DCHindley

Aa,

You repeat yourself a lot.

Is your profession advertising or a Republican PR advisor?

You repeat yourself a lot.

Repeat it enough times and people will start to believe it.

You repeat yourself a lot.

Repeat it enough times and people will start to believe it.

You repeat yourself a lot.

DCH

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

When one examines the NT and the Church writings it is very clear that the Church have presented bogus information about the chronology, authorship and dating of books of their Canon in order to create a false history of believers for the GOD/MAN Jesus.

This is found in a writing with the title "Against Marcion", the author will admit that he will use the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology to undermine Marcion.

"Against Marcion" 4.4 So it is clear that the bogus information will be used against Marcion.

But, in doing a little research, it has been brought to my attention that the Pauline writings show far less textual variant than the Synoptics indicating that they are later than the Synoptics.

It is expected that a later writing will contain less textual variants than a earlier writing.

Look for a moment at the Babara and Kurt Alland Textual variants Table of Greek New Testament.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

It will be noticed that gMark ,considered the earliest Gospel, has 10.3 variants per page or only about 45.1% variant free verses.

If Acts is taken into consideration as later than gMark it would be noticed that the variants per page decreases to 4.2 and that Acts of the Apostles has 67.3% variant free verses.

Matthew.........1071....... ....642............................59.9%.......... ......................6.8
Mark..............678 verses...306 variant-free-verses..45.1% ................................10.3 variants per page


Acts.............1006............677.............. ................67.3% .................................4.2 Revelations...405..............214................ ..............52.8................................ .....5.1

But when the Pauline Epistles to the Churches are examined it is noticed that there are very few textual variants per page and that the percentage of textual variant free verses have dramatically increased.

The Pastorals considered to be later than the Epistles to the Churches have an almost identical variants per page and percentage of textual variant free verses.

Romans......433 verses......327 variant-free-verses....75.5% ....2.9 variants per page
1 Corinth......437...............331................ ................75.7.......3.5
Galatians.....149 ...............114................................ 76.5.......3.3

1 Timothy....113.................92................. .................81.4......2.9
2 Timothy.....83..................66................ .................79.5.......2.8

But, now look at Epistles that are non-Pauline and considered later than the Pauline Epistles, the variants per page dramatically increases.

James.......108 verses.........66 .........................61.6%........5.6 variants per page
1 Peter.......105.................70................ ...........66.6 ..........5.7

Even the General Epistles give indications that they are earlier than the Pauline writings.

And we take the Gospels as a whole, and do the same for all the writings under the name Paul and the General Epistles, we gst the following.

Gospels................53.5% variant free verses............8.1 variants per page

Pauline Epistles ....74.9.........................................3 .2............

General Epistles......56.9................................ .........4.64..........

The data tends to indicate that writings under the name Paul suffered the least textual variants and this may indicate that these writings were later than the Gospels and the General Epistles. After all Justin Martyr did not account for any writer named Saul or Paul up to the middle of the 2nd century although he accounted for Revelations by John, Simon Magus, Menander, the Valentinians, the Basilidians, Saturnilians and Marcion.

Now, if the Pauline writings were the earliest and did suffer rampant mutilation by Marcion and the heretics how can it be explained that the writings under the name Paul has the highest number of textual free variants?

Because they were later than the Church would have us believe. Marcion did not mutilate the Pauline writings, Marcion's doctrine was derived from Empedocles.

Against All Heresies 7.19 The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

mountainman

DCHindley,

Apologists have been repeating published assertions about the HJ for centuries --- none of which have any substance. Repetitions of these unsubstantial assertions have echoed around the planet since the 4th century. aa5874 is simply redressing the balance of trade.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

It is considered that information found in gMark was written just after or about the Fall of the Temple and the gMark ended initially at Mark 16.8.

And it is the very last verses of the short version that are of interest with respect to the dating of the Pauline writings.

This is found in Mark 16.5-8 Now, this ending by the author of gMark makes perfect sense once he was the first to write about the Jesus story.

Before gMark no-one would have known one single thing about the resurrection of any character called Jesus who was crucified and the author of gMark gave the explanation.

The reason why no-one has ever heard about the resurrection of Jesus until now, it is because those who visited the tomb told no-one, they were afraid to tell what they saw and heard at the tomb.

The author of Mark has for the first time revealed the truth of the resurrection to the world.

Now, the short ending of gMark makes no sense at all if the Pauline writer was already preaching all over the Roman Empire, about 30 years before gMark, that Jesus was raised from the dead, that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that if Jesus was not raised from the dead all of mankind would still be in sin.

All the people who should have heard the Pauline writer preach about the resurrection of Jesus should have known that the short-ending of gMark was not really true. The people who visited the tomb must have told at least Paul that Jesus was raised from the dead.

It should have been an open secret, common knowledge, that Jesus was raised from the dead.

How is it that the author of gMark did not realise that the Pauline writer had already told the whole of the Roman Empire that Jesus was raised from the dead?

Because there was no resurrection story before the Jesus stories were written.

And it was after the Pauline writings when the Pauline writer was placed anachronistically about 30 years before the first Jesus stories that it was realised that gMark must be altered to harmonise with the Pauline writings.

From gMark 16.9, a new harmonised end-story was written, Mary Magdalene did tell the disciples as they mourned and wept and then Jesus made his post-resurrection appearance.

The late ending of gMark is harmonised with the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

The Canon as it is found cannot support history it can only support belief.

If the Pauline writers were placed in Judea before the Fall of the Temple and it was known that Jesus was just a man then the Pauline writers would have been known to be liars and hypocrites.

Jesus of the NT was promoted as the son of the God of the Jews it would have been virtually impossible for the Pauline writer to have convinced Jews that Jesus was a God within a few years of his crucifixion for blasphemy and asking them to abandon the Laws of God including circumcision.

If it assumed that Jesus died at around 33 CE after being around Galilee for thirty years and did nothing but told people to turn the other cheek, to bless those who cursed them and to be meek, and who cursed the Pharisees what could have made the Pauline writer such a success all over the Empire?

The Pauline history is directly based on fictitious accounts in Acts of the Apostles where thousands of people were converting to belief in Jesus on a daily basis.

Even if belief in Jesus started before the Fall of the Temple it would not have grown by thousands on a daily basis.

The Pauline writings were most likely written after the Fall of the Temple and back-dated to produce a fraudulent history of Jesus believers.

avi

May I humbly propose that you change that to an actual date, e.g. 70 CE, versus 115 CE, or 135 CE, to avoid confusion vis a vis the first, second or third conflict between Imperial Rome and Jerusalem. "Fall of the Temple" is jargon, well understood by 99% of the world's biblical scholars, and all shades of Jews, and probably most Muslims, but not understood at all, by those of us, admittedly very ignorant, who lie outside that elite group.

If I wrote, "Warring States Period", or, for that matter, Zhan(4)Guo(2)Shi(2)Dai(4), about a billion people would understand me, but what about the other four billion? For them, I think it is easier if one writes, concretely, 475 BCE-221 BCE.

Thank you both. DCHindley is correct, in my opinion, to offer that suggestion to aa5874. I believe that what DC Hindley sought to express, in a kindhearted fashion, was the opinion, undoubtedly shared by several others, that aa's style of presentation, creates a modest barrier, which can interfere with appreciation of his considerable intellectual contribution to the debates on this forum.

Personally, I enjoy reading all of aa's many thoughtful posts, and, since I am quite repetitive myself, I am not put off by his particular style of communication, nevertheless, I appreciate DCHindley's appropriate comment. Pete, thanks for lending your support to aa. Criticism is very helpful, but sometimes, it is also good to read that one's efforts have not been entirely in vain, and I interpret your comment in that vein. Thanks to both of you.

Further:

Alright, so we have some scholars, Robert M. Price and others, who think that Marcion was the first to collect Paul's letters, though the text of the letters is apparently different from the text we know of today. This collection by Marcion apparently took place about 135CE.

Hmm. 135 CE. Hmm.
(that repetition demonstrates thinking! haha)
So, we have a large scale military operation, leading to destruction of Jerusalem, dispersal of Jews, and appearance of Paul's letters in publication form, for the first time, albeit in a different version, and where is this collection of Marcion? OOPS. Nonexistent. We know of Marcion's text only by reference to criticism of it, written by one of his many opponents, Tertullian.

That would be analogous to relying upon Voltaire's account of Leibniz' philosophy. (Voltaire was a dedicated Newtonian!)

Where's the earliest extant copy of Paul's letters? Papyrus 46, mid third century. I am looking for someone to offer evidence that Paul's letters were not created in 135CE? Why does no one seem to object to Paul's having purloined Menander's dictum from Thais, reprinted baldly, openly, without attribution, in 1 Corinthians? To me, this is not the sort of euphemism I would associate with a Galileean.

avi

avi

aa5874

But, all three suggested dates are past the supposed death of the Pauline writer which is exactly what I am establishing when I claim that the Pauline writings are anachronistic.

The Fall of the Jewish Temple c. 70 CE is the event that triggered the Jesus God/Man story.

Actually DCHindley is NOT correct. He totally mis-represents my posts by not dealing with the main body or main issues of my posts but the first and last lines.

Now, I do not comment on the writing style of others since such comments are actually irrelevant to the thread. Now, suppose I don't like your writing style what should I do?

Writing style is irrelevant.

I hope you understand that my position on the Pauline writings have nothing whatsoever to do with repetition of bogus information but on sources of antiquity.

I must not or cannot refrain from repeating what I see or read in the writings of antiquity concerning the Pauline writings.

Well, based on my research, it would appear that Marcion did not have any Pauline writings. I have found a Church writer that have contradicted Tertullian. Marcion may had the writings of Empedocles.

According to Hyppolytus, Marcion plagerised Empedocles.

This is found in "Against All Heresies" 7 So, we have again Church writers contradicting each other about events that should be rather clear. The writer called Tertullian claimed Marcion seemed to mutilate gLuke and the Pauline writings. Hyppolytus claimed Marcion did no such thing. Marcion's doctrine was not in the Pauline writings or gMark it was from Empedocles.

And it is known that the doctrine of Dualism, Marcion's doctrine, is not in the Canon. Hippolytus seems to be right.

As I have found, it was not only the writer called Tertullian that wrote about Marcion. There is Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. These two writers seem to contradict Tertullian.

It would seem more realistic that Marcion used some previous doctrine of Dualism rather than to mutilate the Pauline writings and the Gospels which were supposed to be in existence perhaps up to a hundred years before Marcion and was known in the Churches all over the Roman Empire to have nothing whatsoever to do with Dualism.

Once a Pauline writer physically preached a doctrine of non-Dualism for about thirty years and was executed while preaching non-Dualism, and had Epistles with non-Dualistic doctrine, then it makes no sense at all for Marcion to use the Pauline writings to advocate Dualism when he could have just used the Dualistic doctrine of Empedocles.

My observation is that the Church writers have developped a pattern where they have placed writings of the Canon earlier than they should have.

If we isolate the Pauline Epistles to the Churches, then virtually all the other writings of the Canon have been erroneously or deliberately placed earlier than they should have been, the authorship is wrong and the chronology are also out of synch.

The Church placed virtually all the writings of the Canon, except perhaps Revelation and gJohn's Epistles before the Fall of the Temple, but they also claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke and that the Pauline writer died before the Fall of the Temple..

Now, gLuke appear to have been written after the Fall of the Temple.

So, the Pauline writer therefore must have been aware of or very likely to be aware of the Fall of the Temple and the perceived significance of the Fall of the Temple, that God have abandoned the Jews.

Well, Romans 11 will confirm that the Pauline writer was aware of the Fall of the Temple and of it's percieved significance with respect to God and the Jews.

Romans 11.19-22 Romans 11.19-23 has clearly shown that the Pauline writer was aware that "SEVERITY" fell on the Jews and the Jewish "branch was broken off". These events did not occur between 15th year of Tiberius up to the death of the supposed Pauline writer just before the death of Nero.

When did God not spare the natural branches?

Severity fell on the Jews, their "branch was broken off" when the Jewish Temple Fell and Jerusalem was made desolate.

Now once the Jewish Temple has fallen, Jerusalem is destroyed and the Jews demoralised, then the Pauline writings make a lot of sense. They fit perfectly after the Fall of the Temple, after 70 CE.

The Pauline writer is simply offering an alternate mode of salvation and it does not involve any more Temple sacrifice, (there is no Temple), just faith in Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

JP2

It probably would have been impossible for Paul to do that because he didn't actually believe that "Jesus was a God". And secondly he wasn't trying to get them to abandon the laws of God, he was merely saying that the gentiles needn't abide by them (it was they whom he was evangelizing to, according to his own accounts - not the Jews themselves) and that the law was rendered moot by Jesus' death and resurrection anyway.

He also preached an inversionary ethical eschatology that attracted many who had been left disenfranchised by the Romans' increasingly stringent tax requirements and other social forces. In any case, someone had to be " a success all over the Empire" to get Christianity to catch on to the extent it did, didn't they? Why not go with the most parsimonious explanation and suggest that person was Paul?

The Book of Acts is of dubious historicity: this isn't news. I'm not sure how this impacts on the historicity of Paul and his surviving letters, though.

Where are you getting that interpretation from? It's an allusion to gentiles taking the place of those Jews on the olive branch (i.e. Israel - God's chosen people) who were "broken off because of their unbelief [in Jesus Christ]". It's a warning for them not be be complacent and to show due respect for the "roots" (i.e. Judaism) onto which they have been grafted.

The passage makes no sense if we take it as a metaphor for the fall of the Temple. What "branches" have been "broken off" as a consequence of "unbelief"? Jerusalem? The priesthood? Surely not Judaism itself (which, for the metaphor to hold, would require an uprooting of the entire tree)? Does the text demand such an interpretation, or do you only find yourself led there because you're deafened by Paul's silence concerning the temple destruction throughout the rest of his epistles?

aa5874

The Canonical NT is about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the son of God, born without a human father. The Pauline writings are part of the Canon. It is just patently absurd and unreasonable to even suggest that the Pauline writer did not propagate that Jesus was a God.


Romans 1.1-4 2Co 1:19 - Galatians1 .1 But, the Pauline writer himself will contradict you. The Pauline writer in all of the writings did not record a single NEGATIVE WORD about a single Emperor of Rome.

The Pauline writer did not write to the Gentiles about the Jews who did not deify the Roman Emperors and did not even make mention of their admirable and courageous stance against these SUPER-HUMANS called Emperors.

The Pauline writer did not tell the Gentiles that the Romans had disenfranchised the Jews with stringent tax requirements and that the Romans were constantly attempting to place effigies or statues of their Gods at Jewish place of worship.

The Pauline writer wrote nothing to help the disenfranchised Jews.

Paul was against the powerless and the disenfranchised. His words are recorded

Romans 13:1-2 - The Pauline writer has contradicted you. He has sided with the Roman Power.

The disenfranchised be damned.

Well, if you are not sure about the only source of Pauline history, then the history of the Pauline writer must be dubious. We have a calamity with respect to the history of the Pauline writer.

1. His history is dubious.

2. The authorship of the writings under the name Paul are dubious.

How much worse can it get?

Well, the Church writers claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke and the Pauline writer died before the Fall of the Temple under Nero.

It has gotten worse. Real real bad.

It has been deduced that gLuke was written after the Fall of the Temple.

You can forget about an early Paul.

Between the time Jesus was supposedly on earth, there are no historical source that can show that Jews thought they were broken off from God because of unbelief in any character called Jesus the Messiah.

It was after the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem that it was believed that the Jews may have been abandoned by God based on so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Of course when the Temple fell and Jerusalem was destroyed it was as if the Jews had been broken off from God as found in so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

You MUST have noticed that the Pauline writer used the past tense and not the future tense.

He claimed Severity FELL [not shall fall] on the Jews.

Jeremiah 22.5 Severity FELL on the Jews around 70 CE.

The Pauline writer lived after "SEVERITY FELL" on the Jews.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

angelo

That's a very interesting theory that could very well be the truth.