Chaucer

Gymnastics that if resorted to involve coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after coincidence after.............................................

Chaucer

Toto

No mental gymnastics, just the assumption that Paul's letters are interpolated.

aa5874

1 Corinthians 11.23-25 are indications that the Pauline writings are late, that is, they were written after the Gospels story. And there are more indications that the Pauline writings were after the Gospels.

But, it must be noted that the Church has already propagated that Paul was aware of the Gospel of Luke.

There are no other sources of antiquity that can demonstrate or have mentioned that the Pauline writer was not aware of gLuke.

And, we have another source that seem to confirm that the Pauline wrings are late and after the Gospels. This writer under the name Justin Martyr mentioned passages found in the Canonical Gospels, including gLuke not did not mention one single Pauline writings, not even a single sentence.

Chaucer

............... in case after case after case after case after case after case after ......................

Chaucer

Toto

Yes, Paul's letters are heavily interpolated, by a proto-orthodox editor with a mission. Why do you think that this is unheard of?

Chaucer

I see ............ in all ten cases .....................

Chaucer

dog-on

or maybe 7

or 4

or...

Chili

Maybe I missed 'the list' or I am not getting the drift of this argument, but if you cannot write your own gospel after having drank of the cup that Jesus drank, etc. what are we doing here?

So yes, Paul knew first hand as he had carried the same cross and now could talk the talk because he had walked the walk of Jesus . . . who so had 'come back' and did as he had promised in that same generation (if that is what this tread is all about).

It is foolish to think that Christ is coming back because par-ousia has nothing to do with Christ but with the insight gained after the final-ousia has been completed wherein our integrtity is the pivotal point between the inner man and the persona to be slaughtered . . . of us, in us and through us, as in each one of us. That's all the gospels are about, and no more and no less.

That Paul writes about the do's and don'ts to prepare us for this event is only so that we may obtain the quality that is needed to survive this event that Nietzsch so nicely presented in his 'camel' allegory wherein the oasis is found in the end.

I would ask why we should criticize Paul for showing us that Jesus did come back as he had promised he would . . . and would add that if you do not like it do it on your own.

bacht

I thought there was a third position between HJ and MJ, that of Jesus agnostics: that there is not enough surviving evidence to reach a conclusion either way. This would seem to be the responsible 'scientific' perspective.

The OT is full of prophecies of doom, and Daniel popularized the apocalyptic style in Hellenistic times. Maybe this is too obvious, but wasn't the fall of Judaea and the temple a catastrophe of cosmic proportions for the Jewish people?

ApostateAbe

Yes, that is right. Even the Jesus-agnostics are a slim minority in the secular scholarship, because the secular scholarship believes that the evidence is strong enough to make a decision. Those who believe that the evidence is insufficient tend to be those who are dismissed as minimalists, and they are pariahs.
Yes, it was.