gurugeorge

*sigh* No, "genuine Paul" is just a marker - I'm pointing at those texts, i.e. the Pauline epistles minus the Pastorals. The texts that are recognised by biblical scholarship as of an older layer.

What are you babbling about now? I just explained to you my reasoning, it's based on the "source of antiquity" that is the "Paul" writings themselves, on the fact that "apostle" does not seem to mean in the "genuine Paul" letters (remember, that's just a marker for (1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, etc., etc.) what it means in the rest of the Canon.

This is what leads me to suspect that the scholarly consensus might be correct - that there are elements in the "Paul" writings that are earlier, and do represent an earlier strand of Christianity, but one that looks very different from the Christianity touted by the compilers of the "NT Canon".

Perhaps if I put it in a more abstract form, you'll get it:

Two writings, A and B. They both have the term "blah".

On close inspection, it seems that text A uses "blah" with a different connotation from the way it's used in text B.

The term "blah" as used in text A is incoherent with reality.

The term "blah" as used in text B is coherent with reality.

Which is more likely to be a "lying" text?

That has to be the most vacuous tu quoque I've ever seen in an argument.

Yes, but it's not clear that "apostle" IN GALATIANS means the same as "apostle" IN ACTS. The fact that somebody later put the writings together in a "Canon" as if they do have the same meaning is neither here nor there.

Another piece of nonsense - check my argument in the other thread about this. "Brothers of the Lord" is clearly a jargon term that has nothing to do with siblinghood, and James is simply one of those "brothers".

Once again, just because some idiot 200 years later decided that the meaning was the same and stuck the text side-by-side with other texts in which James is a literal sibling of the Jesus entity, is irrelevant.

There is no "their" in relation to the NT Canon, it is not a single text by one hand.

Again, the question of whether "apostle" means the same thing in the writings denoted as "Paul", as it means to the people who put the "Paul" writings with the Acts and gospels, and called it a "Canon", is open.

But it is not clear that "apostle of Jesus" in the "Paul" writings means "somebody personally sent out by the cult figure as a messenger", like it does in Acts and other "Canon" writings.

We don't know who the author of the Pauline Epistles is - neither the "genuine" parts nor the Pastorals nor any of it. We don't know who ANY Of the authors are of ANY of the texts.

On the contrary, it is your obligation to show that "apostles" means the same thing consistently throughout the Canon. You cannot just assume it just because tradition upholds it.

There is a whole world of naivete in that little word you just used there: "belong".

No, all you've given me is a whole lot of question-begging rubbish.

Stopping there, because the rest of your post just tiresomely repeats the same question-begging rubbish.

aa5874

Well, your "genuine Pauline" may not be GENUINE at all. There may be some forgeries in your "genuine Paul".


Do you not understand what I am asking? Give me an EXTERNAL source of ANTIQUITY of the Pauline writings that LED you to think Galatians might be historical.

Your methodology is absurd you use the Pauline writings as the corroborative source for the Pauline writings. How illogical can that be?

Please show on what basis did "blah B" became coherent with reality?

You have ALREADY claimed that you don't know if "genuine Paul" was really genuine, it is just a marker.

You therefore cannot ASSUME that "blah B" is coherent with reality.


Well, that is exactly why I made such a response to make you realise that you have not really said anything.


I think you don't understand what "BEFORE" means.

If you think "apostles" mean "messengers", then there were messengers called Peter and James the Lord's brother BEFORE the messenger Paul.

Jesus had twelve messengers including the messenger called Peter.


I did not make any claims about siblings. Please show that "genuine Paul" met James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem.

Is not "their" the plural of his/hers?

Again, it is the meaning of "BEFORE" that seems to be the problem. Whatever you think "apostles" mean, then there were 12 apostles BEFORE Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul was your "genuine Paul".

But the NT Canon is about Jesus who was betrayed in the night after he supped, crucified, raised on the third day, ascended to heaven and was expected to return a second time.

It is clear as the EVIDENCE demonstrated that the very Jesus in the Pauline writings was betrayed in the night after he had supped, crucified, raised on the third day, ascended to heaven and was expected to return a second time.

Apostles of Jesus in the NT Canon have the same meaning.

I did not claim that I know who wrote the Pauline Epistles. The author of Acts wrote about a character called Saul/Paul and that Saul/Paul was established as the author of the Pauline Epistles.

Saul/Paul was a character whose conversion was fiction and met fictitious characters in the fiction Jesus stories also found in the Pauline Epistles.

But, again, I did not assume "apostles" mean the same thing throughout the Canon. I showed you passages where the word "apostles" was used and there is no change in the meaning so that the apostle Peter in NT Canon is different to OR COULD NOT BE apostle Peter in Galatians.

You MUST have an obliglation to show that apostle Peter in Galatians could not be apostle Peter in the Canon.


But, you know that you have just made a most erroneous statement.

You still no answer for Galatians 1.13 and Galatians 1.23.

Your "genuine Paul" claimed he persecuted the FAITH he was NOW PREACHING.

If you believe "your genuine Paul" started the FAITH, you believe a lie.

gurugeorge

For sure, it's a possibility. In fact I'm pretty sure there are - Catholicizing forgeries, for a start (i.e. mini versions of the type of Catholicizing done by the Pastorals, which are acknowledged to be, at the very least, not by the same hand as the "genuine" Epistles).

Give me an external source that would lead you to think ANY of the stuff in the NT is historical, apart from a few trivial mentions of historical places and names, of the sort that could just as easily be found in a work of fiction to give it colour.

Well, I'm using external reality to test the meanings of some terms, in a similar way to the way we've agreed that external reality can be used to test an existential claim (re. Jesus). So, while there's no positive external proof of anything much in the NT, in one case (the existence of Jesus) we've both agreed to take a "hard line" AFS re. the Jesus entity (no external mention, therefore likely didn't exist). Well, I'm just doing the same thing when matching up the meanings of some terms in the Paul writings with the meanings of the same terms in the rest of the NT Canon.

The Paul writing doesn't seem, on the face of it, to have the same connotation for terms like "Jesus Christ", "apostle", "James the brother of the Lord", as the rest of the NT Canon does, and it turns out the prima facie connotation of these terms in the Paul writings IS coherent with reality, whereas the prima facie connotation of those terms in the rest of the NT canon ISN'T coherent with reality.

"Apostle" NOT having the connotation of "someone PERSONALLY DELEGATED by an entity that could tolerably be construed as a man at the root of the Christ myth" is coherent with reality. That's the meaning we get from the Paul writings.

"Apostle HAVING the connotation of "someone personally delegated etc." is NOT coherent with reality. That's the meaning we get from the rest of the NT writings.

The rest of the NT writings have a meaning for "apostle" that connotes "someone who was PERSONALLY sent out as a messenger by an entity that could tolerably be construed as a human being who was at the root of the Christ myth".

The Paul writings DON'T have that connotation. (At least you weren't able to find it, after I asked you a few times; and you know the bloody texts better than I do!)

There is no "Lord's brother" in the Paul writings, in the sense of a sibling. What's evident in the Paul writings is that there is a class of people in the cult called "brothers of the Lord", and this James fellow seems to be one of them. (The other option would be that the Paul writer was recommending incest - "have we not a right to take along a SISTER wife, as do the other apostles, and the BROTHERS of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Cor 9:5. I guess that's possible, but it doesn't seem likely.)

So the Paul writer certainly claims to be meeting somebody called James, but there is absolutely no logical necessity whatsoever to read into this "James" the meaning assigned in the rest of the NT Canon, to which the Paul texts, as you so naively put it, "belong" ( ) - i.e. the meaning that James was a literal brother of (and therefore knew personally) an entity that might tolerably be construed as a human being who could have been at the root of the Jesus myth (that very entity we have no external evidence for).

Do you think all the texts in the NT Canon were written by a single hand? If not, then you must admit that it is simply a compilation - the texts have been associated with each other by someone. But why should we assume that the person who compiled the Canon understood the texts s/he was associating with each other? Christians have been caught with their pants down in other circumstances - why not here?

Really? As has often been pointed out, it looks like the 12 are different from the apostles.

But even if they were the same, we still can't be sure that "12 apostles" connotes, in Paul, the idea of "12 people who knew the cult figure personally, and were sent out as messengers by him". Again, that's just not clear from the Paul writings.

But of course, famously, Paul doesn't claim to have heard about all that from anybody else who was present - it's another thing he claims to have gotten from the horse's mouth. And since the horse was supposedly dead at that time, or no longer present in the world, then it's just another example of his claimed visionary experience. Do we have any reason to suppose he was lying? VISIONARY EXPERIENCE, REMEMBER, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REALITY OF THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE OF A LIVING HUMAN BEING WHO COULD TOLERABLY BE CONSTRUED AS THE MAN AT THE ROOT OF THE CHRIST MYTH.

Who is more likely to be lying/mistaken - the person who claims to have had a vision of an entity no longer in the world, or the people who claim that the apostolic ancestors in their lineage knew that entity personally?

The Pauline writer makes no claim to have known that entity personally. He claims to have spoken to him in visionary experience. That's consistent with reality (i.e. the claim that one seems to oneself to have seen an entity that doesn't exist, is consistent with what we know about visions).

The Pauline writer gives no hint that any of the people he talks about (Cephas, James, the Pillars, the Twelve, the Apostles) knew Jesus personally, or were personally sent out by a living being as messengers. On the contrary, the only hint he gives is that they got wind of this Jesus entity from Scripture and from visions like his.

That is consistent with reality; what the rest of the NT Canon says (that there was a Jesus entity known personally to other entities called "Peter, "James", "the Apostles") is NOT consistent with reality (because, as we both agree, there's no external evidence of such a being).

But your ascription of "fiction" is based on your unquestioning acceptance of somebody's say-so that the writings smushed together as the "NT Canon" really hold consistent connotations for the terms throughout.

You are not giving the plain evidence (that the connotations are different in the Paul writings from the rest of the Canon - except perhaps Hebrews, and parts of other texts) a proper hearing. You are prejudging that the connotations are in fact the same, when they're blatantly not (if you accept the same principle of an AFS in this micro-situation re. meanings and connotations, as you do in the macro-situation wrt the Jesus figure).

I have discharged that obligation - you yourself have helped me discharge it, by being unable (as I have been unable) to find an instance where it's clear and obvious that "apostle" in the Paul writings means "someone who PERSONALLY KNEW and was PERSONALLY SENT OUT AS A MESSENGER BY an entity who might tolerably be construed as a human being at the root of the Jesus myth".

This is an AFS - so, if you accept the principle of an AFS in the case of the Jesus entity himself, why do you not accept an AFS in the case of the Paul writings, re. the absence of clear connotation of personal acquaintanceship of the cult figure wrt ANY of the people the Pauline writer mentions?

A and B: one claims to have apostolic ancestors who knew the cult figure personally, the other doesn't mention the "apostles" as knowing the cult figure personally.

Which is more coherent with reality, which is more coherent with absence of external evidence for the cult deity?

Loomis

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the "genuine Paul" writings pre-date Acts, and that they had a slightly different slant.

If I understand you correctly, your argument does not require that the "genuine Paul" writings are historical; only that they pre-date Acts.

Am I right? Do I understand you correctly?

dog-on

That would be my position. In fact, I believe that Acts was written, in part, as a response to Paul.

aa5874

The EVIDENCE tends to indicate the opposite that the Pauline writings did not predate Acts of the Apostles in the 1st century and before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

It cannot be proven or demonstrated that any Pauline writings predated Acts of the Apostles.

And when Acts of the Apostles is examined carefully, it would appear that the Pauline writings post-dated Acts of the Apostles.

It must be noticed that the author of Acts did not introduce Saul as Paul from the very first time he mentioned Saul. PAUL was a LATE ADDITION or LATE NAME CHANGE[/B] even in Acts.

It would seem that the author of Acts was initially writing about the original 12 apostles and SAUL, the persecutor and not PAUL.

From the 1st to 15th chapter of Acts, the author wrote about the Acts of the Apostles but from the 16th chapter to the end of Acts, the author, primarily ONLY wrote about the ACTS OF PAUL.

But, in Acts it is not known how Saul/Paul became an apostle when Saul/Paul's conversion was fiction and he was not even a follower of Jesus.



Now, the name Jesus Christ, used in the Pauline Epistles over 200 times, was invented after the Fall of the Temple.

There is no historical source EXTERNAL of apologetics, that can demonstrate that there was a character named JESUS CHRIST before the Fall of the Temple, living in Galilee for about 30 years, who was worshiped as a God with the ability to forgive the sins of the Jews, and was [b]BETRAYED in the NIGHT after he had Supped and was believed to have been RAISED FROM THE DEAD and ascended to heaven.

The fact that the Pauline writer used the words JESUS CHRIST over 200 times confirms 200 times over that PAUL was LATER than the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Loomis

Fail. :down:

I am not claiming that Acts was written in the 1st century and before the Fall of the Jewish Temple. And I’m not sure that anyone else is either. :shrug:

Clue: Who gives a sh_t?

Who says it wasn’t? :strawman:

The issue (for me anyhow) is if Acts was written after the "genuine Paul" writings.

And get another clue: I’m not using the word “genuine” because I think Paul existed. -So please spare us your dissertation on that issue.

dog-on

Loomis, try this on. Acts is written in response to Galatians, which some heretic used as a trump card.

(Until, of course, even that card was assimilated...)

bacht

Makes sense to me. This may be one point that both MJ and HJ advocates might agree on, that Acts came after the letters and in the same time frame as the gospels. One MJ case would see Acts as fiction, stitching together Paul's career from hints in the letters. The letters would be Paul version 1.0 and Acts the revised, theologically correct version 2.0 (as per 2nd C theology and politics)

I guess the HJ crowd still insist the letters were written pre-70, for confessional reasons

aa5874

But, agreement without EVIDENCE is just tantamount to blind FAITH.

Once there was no Jesus Christ, no apostles of Jesus Christ and NO Jesus Christ FAITH that was being preached, in effect, no JESUS CHRIST story before the Fall of the Temple, no tradition of JESUS CHRIST before the Fall of the Temple, and a Pauline writer claimed that there were apostles BEFORE him, that he PERSECUTED the Faith, that there were people IN CHRIST BEFORE HIM, that Jesus was BETRAYED IN THE NIGHT, crucified, died, was raised from the dead on the third day, ascended and was expected to RETURN to EARTH a SECOND time, then the Pauline write most likely got his information about JESUS CHRIST from a Jesus story AFTER the story was written.

The Pauline writer most likely got the fictitious PERSECUTION story from Acts. No-one persecuted any JESUS CHRIST believers before the Fall of the Temple. The story in ACTS is fiction. JESUS CHRIST was NOT INVENTED yet.

The Pauline writer most likely got his fictitious Jerusalem Meeting with the Apostles from ACTS. There were no JESUS CHRIST APOSTLES before the Fall of the Temple. The story of the Jerusalem meetings with Apostles in Acts is fiction. The JESUS CHRIST story was not invented yet.

1.No Church writers claimed a Pauline writer started the JESUS CHRIST FAITH.

2. No Pauline writer claimed he started the JESUS CHRIST FAITH.

3. No book in the Canon claimed a Pauline writer started the JESUS CHRIST FAITH.

4. There is no external source of antiquity that show a Pauline writer started the JESUS CHRIST FAITH.

5. The NT Canon and Church writings are in agreement that SAUL/PAUL wrote every single EPISTLE with the name PAUL.

6. The NT Canon and Church writings are in agreement that SAUL/PAUL persecuted JESUS CHRIST believers.

7. But, there were no JESUS CHRIST, no JESUS CHRIST BELIEVERS, and no JESUS CHRIST apostles.

8. The Pauline writers corroborated the FICTION in Acts.

9. The Pauline writings were written as though the readers or audience were already familiar with the JESUS CHRIST story and ACTS of the Apostles.

It is clear that it is most likely no author of any of the Epistles was ACTUALLY called Paul and that there were not written before the JESUS CHRIST story and the Acts of the Apostles were fabricated.

The agreement that a Pauline writer wrote before Acts is baseless or based on some preconceived outcome.