christ DIED for SINS.

BULLS and GOATS DIED for SINS in Hebrew Scripture. See Leviticus 16.

"Paul" used CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE to claim Jesus DIED for our SINS. See John 3.16

jakejonesiv

OK, Bingo, I understand where you are coming from now. Acts of all the Apostles is in Muratorian Canon, so would therefor might be considered scripture.

archibald

Yes, but what I meant is, the interpolation becomes exceptionally clumsy. Surely, you have the interpolator, as you say, trying to sound like what Paul would have said, but......then you have the interpolator saying that Paul says he read about his own vision in the scripture? It doesn't sound parsimonius.

Bingo the Clown-O

Let me be sure I understand you. You are saying that the interpolator would have to be pretty stupid to talk about himself (‘Paul’) in the third person like that.

Right?

If so then I disagree. That whole section has that familiar tongue-in-cheek midrash/ Santa-Clause-story-with-elves vibe that we see in the gospels (like the crucifixion episode where everything is pulled out of Psalm 22). The reason ‘Paul’ calls himself “the least” in 15:9 is because the author of Matthew 5:19 put it there. It’s biblical infighting between two imaginary characters called ‘Jesus’ and ‘Paul’.

It looks to me like the interpolator had a sense of humor and probably considered his efforts a creative exercise.

archibald

Oh, I'm not sure you quite get the whole problem, for me. It's not just that Paul appears to be referring to himself in the third person, it's that he also seems to be saying that he learned from scriptures about his own vision.

Bingo, just a rhetorical question, does it ever occur to you that you might be slightly going out on a limb to explain things in a less than obvious way?

aa5874

"Paul" did NOT claim he had a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Paul was claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

1Corinthians 15:15 - It was a PHYSICAL resurrection to which "Paul" claimed he was a witness.

But, when are you going to PRESENT a source for the historical Jesus of Nazareth?

May I remind you that the HJ argument does NOT require that there be any MJers.

HJers are ARGUING against the WRITTEN EVIDENCE of MYTH Jesus found in the EXTANT writings of antiquity.

It is the WRITTEN STATEMENTS in the EXTANT CODICES about Jesus that HJers have REJECTED as MYTH and EMBELLISHMENTS.

Please, PRESENT credible historical sources for HJ of Nazareth.

You cannot use the same sources that you RECOGNISE as UNRELIABLE, MYTHOLOGY and FICTION to support Your HJ of Nazareth argument.

In the NT Jesus was the THREE IN ONE, the Ghost, the God and Man.