maryhelena

For that you will have to get hold of some of our Greek experts on FRDB. I'm only dealing with the results of the discussion...

Perhaps have a look through the whole thread on 1 Cor.15.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305902

aa5874

Please, I do NOT present tricks just Evidence, Evidence, Evidence...........Sources, Sources, Sources of antiquity.

Now, As you have observed Doherty has ALREADY written books based on an Early Paul. Quite logically, Doherty cannot ever accept or agree that Paul was a LATE writer, AFTER the Short-Ending gMark, After the Long-Ending gMark, After gMatthew and AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple unless he recants or discredits his own writings.

Now, if Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar it is clear that the author of gMark did NOT use or did NOT KNOW of the Pauline letters since he placed Jesus in Galilee and Judea who was crucified under Pilate and buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph.


Mark 15 How is it even logical that gMark could be Canonised with and used the Pauline writings if Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar?

I have seen tricksters and clowns do things that I thought could not have ever happened. And to this day I don't know how they pulled it off.

Does any anyone here know how to make things appear from nowhere???

Duvduv

Has this method of finding two voices been applied elsewhere in the epistles?

maryhelena

You need Greek for that - and I don't have it. So I have to rely on those who have Greek. And, no, I'm unaware of any attempt to take this two voice idea any further on FRDB. Elsewhere - with scholars running with the NT historical 'Paul' idea - I would imagine they are comfortable with their own conclusions.

aa5874

You mean "Presumptions"!!! There is no corroborative source from non-apologetic sources to conclude there was an early voice of Paul.

It was gMark that had the EARLIEST voice and it was heard AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE by all the authors of the NT Canon.

The very Church claimed Paul "heard" the Voice of gLuke and we know the author of gLuke used gMark.

[Against Celsus

Sheshbazzar

Bull-shit on all of that Greeksky Hellenization horse-shit.
It is the Hebrew language and its ancient tropes and traditions that people remain so damn ignorant of that they fall all over themselves in falling for all of that high-sounding fabricated Greek linguistic jingoistic horse-shit.

"There are two kinds of people - Greeks, and everyone else who wish they was Greek.
.....Give me a word, any word and I show you how the root is Greek."

Get a clue. The ancient world actually held ancient cultures that were NOT based on Greek language, were decidedly NOT Greek, and held words and concepts that Greek speakers and language actually had little grasp of, or any linguistic ability to convey.

For what -you need to know-, you don't need to know even -one single word- of the Greek language.

ששבצר

maryhelena

You know - I might just agree with you....:notworthy:

Toto

No. The Pauline letters do not contain much in the way of narrative or other attributes of fiction. If you wanted to flesh out a character, you would write something very different from the letters.

Additionally, the character of Paul in the letters does not flesh out the character in Acts, but contradicts it.

This is not to say that that letters are what they appear to be. The best guess I have seen is that they were theological essays written in the form of letters (just as CS Lewis wrote The Screwtape Letters.)

Toto

Sorry - I meant from the epistles. A slip of the keyboard.

Chili

'Yes and no' in, that it is the analytic form of 'wholistic expression' that makes wisdom portable but requires insight first to comprehend. I took Greek but forgot the alphabet.