Vorkosigan

Finhc, the writer of Luke wrote after 95, and probably after 110. He or she used the writings of Josephus, and seems to be aware of the Pauline forgeries as well -- and those are late. Kirby's site tries to balance many conflicting ideas, which is why it seems to prefer the earlier date. Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament (Mason is probably the leading Josephus scholar after Feldman) lays out the case for Luke's use of Josephus. If you PM me your email address, I will attach a copy (it was made available over the net, so no copyright violation). Also, Richard Carrier has an article in the library on the topic of Luke's use of Josephus. For an very intensive reading of L's use of J, see Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Boomeister

Not only does Paul not quote Jesus but he often contradicts Jesus. The gospels are full of things Jesus supposedly said. Paul, instead, gave his ideas how the early church should be like. In fact, when he wrote these letters to the early churches, they weren't meant to be "biblical truth." It was more like a church leader saying "here, this is what you should do. This is what you should believe." It's a very different feel than what the gospels show.
I think Paul was more interested in the second coming of Jesus as a way to evangelize. He recommended that people do not marry and to stay pure virgins (unless they lust, because it's better to marry than burn!!). What crappy advice that would be, unless you really did believe Jesus was to return in your lifetime. Just think if they all followed Paul. There would be no such thing as Christians, except the lustful ones. So so sad.
Paul's message was "you better have faith and believe now, because Jesus is coming back!"
Also, why "prove" to anyone of Jesus' existence? All he had to do was tell the story about being blinded and hearing Jesus and that was enough for his followers. Wow! Why go through the trouble?


Boomeister

Ehud

Paul probably did not write a gospel because he was not witness to the ministry of Jesus.

Paul was not one of the original 12. He came on the scene after the fact and was actually against the teachings of Jesus. He ordered the stoning of early christians for their heresy.

When you consider the odds the early chruch faced, it is amazing that Christianity survived, let alone thrived.

Mageth

Originally posted by Ehud
Paul probably did not write a gospel because he was not witness to the ministry of Jesus.

The problem with that is that it is highly probable (according to modern biblical criticism) that neither were the authors of the gospels. The authors of Mark and Luke aren't even claimed to be among Jesus' disciples in the Bible. John was written @70 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion, so it is doubtful (for this reason and others) that the author was an eyewitness (and thus doubtful that it was John). Matthew was written @50 years after the crucifixion, so it has similar problems. Also note that Matthew and Luke were largely based on Mark, in the case of Matthew adding additional doubt as to whether the author was an eyewitness or Matthew was the author (as I said, the Bible doesn't claim Luke was among the eyewitnesses anyway).

Paul was not one of the original 12. He came on the scene after the fact and was actually against the teachings of Jesus. He ordered the stoning of early christians for their heresy.

We're familiar with the story. Now I'd kindly suggest you familiarize yourself with modern scholarship on who probably did or did not write the Gospels.

When you consider the odds the early chruch faced, it is amazing that Christianity survived, let alone thrived.

Yup. You should read some serious scholarship on early Church History. Elaine Pagels has several excellent books on the subject, as does John Shelby Spong and Michael Crossan, among others. Karen Armstrong is another excellent scholar and author. And Earl Doherty has a book titled "The Jesus Puzzle" that you might find interesting.

Ehud

Been studying it for many years. Always amazes me how one will reject the gospels because the eariliest texts that exist were written 100 years after Jesus, yet the works of Socrates are accepted with fewer texts, none of which come anywhere close to his lifetime.

Many good reads on the subject out there. I have read many over the years as well. Just as many that support as there are that denounce. I like to read both sides of the issue.

All boils down to the approach (thiest/secular) the author took when writing said book.

capnkirk

Actually Paul never once referred to Jesus' returning. Instead he always referred to the Lord's 'coming'...like he'd never been here before.If you're seriously interested (It's a LONG thread.) in this, check out another thread on this forum titled Earl Doherty. That whole thread is about whether Jesus was mythical or historical (note: Neither side is arguing in favor of a Historical Jesus "Christ".).

Mageth

Originally posted by Ehud
Been studying it for many years. Always amazes me how one will reject the gospels because the eariliest texts that exist were written 100 years after Jesus, yet the works of Socrates are accepted with fewer texts, none of which come anywhere close to his lifetime.

I don't "reject" the gospels any more than I reject the works of Socrates. What I do is try to familiarize myself with their history according to scholarship rather than their history according to tradition. Further, the authors I listed don't "reject" them either; quite the contrary for at least some of them, in fact. Spong and Pagels in particular seek a deeper understanding of the truth of the gospels rather than just the commonly held traditions for the Gospels.

Many good reads on the subject out there. I have read many over the years as well. Just as many that support as there are that denounce. I like to read both sides of the issue.

And so do I. (actually, all sides of the issue, as I don't think it's a black-and-white issue at all). But none I've read denounce the Gospels. Casting doubt on traditions about the Gospels or on the hisoricity of the Gospels based on serious research is not denouncing them. Perhaps there are some serious works of biblical critics that do "denounce" the Gospels out there; do you have any examples?

Again, Spong and Pagels are good examples of authors that definitely do not "denounce" the Gospels.

In any case, your "support or denounce" dichotomy is a poor description of modern Biblical criticism. A biblical scholar/critic should approach his or her research objectively, without any target of supporting or "denouncing" in mind. Most do, IMHO. If the results of serious, objective research casts doubt on what are essentially traditions of authorship, historicity etc, so be it, whether from a theist or non-theist.

All boils down to the approach (thiest/secular) the author took when writing said book.

I would argue that a "secular" (as in objective, without prejudgment) approach to biblical criticism is to be preferred. In any case, many theist (and non-theistic) scholars have researched the bible, the gospels, and their writers, and early church history, objectively.

Spong is a theist. Pagels is perhaps a theist; she certainly hasn't rejected or denounced Christianity.

In any case, your implied ignorance of the authorship of Mark and Luke (neither of which are claimed to be by eyewitnesses, even if written by Mark and Luke) indicates to me that either you simply overlooked this obvious fact in your comment on a possible reason why Paul did not write a Gospel account or you have a general ignorance of Biblical authorship. As you claim to have read much on the subject, I certainly hope it was the former.

Ehud

Just made a general comment. I guess I should have gone more in depth for ya. But yes, I am well aware of the critisim of authorship.

My typing and spelling suck, so I try and keep my comments as short as possible.

Mageth

Just made a general comment. I guess I should have gone more in depth for ya. But yes, I am well aware of the critisim of authorship.

That (that Mark and Luke, the alleged writers of the second and third Gospels, were not in the original 12, and were not eyewitnesses) is not "criticism of authorship", exactly. Neither is listed among the twelve disciples, and neither is mentioned in the Bible as being eyewitnesses. It's simple biblical scholarship which anyone with half a mind to do so could do on their own.

Amaleq13

As one who tends to accept an HJ, what is your understanding of this belief of Paul's? The resurrection appearances didn't count as being here?