PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Let us call this the Three Stage Messiah-Apostle-Gospel Hypothesis or MAG for short. In the first stage we have the idea of the Messiah developed out of Hebrew Scriptures, a savior, either Yahweh himself or a hero sent by Yahwah would appear. In the second stage we have the Apostolic Literature about the adventures of Apostles preaching this coming Messiah, sometimes referred to as the Lord, or Jesus (Joshua) or Jesus Christ (The anointed Jesus. In the third stage we have the Gospels which postulate that the Messiah named Jesus lived and gathered together the Apostles.

We can suggest roughly 50 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. for the age of the Messiah Revelation writing. The apostolic writing age is possibly 50-150 C.E. and the third stage Gospel age is from 150-200+ C.E. The later stage incorporates and changes the material from the earlier stage, but leaves enough of it intact for us to see enormous shifts and contradictions.

In his book, "Did Jesus Exist," Ehrman acknowledges that a great deal of the source material outside the Gospels does not talk about the historical Jesus (see pages 138-142). Ehrman is unable to explain this coherently, but just passes this fact by as somehow supporting the historicity of Jesus. Apparently, since nobody outside the Gospels wrote much about the historical Jesus, in the early years, this shows that they just weren't interested and they only became interested later.

The MAG hypothesis gives the simplest explanation for this lack of historical consciousness of an historical Jesus. There was no historical Jesus for them to write about.

Now, if this Apostolic literature was written after the Gospels, we would expect it to be filled with all sorts of historical facts taken from the gospels. However, we find, rather that only occasionally does the Apostolic literature touch on anything in the gospels. However, when it does, it generally gives the information in an underdeveloped or primitive form. Because of this happening repeatedly, we may suppose with a great deal of confidence, rather then getting material from the gospels, the gospels got the basic information from the Apostolic material.

In this case of the Bread and Water Blessing, one would expect that the passage in the Apostle writing of Paul should contain material about this being from the Last Supper and how the other apostles told Paul about how they got it from Jesus. Instead of this logical claim, Paul reinvents the wheel so to speak, and has Jesus tell him directly about the blessing of the Bread and Water.

It is not hard to see how the material developed. In the Apostolic Pauline literature, Paul preached a Lord who visited him in jail on the night he was delivered up to the Romans (Acts 23:11 "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, 'Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.'") Paul breaks the bread and says to the Lord to remember his broken body as he has been "smite" on the mouth by the high priest). He also gives the cup to the Lord. This is so the Lord will remember him. Paul uses the scene to say that the cult meeting meal at Corinth should also be just bread and water to remember him. This is an origin myth. It suggests that the bread and water cult meals of the Christians were started by Paul when Paul, with his broken body, shared a meal of bread and water with the Lord in jail before his trial.

The gospel writers were not interested in giving Paul credit for anything. They were interested in giving an historical Jesus credit for everything including the apostles. They simply transferred the story from the night of Paul's arrest in jail to Jesus' last supper.

The New Testament writers could then reuse the Pauline material as source material for Acts. All they had to do was change "I" to "he" in 1 Corinthians. Later Gospel copyists realized that broken body did not make any sense, so they dropped the word "broken."

The writing about the resurrection of the Lord and the people who saw him including the 500 are certainly part of the pre-Gospel, Apostolic Literature. I will explain it next time.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Your MAG hypothesis is even worse than Ehrman's Failure of Facts and Logic.

First of all there is NO Evidence whatsoever that there were Apostles or Apostolic literature.

We have False attribution of authorship with bogus dating and chronology.

Secondly, the discovery of the Short gMark suggest that the Jesus story PREDATED the Jesus cult of Christians.

There is NO actual evidence that the author of the Short gMark was a Christian and NO evidence that the Short gMark was composed for Christians.

Third, there is NO actual evidence that a Jesus story was known before the 2nd century.

I cannot accept the MAG hypothesis because it is a NO Source--No Evidence hypothesis.

There are sources of antiquity which tell us how the Myth was developed.

I ONLY deal with evidence or sources of antiquity.

After the Jewish Temple Fell, it was claimed that the Calamity of the Jews, the desolation of the Temple happened because the Jews caused the death of the Son of God called Jesus.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho Hippolytus' Against the JewsOrigen's "Against Celsus 1 The Short gMark Jesus story is about the Killing of Jesus, the Son of God, after he was delivered up by the Jews.

Now, AFTER the Temple was made desolate, in gMark, Jesus was PREDICTED to return to cast people into Hell Fire if they did NOT believe the story.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho]The development of the Jesus Myth started in the 2nd century with BELIEF in an Anonymous Jesus story that Jesus, the Son of God, who was delivered up to be killed by the Jews was coming back to CAST people in Hell Fire if they did NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Based on Revelation, it appears that people of antiquity in the 2nd century did BELIEVE the Jesus character would Shortly return.

Revelation 22:12 KJVRevelation 22:20 KJV The start of the Jesus story appear to be similar to the start of religion like Mormonism.

A story is written--- people Believe it and start a cult.

Joseph Smith wrote his Bible and people Believe it.

An Anonymous 2nd century writing about Jesus, the Son of God, was Believed and the Jesus cult was started.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I agree that the gospel literature was created to explain the defeat of the Messianic Jews in the Jewish-Roman wars. The Apostolic literature looked forward to a savior. The failure of Bar Kokhba, the Messiah, and his war had to be explained. That is why the retconning of the all the Apostles had to take place.

We disagree on the evolution of that tale:

From: Peter Brooks, "Mahabharata" ( Brook, 1988)

I do not imagine that there was a popular book, followed by a literary explosion and all Messianic (like "Revelation") and Apostolic Literature (like "Tales of Paul and Thecla") grew out of it. If this was the case, we should find traces of the gospels in the Messianic and Apostolic literature. Rather, we find exactly the reverse, the gospels contain traces (sayings and incidents) from the Messianic and Apostolic literature. The incidents make sense in the Messianic and Apostolic literature. When, they are taken and spliced together to create the gospels, we see all kinds of absurdities and nonsense generated.

That is why you find Jesus just blessing bread and a cup at a Passover Meal Feast. Compare this simple blessing of a meal of bread and a cup to the elaborateness of a traditional Passover meal at the time.

The six traditional items on the Seder Plate are as follows:



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder

One cannot see a gospel writer suddenly breaking this scared communal tradition by having Jesus suddenly introduce his morbid "remember me" toast to himself. Would this be an extra fifth cup of wine or would this replace one of the other cups of wine at the meal?

On the other hand if Christians had long been meeting and the introduction of bread and water/wine at their meetings was done in the name of Paul, one can see how the gospel writers, taking their material from the apostolic sources could combine the two - Paul's blessing with Jesus' Last Supper.

Paul never mentions Passover when he talks about the bread and cup blessings. This makes perfect sense only if he was writing before the Gospel writers had fused/confused the two traditions.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

True, true. It wasn't broken when Jesus was placed in a manger, either.

outhouse

no, absolutely false

the 500 would be hellenistic roman literature as to compete with roman emporers who drew large crowds.

aa5874

Again, you are NOT addressing the fact that there is NO Apostolic literature. We have FALSE attribution of authorship, dating and chronology.

There were NO actual Apostles called Paul, Peter/Cephas, James, John and Jude or any others who wrote "Apostolic literature".

Those characters were invented. The real authors are UNKNOWN.

No, No, No!!! Again, you have completely IGNORED the fact that Christian writers up to the mid 2nd century mentioned the Ritual of the Eucharist WITHOUT ever acknowledging Paul and the Pauline writings.

In the NT itself, it is NOT acknowledge at all that the Pauline writings were written up to c 59-62 CE.

The Pauline letters were Composed AFTER Paul was a Persecutor and AFTER the Jesus story was known and Written in the very Pauline writings.

Examine the so-called Pauline letters. Are they NOT addressed to Churches??

The Roman Church was ALREADY developed and their Faith Known throughout the WORLD BEFORE Paul wrote his letter.

The Pauline letters were LAST. Paul is an INVENTED Apostle.

Romans 1
There was NO Jesus story and NO Churches until the 2nd century. There were NO Apostolic literature because there were NO actual Apostles.

The evidence supports the "MG" hypothesis.

M--for a short gMark story followed by G--- the Gospels.

The 2nd century Anonymous Jesus story of short gMark was BELIEVED to be true and then the Gospels were BASED on that story.

the Long gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are based on the Jesus story found in the short gMark.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

We agree on the fictional nature of all the apostles. We disagree on when the epistles were written vis-a-vis the gospel stories. The Roman Church was not in existence when these epistles were written.

The term ἐκκλησία does not mean church although that is how it is generally translated. Note this from http://www.triviumpursuit.com/downlo...sia_part_1.pdf

Prof. Street of Criswell College, Texas note:

If the Roman Church (an international institutional) was known throughout the world at this time, we should expect to find some hint of this in the tens of thousands of words in the Pauline letters. We find not a word. Rather than crediting some Church, either Roman or Jerusalem for teaching how to live, Paul credits himself alone. For example from 1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)
It is Paul and Paul alone who has given the ordinances for the assembly.
It is Paul and Paul alone who is getting and giving the gospel by reading the scriptures.

He is not getting anything from the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Peter, John etc.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

If you agree that the apostles are fictional then why do you insist there were Apostolic literature??

You not only insist there were Apostolic literature but also claim they were composed before the Gospels without any corroboration.

Your position is without source and without evidence.

You have merely identified that the Pauline writer is NOT Credible. The letters to the supposed Churches were probably never delivered.

Not one piece of evidence has surfaced where any of the seven Churches acknowledged receiving a Pauline letter and none has been found where any of the Seven churches responded to a Pauline letter.

Which assembly got the Pauline letter?? Which assembly acknowledged they received a Pauline letter???

Paul and Paul alone cannot corroborate his own letters. We need External Credible sources.

Why are you using Paul and Paul alone to determine the veracity of Paul??

The Pauline writer MUST have gotten his information about the Jesus character and the disciples from a human source whether ORALLY or WRITTEN not unless you believe Paul and Paul alone.

You seem to believe Paul and Paul alone when he claimed he Received information from the resurrected Lord Jesus.

Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church and persecuted those who preached the Jesus story so once Jesus and the disciples did NOT exist then Paul MUST have gotten the Jesus story from a human source orally or in writing.

Up to the mid 2nd century Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters and the Pauline letters claimed WRITTEN Texts were already composed about the Jesus story.

Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke and commended it. See "Commentary of Matthew" 1 and Church History 6.25.

As soon as Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith then it cannot be shown that he was Before the Faith.

The dated recovered evidence suggests the FAITH originated in the 2nd century or later.