sugarhitman

If it is estimated to have been written around 96 AD it means that the Gospels (which he is qouting) had to be written earlier.

aa5874

If the date of writing of 1 Clement is uncertain then that means the estimate may be wrong.

mountainman

The Apostle Philip's Complaint

Philip said:
I know not Latin or Greek,
and the people there
do not know Aramaic.

Jesus said:
Did I not create Adam
and give him speech?
Go, and I will be with thee.

Philip could not speak Greek!
Philip could not speak Latin!

Obviously Philip was totally illiterate in his epoch.
Of course this was par for the course.

And in regard to Paul and salvation the most
appropriate songs to sing while we wait for it
is "Fourteen Green Bottles sitting on the wall".
How many of Paul's Green Bottles are left?
Not too many. (nb: green bottle = letter)
The Dutch radicals I believe assert zero.

Paul and Jesus are two sides of Apollonius of Tyana.
The NT fabricators had a pre-Second Sophistic model.
The wandering man of many important letters
collected by emperors and philosophers after his death,
the recipient of imperial honors, tributes and
lavish epigraphic remains.




I have often wondered why respondents here have not argued
the case that there is a reference to a "Paul" (or indeed is there?)
on the Abercius inscription. Who has the full story of the
rise and fall of epigraphic testimony to "Paul" via Abercius?

arnoldo

According to the following source, the Romans claimed Apollonius was superior to Christ around the year 300. Did the Romans simultaneously create Christianity and then try to discredit it?

arnoldo

What would be your estimate for the date of 1 Clement?

Amaleq13

Setting aside not having actually establishing such authorship, what you describe certainly does not support your claim. Do you truly not understand what does constitute evidence showing that Paul knew the Gospels?

You aren't trying to show that Paul and the Gospel authors shared certain core themes in their beliefs.

They were converted to Paul's gospel but that does nothing to suggest he knew the Gospels. The difference between "gospel" and "the Gospels" has already been explained to you so it is disingenuous to pretend you still don't know the difference.

dog-on

People believed certain things were, in fact, the case, the reality being irrelevant.

The Romans believed that the religion of the Jews was ancient.

At a certain point in time, the unknown god of the Marcionites was fused into YHWH.

Now Christianity had "history", by default.

dog-on

Perhaps "dates" would be more accurate, in this case...

Clivedurdle

So we have Paul - a Greek Jew from Tarsus who if it is correct was a Pharisee was of the spirit of the law not to fussed about circumcision and sacrifice group - one of the strange assumptions is that Judaism was monolithic - it was not - and the other is about its long history - most of it is from a Greek Persian influenced fantasy factory - invented - reading a confusing translation of its texts and as he states himself having visions.

Something that happens in visions is synesthesis - smells are important - my mum once had a vision involving smells - I understand it is reasonably common.

So he puts together a Jesus from Zechariah, a confusion of Lords, a perfuming annointing christing god, a messiah, and some pythagorean mathematical ideas of crosses and spheres and turning points and end of times and from this marinade evolves xianity.

And AA, have you read Doherty?

arnoldo

MM claims that Paul and Jesus were based upon Apollonius;


whereas you claimed in an earlier post that Zarathustra was the bases for the Lord's Supper.

Which of the two above opinions are correct?