Will Wiley

I don't propose any.
I don't assume Cephas knew anything he had to share with paul.
Yes.
No, I was responding to this assertion.
It does make a person wonder, just where he was supposed to have been buried and who buried him?

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised

spin

That's what Galatians says.

I pointed out in the second last paragraph of post #125 with all its problems that 1 Cor 15:3-11 doesn't give much hope of being Pauline.

J.C. O'Neill wrote an essay called "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any" (in The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Leiden: Brill 2004), which argues that a work like 1 Corinthians far exceeds the length of any ancient letter. Galatians is already rather long. 2 Corinthians has been a problem for many scholars and is consider to be an amalgam of letters (and they are happy to believe that there is no reason to think that it isn't generally all Pauline). The task of reading Paul is complicated by the fact that his work was maintained by, and placed within the theological constraints of, the later organized religion. When his text favors other church figures over himself we have grounds for concern over the text.

stephan huller

I agree with O'Neill. The letters are WAY too long. The proper place to begin is to ask whether or not the catechumens heard the letters. I think so. Then whether or not there were originally parallels or allusions to the gospel in the letters. I think there are (were). Why have most of them disappeared? My answer is that they were consciously removed by the third century editor(s) of the canon.

IMO the letters are a mess with layers piled on top of layers. The canon is a mess with layer upon layers of unnecessary additional texts. The original canon was simply the gospel(s) used by the apostle and the letters of the apostle.

Third century Christianity wasn't happy with the original understanding of the religion.

stephan huller

The alternative hypothesis is that ecumenism was responsible for the mess - i.e. the fusing together or a number of Christianities into one religion (canon). The same thing happened with the Samaritan tradition. See the reference to the prayers of the Dustanites in the current prayer book. Many of the official positions of the current orthodoxy agree with the heretical Samaritans of antiquity.

The problem is that we don't really have an accurate idea of what the Marcionites actually believed. If we knew that it would all be solved.

aa5874

Your claim is in fact unsubstantiated. We have ZERO-NIL-NO corroboration from any credible source of antiquity that Paul was the first writer of the religion.

In fact, it is claimed in the Pauline writings that there were Scriptures which claimed Jesus DIED for our Sins, was buried and was raised on the THIRD day.

These statements are found in the Jesus stories and are NOT at all in Hebrew Scripture.

You will NOT find the Blasphemy that a man died for the Sins of Jews and ALL Mankind in Hebrew Scripture.

No such Blasphemy can be found in the books of the LAW.

And, most remarkable we have the short-ending gMark which shows that the earliest Jesus story had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Blasphemy in the later Jesus stories with Salvation by crucifixion and resurrection of a character called Jesus..

The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents claiming that Jesus BODILY resurrected to counter Marcionism and were composed NO earlier than sometime in the 2nd century based on P 46 dated to the 2nd-3rd century.

The DATED P 46 is compatible with the writings of Justin Martyr who wrote NOTHING at all about Paul, his letters, his churches and revealed gospel by the resurrected Jesus.

Justin Marty WROTE about the Revelations of John--NOT Paul..

Will Wiley

Ok i have tried to comment on the second last paragraph

Unless there is a good reason not to Ill go with it.
According to one, but I dont see a huge problem myself.
Is there another way to read it?
The resuurection is simply life after death, to paul, except for the "first fruits".
From pauls perspective that was 20 years earlier a long way away geographically.
Its the story of people who die before the expected paurousia.
It's an ancient text and I am careful of thinking we know what a writer means, or reading too much into it. But perhaps you are better qualified to comment, so Ill have to pass.
Interesting but you might be splitting hairs.
How do you decide youre objective?
Well i can't really comment, as I didn't see your case and doubt Im qualified anyway.
I tend to find that changes to the hebrew bible are a lot clearer than changes to the christian bible, so i never quite feel that convinced about many of them. But thats just me. Plus Im not really qualified to judge the usage of words that well in ancient languages, so I cant dispute what you say or comment I dont think.

Duvduv

AA, according to your own criteria you have no way of judging what Marcion did or did not believe since we have no evidence of any texts or quotations of his writings at all. The only information about him comes from a couple of biased church apologist writings including Tertullian and Irenaeus, whose very existence you yourself have questioned.

spin

Perhaps Paul had some tradition that said twelve. None of the gospels support the notion, so Paul has some independent source. Perhaps he got twelve from god, who we are told was the source of his revelation. He says that he didn't get any of his Jesus gospel from humans.

When the context of the passage is that Paul has to argue for the resurrection instead of citing the fact there were all these witnesses, then we have clear evidence of another problem with the text.

Read verses 12 and following, where Paul has to go over and over the notion that Jesus must have been resurrected. There is no effort to mention the fact that Cephas, who the Corinthians knew, had witnessed the resurrection. There is silence about the 500, most of whom are still alive, it says. James who they knew of, the twelve, the apostles all saw the resurrection according to 1 Cor 15:3-7, but not a word of them while trying to argue for the resurrection. His logic is as though verses 3-11 weren't in his text.

Umm, out of where did you pull that 20 years?

Paul is the one granted the revelation. He argues his gospel of Jesus is the one. It doesn't work if he is less significant than all the others.

It obviously wasn't hairsplitting to the gospels which changed the three days to "on the third day". Remember that the gospel has Jesus dying late on Friday afternoon and being up before dawn on Sunday, ie a day and a half. Now that's embarrassing. But why then do we go from on the third day in Paul to three days in Mark and back again to the third day in the later gospels. Parsimony should recommend to you that "on the third day" is what the later church ran with.

It's a matter of relativity: if we remove obstacles to perception then we become more objective.

It is the verb used by Paul for god giving him his revelation in Gal 1:12. Paul, having put himself in the privileged position of having been chosen by god--which certainly makes him special--, is not going to then put himself under other humans. His gospel did not come from humans.

Then how can you deal with the passage you were relying on? Part of my discussion is that there are a number of problems which exist in a relatively short passage and, while you can give ad hoc explanations to them, the consilience of all these problems together should warn you there is something clearly wrong here.

Will Wiley

Not a good reason, I dont think.
I just think you are doing your best to manufacture a problem

I think you are inventing a problem again


Its an approximation from other info in Galatians
Inventing a problem again , I think.


Does it?
Speculative but possible
ok
You original argument must have been quite a bit longer,so its hard to comment

NOt all problems require an intricate knowledge of the language, and at the moment I dont see your arguments as convincing as you do.

aa5874

Your statement does NOT make much sense. We have sources of antiquity that made statements about Marcion and it is improbable that everything in those sources are false

Sources that are compatible with the DATED evidence can be deemed to be credible while those that are NOT compatible may be REJECTED.

I do NOT accept "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian as historically accurate because they are NOT compatible with the dated evidence and they are Sources of Fiction and massive forgeries.

I accept the writings of Justin Martyr as credible because his writings show a BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century for the ACTIVITIES of the disciples and Paul which is PRECISELY what has been found when New Testament manuscripts were dated by Paleography.

In the writings of Justin, Marcion, a contemporary of Justin, preached another Creator and another Son and this is corroborated by Ephraim the Syrian. Also Hippolytus did state that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but plagerised Empedocles.

Now, Apologetic sources place Marcion in the 2nd century and stated that Marcion claimed the Son of God came down from heaven to Capernaum WITHOUT birth and flesh during the reign of Tiberius. See "Against Marcion"

The Pauline writings have been dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century with the claim that Jesus BODILY resurrected and that Jesus visited Paul and OVER 500 PEOPLE.

It is clear that the Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite texts since the Pauline writings are the ONLY Canonised writings that claim there is NO remission of Sins WITHOUT the Bodily resurrection of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The Pauline writer was an Anti-Marcionite and wrote Against Marcion sometime in the 2nd century or later.