maryhelena

And just to relate all of that to Hebrews 8:4 and this thread: By acknowledging that gMark preceded the Pauline epistles - the writer of Hebrews and the writer of the Pauline epistles would know the gospel story. Whether from the position of the JC historicists or the position of the JC ahistoricists. Either way, the Jesus story preceded Hebrews and the Pauline epistles. Consequently, all the arguments over *flesh*, *blood*, *brothers* *David*, being unrelated to anything earthly are not only unwarranted - they are unnecessary and a burden the ahistoricist/mythicist position does not have to carry.

The gospel JC story is set upon earth, upon terra-firma. The Pauline Jesus story is set in heaven, set in a spiritual or intellectual context. It's the assumption, that there was a historical JC, that gives rise to attempts to harmonize these two stories to fit that one, assumed, historical man. An exercise fraught with ideas that challenge both logic and morality.

As to dating the NT writings. The writings of Paul are usually placed early, pre 70 c.e. Why? Simply because of the chronology of Acts and the Pauline epistles. A chronology that places Paul a few years after the crucifixion of JC. However - since, from the ahistoricist position - there was no historical gospel JC - this dating of Paul is illogical. There was no historical JC for him to follow from that gospel/Acts chronology. Consequently, dating the epistles of Paul is an open question. If the Pauline writing is late - and the gospel story preceded that writer - then the Doherty version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position falls down flat on it's face.

As to why the Pauline writer does not write details about the gospel Jesus story - that writer has a different focus. A focus on a heavenly man, the heavenly Jesus figure. That figure is not synonymous with the earthly man of the gospels. These two figures do not shape-shift. There are two Jesus figures, two Jesus stories, in the NT. The alternative? Theological mumbo jumbo and magic tricks.



Ted, the debate is not over what the Pauline writer wrote about his heavenly JC. The debate is, and always has been, over the gospel JC. They are not the same Jesus. And that, as Hoffmann says - and which I am sure he is going to hammer home to the ahistoricists/mythicist of the Doherty camp - is where "the process begins". The gospel Jesus.

Pauline interpretations, however intriguing they maybe - cannot be allowed to take center stage in any discussion/debate over early christian origins. The Pauline writings are too late for them to be of any relevance in that far more important debate.

maryhelena

gJohn is early. I place it prior to Hebrews. (as detailed in my chart in a new thread)

Of course it, the gospel story, would have been important to the Pauline writer. But that importance took second place to the focus that writer wanted for his own writing - the heavenly man story.
No, No, Ted. No Jew is going to find value in a physical, flesh and blood, crucifixion. Such an idea would be, as Paul wrote, a stumbling block. Human sacrifice, under the Law, would be an aberration and an abomination. Paul went on to develop a philosophical/theological position: A Jerusalem below and a Jerusalem above. What does not 'work' for the Jerusalem below - would 'work' in the heavenly Jerusalem i.e. work in a spiritual, an intellectual context.

Philo had set down the template: A heavenly man and an earthly man. gJohn developed it further re a connection between the Word, the son of the heavenly man coming down to earth - and going back up again. An interconnection between matter and spirit, body and mind. Hebrews and the Pauline writing developed this idea further.

Philo died around 50 c.e. Thus, the idea of the heavenly man and the earthly man were current at that time. Allowing for gJohn to be written early - prior to the Pauline writing. And Hebrews developed the gJohn story. In other words; alongside the developing earthly man story was the developing story of the heavenly man. In tandem, so to speak.

Theological developments of the heavenly man story are helpful - but so too is the developing story of the earthly man.

aa5874

Again, in Mark 10.45 Jesus did NOT STATE he would be a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins.

The word RANSOM has nothing whatsoever to do with Remission of Sins or that without the resurrection all mankind would remain in Sin.

1. Ransom

Noun---A sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.

2. Ransom
Verb--Obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded: "the lord was captured in war and had to be ransomed".

Remission of Sins by the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Ransom.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The Pauline teaching of the resurrection for Remission of Sins was developed AFTER the short gMark.

Bingo the Clown-O

Is it absurd to think that Revelation was written before the Gospels? :huh:

Bingo the Clown-O

How do you explain “the least” in Matthew 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 15:9?

aa5874

Fantastic.

It is also absolutely absurd to think that The Revelations of Paul were composed before the Jesus story was known especially when Paul claimed he persecuted the Church.

The Church must have known a story of Jesus WHEN Paul persecuted them and Before he started to preach the same Faith he once destroyed.

Galatians 1:23 CEB Paul knew the story of Jesus, the Churches of the Jesus cult and those who believed the stories about Jesus.

Paul claimed OVER Five hundred knew a story that Jesus was Raised from the dead BEFORE HIM and that he was LAST to see Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

Only the absurd and illogical would claim that an admitted Persecutor of those who believe the Jesus story actually started it or was Before the Jesus story was known.

aa5874

How absolutely absurd to suggest that Matthew 5.19 mentions Paul simply because Matthew 5.19 and 1 Cor.15.19 contains the word "least".

The word "least" refers to the commandments or multiple persons in Matthew 5.19 and it is also found in Multiple verses in the same and other books of the Canon.

Matthew 5:19 KJV

Bingo the Clown-O

Thanks AA.

Thought you’d say something like that.

So then your point is that Revelation must have come AFTER the Gospels because the Church must have known a story of Jesus WHEN Paul persecuted them and BEFORE he started to preach the same Faith he once destroyed.

Is that right?

Bingo the Clown-O

Thanks AA.

Thought you’d say something like that - too.

Unfortunately I’m not convinced that you have any idea what you are talking about.

aa5874

Fortunately, I THOUGHT you would have said something like that.

You seem to be convinced by the opinion of the so-called experts rather than actual evidence.

May I remind you that an expert claims Jesus was never on earth while some other claimed he was a man and baptized by John.

In other words, experts are known to be wrong.

Evidence should be our Song.

I no longer accept opinion without coroboration--those days are done.