gurugeorge

Yeah, my idea is that, going by a roughly standard dating, GMark appears post-70 CE as a somewhat angry reaction. But it's also forgetful of its own roots. Maybe "Mark" is a newly minted Roman Christian (not a Jew) who gets confused and places the mythos of his cult deity in a specific time and place where the ignorning by the Jews of the cult figure's message can be responsible for the tragedy that befell the Jews. He's the first person who makes that all-important connection between the earliest "apostles" (in reality, the Jerusalem crowd and Paul, visionaries all, with just a variant concept of the Messiah) and the cult figure, having them be personal disciples of His.

Roundabout the same time, or maybe just a bit later, you have Diaspora Jews who, as it were, muscle in on the Roman Church (in reality one of a bunch of scattered proto-Gnostic study groups founded by "Paul") and try to claim personal discipleship of the cult figure (apostolic succession). Who would be any the wiser? Perhaps by that time anybody who would have known the facts was dead.

(I think we have something like evidence for this in someone who looks to me like a con-artist of this type - Mr. "Oh yes I knew John!" Polycarp, who if he isn't a pure invention, seems to represent a "type" - "a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church." - Irenaeus Adv. Her., III.3.4., my bold. Note that "coming to Rome" - and note that it's the "heretics" who are already established as representing Christianity!!!)

From their (i.e. nascent orthodoxy's) point of view, the majority of Christians around the world are "heretics" (i.e. descended from merely-visionary "Paul"). (We're still talking a very small cult at this stage though, it has to be borne in mind. It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup at this stage.)

These con-artists (or, to be more charitable, deluded folks) like the idea in GMark, the idea of personal discipleship, because it supports their con; but they don't like the way the disciples are treated, so they write GMatthew, which is more Jewish-oriented. It's "their" gospel.

However, since "Paul" was the actual founder, and at least this fact would have been known, as well as some fragments of what we now know as the "Epistles", they had to somehow include and co-opt "Paul" - hence Acts, which, as Price says, splits the real founder of the movement into a good guy, "Paul", who toes the line by being pally with their invented representative "Peter", and a bad guy "Simon Magus", who's the apostle of those heretics who refuse to toe the orthodox line (and who eventually become Gnostics and Docetics). Hence also GLuke, which harmonises in the same way.

(I think the Pseudo-Clementines may be the remnant of another attempt to do what Acts did, an abortive effort, perhaps too overly Jewish, and rescinded in favour of the more balanced Acts.)

Summat like that, anyway.

aa5874

There is actual written evidence that "Paul" was NOT the founder of Christianity or the Christian faith.

Why do people ALWAYS forget the "PAUL" claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith and that he KNEW people in CHRIST before him? Romans 16 and Galatians 1.

I have never seen such BLATANT mis-representation of actual written information as I am seeing done to the Pauline writings.

The very Pauline writer DEBUNKS the notion that he was the founder of Christianity.

And there is actual written evidence that cannot account for "PAUL" as the one who preached to the Gentiles ALL over the world.

Justin Martyr stated that it was the twelve ILLITERATE Apostles from JERUSALEM that preached ALL over the world after Jesus ascended.

"First Apology" XXXIX The evidence from antiquity suggests that it was NOT known that "Paul" started the Christian cult.

gurugeorge

I mean founder of the Christian faith insofar as the rest of the world was concerned - i.e. to the gentiles.

Whatever happened before him as "Christianity" as a Jewish concern likely vanished with the events of 70 CE.

Or, it's possible that the post-Diaspora Jewish musclers-in on the Roman Church that I'm talking about (represented by Polycarp), the nascent orthodoxy, did have some connection to the pre-Paul version, but were either misled or deliberately conning people about the personal discipleship thing, because it gave them what they felt was a trump card over "Paul"'s visionary founding.

Justin Martyr is lying, just like Polycarp was lying about being a disciple of John, who was (never) a disciple of Jesus - he's part of the con, that's why he ignores the whole "Paul" thing. But note that he does mention "Simon Magus". (At that point, it seems that orthodoxy hadn't quite gotten their story straight, they're still developing the con.)

aa5874

Justin Martyr is lying? You cannot show that Justin Martyr lied about anything. Justin Martyr did NOT claim he knew Polycarp or disciples of John.

But, you have opened a can of worms.

"PAUL" would BE LYING if he started Christianity but claimed he was a PERSECUTOR and knew people in CHRIST before him.

But, "Paul" ADMITTED he LIED for the Glory of God.

Ro 3:7 - And we can Identify some lies of "Paul".

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 - "Paul" could NOT have received such information from a dead man whether or not he actually existed before.

Jesus as a dead man could NOT have told Paul that he was BETRAYED in the night after he had supped and give the details of his conversation.

The Pauline writings represent the worst as historical sources.

1. Multiple writers used the name Paul to write Epistles.

2. "Paul" admitted he LIED for the Glory of God.

3. Lies of "Paul" can be IDENTIFIED.

4. The conversion of "Paul" in Acts is FICTION.

5. There is NO credible source of antiquity that can account for "PAUL".

It is a BLATANT error to make completely mis-leading statements about the Pauline writings when it can be SO EASILY DEBUNKED.

You should know that there is no source of antiquity that can show "Paul" started Christianity unless "Paul" himself LIED.

avi

Thank you George.

Have you thought about this sentence in terms of other events? In particular, the third Roman-Jewish conflict, which, in my opinion, not claiming as a fact, represents the date, following which, authorship of the gospels and epistles commenced....

I remain skeptical of any first century "Christian" documents/coins/statues.

avi

gurugeorge

Well, for a start, he lied about Christianity being a world-wide movement fostered by the apostles, as suggested by your quote, since we have no external evidence or archaeology that supports it.

JM is part of the lie, he's in on the act, don't believe a word of it

It's your reliance on JM that's skewing your reconstruction, IMHO.

I don't want to get into your late Paul idea, you know I just don't agree with it, because, given the later dim view orthodoxy took of Gnosticism, it would make no sense to include such odd proto-Gnostic writing in the NT Canon unless it had to be included, and that, in itself, speaks volumes. (Another point: you often say JM doesn't mention Paul - in that case, why was he included in the Canon, if he was so unknown?)

*deep breath* OK, what is the point of the "Paul" writings, in your opinion? Why are they in the Canon?

aa5874

Have you noticed that virtually ALL the leading characters of the Jesus story including "Paul" was KILLED before 70 CE.

Jesus, James the so-called Lord's brother, the other James, Peter, "Paul" and a most valuable character ,if Jesus did live, called JUDAS who supposedly betrayed Jesus.

ALL the main witnesses to Jesus VANISHED without a trace outside of apologetic sources.

Vivisector

Thanks, George - just a couple of questions for clarification:

Can you explain what you mean by Mark getting confused?

Do you think Mark got the names of certain disciples (e.g., Peter and John) as well as James, whom he names as a brother of Jesus, from Paul's letter(s)? Or, more generally, what do you think were the connections (if any) between Mark and Paul's letters, and Mark's sympathy for Paul's views as against those of Paul's opponents? I'm basically trying to understand your ideas in terms of how/why Paul's opponents, who have had no connection to an earthly Jesus, would be described as having had just that connection in Mark, especially if Mark were in any way sympathetic to Paul. Sorry if dense - long day here.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

Well, Well, Well!!! So what about "Paul" then? Let us go through the Pauline writings and see if there is archaeological evidence for the Pauline claims about Jesus and that he was the LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus.

You know that "Paul" lied when he made claims about Jesus that could NOT have occurred whether or not Jesus lived, whether or not there is any archaeological evidence and whether or not people BELIEVED Jesus did exist as a God..

"Paul" lied when he claimed he received information about the betrayal from the LORD and that he was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus.

You cannot show that Justin Martyr made any claims that he was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus and the resurrected Jesus told him of the betrayal in the NIGHT and the LAST supper.

As soon as you claimed Justin Martyr was lying because there was NO archaeological evidence then you MUST have realized that you MUST NOW ADMIT that "PAUL" is LIAR.

You have EXPOSED that you were AWARE that "PAUL' was on the act, a part of the "con", and that not a word of "Paul" should be believed from the very start.

You must have known for some time now that there is NO archaeological evidence for the claims of Paul about the resurrected Jesus which made "PAUL" a liar.

By the way, it is NOT only Justin Martyr that cannot account for "Paul". Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Aristides, Tatian, and Arnobius cannot account for "PaUL"

So why did you mention my idea of the late date of Paul if you did NOT want to get into it?

Well, just a little teaser. You know that there is NOT a single external credible historical source for "PAUL" and that more than one Christian writer claimed that it was the 12 apostles that preached to the world and did NOT mention "Paul".

Well, why did Justin Martyr not mention "PAUL" if he was WELL-KNOWN? The Pauline Jesus was the MOST significant character in the ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE and "Paul" would have been an EXTREMELY significant person bearing in mind that he was supposed to be an MARTYR and FIRST pioneer of Christianity all over the Roman Empire.

The writings of Justin Martyr should have been similar to those of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen if they were PART of the CON.

The writings that were PART of the Act, part of the Con, contain the BOGUS authorship, chronology, dating and even contents of the Gospels.

Justin Martyr did NOT CON anyone with the FOUR gospels and did NOT claim "Paul" WROTE all the Pauline Epistles.

You KNOW the writers that were PART of the ACT and provided the BOGUS information about the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

That is SO EASY.

I will let you answer your own question.

Who BENEFITED from the bogus information about the FOUR Gospels, Acts and the Pauline writings?

The PAULINE WRITINGS ARE part of the lie from the Roman Church, don't believe a word from them.

The Roman Church did NOT USE Justin MARTYR'S writings to claim that there were FOUR Gospels written FIRST by Matthew, then Mark, Luke and John and that "Paul" wrote ALL the Epistles and sometimes even Hebrews.

We know the writings that were PART of the LIE.

It is SO EASY. The Pauline writings are PART of the LIE called Church History.

DON'T BELIEVE "the history" of the the Pauline writings.

Doug Shaver

Well, if we assume a historical Jesus, then I suppose that would enter the list of live options. But I think we need a good antecedent reason for the assumption.