Clivedurdle

A diplomat had to wear a hat because that was the rule of his nation. He attended a court where attendees had to wear a hat. Solution? He wore two hats - where the expression comes from. I did not realise there is an earlier example!

gurugeorge

That's true, Paul claims only two sources: revelation and scripture, and it seems clear that he acknowledges that there were indeed people before him who believed something similar to him, who got it from revelation and scripture too.

The question at issue between us is just when this sequence occurs. Relatively speaking, the priority is the same (some other people, then Paul), the question is, did this sequence happen roundabout the middle of the first century up to maybe the beginnings of the second century, or did it happen all through the second century, or maybe even later.

stephan huller

show me where philo identifies jesus as the anatole

spin

What exactly are you asking and to whom?

Tenorikuma

Indeed, Jesus' Aramaic words spoken on the cross in Mark and Matthew preserve the original reading of Psalm 22, a psalm of lament about a priest who loses his position, figuratively descends to the netherworld, and then is restored to his rightful place of honour. (See Myth and History in the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Giovanni Garbini.) This is the basis of the entire passion story.

aa5874

Again, your problem seems to be that you just refuse to accept that there is absolutely no evidence at all to corroborate early Pauline writings in the very Canon.

Just go through the entire NT and you will see ZERO corroboration for Pauline letters.

Remove every Pauline letter from the Canon and we have NO knowledge of the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Not even in Revelation by John.

The Pauline writer appears to have been the single most influential Christian writer in the History of the Church. NINE Pauline letters to Churches and Four to his acquaintances were Canonised--Paul HIMSELF supposedly went all over the Roman Empire and TAUGHT the Church his Revealed Gospel.

One writer, Paul, was responsible for HALF of the Canon. Surely Paul should have had a massive impact on the other authors.

But just remove all the Pauline letters from the Canon and Not a trace of the Pauline Revealed Gospel can be found--Not even a phrase.

There is no "spill-over"--nothing.

Not even the author of Acts repeats a line from the Pauline Revealed Gospel even though writing sometime in the 2nd century and claiming or implying to be a traveling companion of Paul.

Up to the mid 2nd century a writer called Justin appears to know of stories of Jesus that he was born without sexual union and he was crucified in Jerusalem under Pilate in the reign of Tiberius but nothing of Pauline letters.

The evidence is clear the Pauline letters do NOT reflect the Jesus cult up to 150 CE and this is compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts.

We know the source that had a massive impact on the Jesus cult--it was the Jesus story of gMark.

If you remove the short gMark from the Canon there are at least three other authors that were heavily and sometimes almost totally impacted by gMark.

There are no more questions---the Pauline writings are 2nd century or later and had NO impact whatsoever on any author of the NT Canon.

Tenorikuma

I just read the relevant section from the Anchor commentary on Zechariah. I think I'm more confused than ever, especially since the MT is corrupt in places (when isn't it?). But it does demonstrate a connection between the crowning of Joshua and "the eschatological crowning of the Shoot".

Bernard Muller

Doherty made an appearance on the NT Blog. In it, he wrote:
"By the way, on Richard Carrier’s Logos as Jesus, I do feel he did stretch things a bit. One can make that link through rather indirect channels, but the difficulties compromise the specific connection he seemed to be trying to make."

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller

Who do you think I am addressing, Mr. Cartoon Character? Lay your cards on the table. I say there is no reference to Jesus as the Logos in Philo.

aa5874

It is most astonishing that for years you are unable to resolve a rather simple question.

A question has two choices--

a. The Pauline letters were early

b. The Pauline letters were late.

You have years to answer and you still get it wrong.

Surely if you keep choosing the same wrong answer then you will never answer the question correctly.

It should have been obvious that Late Pauline letters answer all your questions.

1. Late Pauline writings explain why the authors of the NT were NOT influenced by them.

2. Late Pauline letters explain why the author of Acts did not mention them.

3. Late Pauline letters explain why Justin Martyr did NOT mention them.

4. Late Pauline letters explain why Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

5. Late Pauline writings explain why there are so many errors in "Against Marcion".

As soon as you understand that the Pauline letters are after Justin, after c 150 CE, then all your questions will be answered.