Sheshbazzar

Not to derail but,

"he defends working on Sunday and breaking piety rules?"

Really? he musta been walking in a very strange place that day.

gurugeorge

In your theory you're taking for granted that, in the letters, "apostles before Paul" and "the gospel" mean what they mean to the orthodox. In my theory they don't mean the same thing. In my theory, the "apostles before Paul" were not people who (as in orthodoxy) even supposedly knew personally and eyeballed a human being called "Jesus", and the "gospel" doesn't mean the gospels.

In my theory, the "apostles before Paul" were the early adopters of a new Messiah idea, and their "gospel" simply was that new Messiah idea. This is the idea that "Paul" took up and expanded into a version suitable for spreading to the gentiles.

The nub of it is that the 1 Corinthians 15 passage does not refer to any person who had recently lived, but to a new type of belief about "the Messiah", a new way of understanding the Messiah concept.

IOW "That the Messiah died for our sins" doesn't refer to any person recently known by any of the people subsequently mentioned, but rather, it's like saying: "Guys, guys, we've had this Messiah thing all wrong! He's already been and done his stuff, and in a way we didn't expect - it's all in scripture, if you look!"

This is why the term "gospel" was utterly appropriate: it's good news of a victory won. Picture the scenario: everybody is scurrying about expectantly looking for the Messiah here, looking for him there, putting their hopes on now this claimant, now that claimant. In steps the Jerusalem crowd saying, "Nonsense - the Messiah has already been (in obscurity) and won his victory, which was wholly spiritual".

aa5874

Well, then you entire argument and theories are meaningless.

You are now proposing that only you know or think you know what the letter writers mean, and have the ability to change the meaning of words or make up meanings just to suit your theories.

• The Pauls wrote that there were apostles before them.

• The Pauls wrote that there were churches already established in Judaea before them.

• The Pauls wrote that Andronicus and Junia were believers before them.

• The Pauls wrote that they persecuted the Church.

• The Pauls wrote that Peter preached the gospel in Jerusalem.

• The Pauls wrote that they were the last to see Christ.

Now, up to the writings of Justin Matyr, the middle of the 2nd century, there are no external credible records of anyone who ever actually SAW the Pauls or their so-called disiple called Luke.

And Clement referered to some Paul only as a letter writer. Clement never wrote that he SAW the letter writer.

Irenaeus claimed some John, an apostle of Jesus, lived until the time of Trajan, yet John never wrote he SAW Paul.

The Pauls were just letter wrtiters, of the second or third century, that's all. See P 46.

Now, these are the facts and not meaningless theories.

LogicandReason

How do you date the "Pauls" in the 2nd or 3rd centuries? Did the "Pauls" lie about meeting Peter, James and John?

aa5874

Well, only "Peter" mentioned "Paul" one single time in the 2nd epistle of Peter. See 2 Peter 3.15

But in a most astonishing admittance, Eusebius claimed 2nd Peter is a forgery. Eusebius claimed 2nd Peter does NOT belong to the canon.

In effect the writer who claimed he was Peter was NOT, but this non-Peter writer mentioned the word "Paul".

Eusebius in Church History 3.3 Somebody or everybody was lying, or perhaps there was a mix-up. There were two Johns, two Peters, even without the forgery, and at least two Jameses, according to Eusebius. Now we learn there are many Pauls, even one called Saul.

I think the NT is just a manufactured package.

andrewcriddle

It might have been preferable to quote Eusebius in full here Church History 3.3 Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Why is it profitable to many to include known forgery in the canon?

Some-one falsely claimed that he or she is Peter, the so-called first Pope of the Rome and it is still placed in the canon by the same person who knew it is a forgery.

Look at the first verse of the forgery 2Peter 1.1 The NT is a package with admitted forgery which is profitable to many.

gurugeorge

But you are proposing no less with your interpretations. Or rather, you are unquestioningly accepting that the orthodoxy knew what the letter writers mean, and you are unquestioningly accepting their interpretation.

The question of what the letter writers meant in their letters (by terms such as "apostles", "churches", etc.) is separate from what the orthodox thought they meant (or may have made them mean by surrounding them with interpolation, where any).

You have no way of knowing that the orthodox interpretation, in terms of which "apostles" means "people who supposedly eyeballed a human Jesus", is the correct interpretation, is what the letter writers meant by "apostles". Nor have you any way of knowing that "churches following an orthodox tradition in terms of a human/god Jesus" is what the letter writers meant by "churches".

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

Please add a pair of Ammonias Saccas' to the list of strange duplicate personalities in the Hellenic dreamtime of antiquity. A number of scholars have made the comment that the Ammonius Saccas described by Eusebius, the tutor of Origen (?), stolid transcendental christian credentials according to Eusebius, could not possibly be the same Ammonius Saccas who is reported to be a key figure in the lineage of the neoplatonic and neopythagoraean philosphers of the second and third centuries.

You may well be right.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

Again, another meaningless post.

All of a sudden, you seem not to know what "apostle", "church", "gospel" or "Jesus Christ" mean.

All of a sudden, you think that no-one else knows what they mean.

But, I hope you know what before means.

Peter was an apostle before Paul.
Peter preached the gospel before Paul.
There were churches in Judaea before Paul.
Over 500 person saw Jesus before Paul.


Romans 1.16 Romans 15.20Romans 16.7