aa5874

The Pauline writer claimed it was OVER 500 BRETHREN--Not over 500 guards.

And you will notice that it was ONE soldier who claimed Jesus was risen in your source.

Now, I have shown, using apologetic sources, NOT Silence, that the Pauline writer stated:

1. He was a Persecutor of Christian churches in Judea. Galatians 1

2. The names of Christian BEFORE him, Andronicus and Junia. Romans 16

3. Over 500 Brethren saw the resurrected Jesus BEFORE him.[u] 1 cOR. 15

4. He was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus. [U]1 Cor.15

5. There ALREADY were Christian Scriptures which stated Jesus DIED for OUR Sins and that Jesus was raised on the THIRD Day. 1 Cor.15

The Pauline writings were AFTER The Short-Ending gMark which shows that Jesus did NOT ever claim he was to DIE for OUR SINS.

In gMark, it was ONLY necessary to believe that gMark's Jesus was the Christ to be saved.

gMark's Jesus did NOT ever preach or teach Salvation by giving his Life as a Sacrifice and did NOT ever claim he would die for the Sins of Jews or the whole world.

The Pauline writings are ALL after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

aa5874

Where does Paul say Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar???

Which letter??? Which chapter??? Which verse???

The Pauline writings are Canonized and does NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar.

The Canon of the Church is a NON-Heretical compilation.

The Pauline writings are SILENT on the Sub-lunar crucifixion.

maryhelena

‘Paul’ visited Corinth, according to your example, after 44 b.c. There is no problem with that in regard to a ‘Paul’ figure living in 63 b.c. ‘Paul’ is in Damascus in 63 b.c. and in Corinth sometime after 44 b.c. The problem is that if you want to run with a scenario of a real flesh and blood Paul living in 63 b.c. then you cannot have him living after the death of the gospel JC - which can be dated to 36 c.e. Paul a few years later - and now you have the problem that Paul is way over 100 years and about to start on a further 30 odd years ministry...Obviously, one cannot have Paul living in 63 b.c. - and nothing I have written has suggested such a thing. 'Paul' is a composite figure - used by the NT writers to tell whatever story that needed to be told.
But it is an assumption that it is a downgraded ethnarch that is mentioned in 2 Cor: 11 And your the one with the understanding.....
I’ve no idea where you get the 27 c.e. date for "the first [occasion] of his enmity" re the conflict between Herod (Antipas) and Aretas IV. Without support for that dating your scenario falls down. And as for Herodias, Slavonic Josephus says she was married to Philip the Tetrarch until his death - a death given by Josephus at 34 ce. Thus, no chance of Herodias marrying Antipas to fit in with the usual gospel story interpretation. Shift the JC crucifixion to 36 c.e. and the divorce of Antipas from the daughter of Aretas to just prior to the war - and one does not have to assume a long delay in which Aretas IV has to control his anger towards Antipas. However, by shifting the JC crucifixion to 36 c.e. and Paul a few years later - one has then no way to get 'Paul' to Damascus while Aretas IV is still alive.

As for the idea that it was the daughter of Herodias, Salome, that was married to Philip the Tetrarch - Nikos Kokkinos has found reason to reject that Josephan story. gMark and gMatthew both have Herodias married to Philip - indicating that these two gospels were written prior to Antiquities. Keep in mind that when dealing with Josephus that one is dealing with a prophetic historian. His reconstruction of Herodian history is not without problems. Acts is problematic for historical enquiry. 2 Cor.11 and it’s Damascus and Aretas reference rules out being able to date ‘Paul’ via that connection.

----------------------------

Re the mention of Nikos Kokkinos in regard to Herodias and Salome. His position is mentioned in this article: Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer:A (Christian) Theological Strategy? JBL 125, no. 2 (2006): 321–349

Regarding my mention of Josephus as a prophetic historian:

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine:The Evidence from Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rebecca Gray

Bernard Muller

to Maryhelena,
Do you have evidence for that?
First, the writer of Galatians did not know Paul was in Damascus before 63 BCE because he made a distinction between Damascus and Arabia, when both where under the rule of Aretas III then. Second, Paul (or the inventer) claimed in 2Cor that JC died. How does that fit with your comment that JC was crucified as late of 36 CE (as early as 26 CE?)?
How do you see a fiction writer putting Paul in 63-44 BCE and some other fiction writer putting JC in 26-36 CE? But wait:
So now Paul living in 63 BC is out. But the writer of 2Cor put fictional Paul in Damascus before 63 BCE, knowing JC died some 90 years later! Or maybe he did not know the later. Or the writer had JC dead before 63 BCE. I am confused. What is your theory exactly? Paul is a composite figure? Can you explain that? Did you do a reconstruction of the different Pauls? Looks rather complicated to me.

Assumption, yes, but plausible.

Absolutely. No laughing matter. And it's available for anyone to read.

Yes, my bad. That comes very abruptly in the quote I gave but I explained that earlier in my website.

Do you really think that book is truly written by Josephus? if you answer yes, please explain why.

Josephus explained in details how Antipas met Herodias in Rome, what went on between the two, what happened with Aretas' daughter his wife then, that Herodias had to divorce from a certain Herod (not Philip the tretrarch), an aristocrat living in Rome, a brother of Antipas but not from same mother, that eventually he got married with Herodias, the later union specified several times. Josephus, on that, knew what he was writing about, even if he may not for other things. And I do not think he was a "prophetic historian": where did you get that from?

Bernard Muller

to Maryhelena,
I agree that "Luke" was creative in many parts of Acts, but has some common ground with the Pauline epistles, even if Acts' version is very embellished from Paul's account (like the so-called council in Jerusalem). However a few data from Acts fit and complement well what is found in the Pauline epistles. And together gives a detailed description of Paul's travels, correlation with his letters (for some of them, combined together), and furthermore, shows the evolution of Paul's Christology and theology (and why). Just dare to try it.

Duvduv

Bernard, I am intrigued that you seem to take at face value that Acts was written by a single writer, and that writer must have been the fellow who wrote GLuke. Plus that there are some kind of hidden clues in Acts that correspond to the epistles despite the fact that that the Paul of the epistles is so different than the Paul/Saul of Acts.

maryhelena

Bernard - I was referencing your argument re Corinth!

OK - let me try one more time. My position on ’Paul’ is that this NT figure is a composite figure. So, therefore, talk of where ‘Paul’ was at any one time, in the storyline, has nothing to do with a flesh and blood figure. I used the analogy of a place marker, a name marker. A symbol, a symbolic marker. Here lies treasure; here lies history that is relevant to the pseudo-history that the writer is creating. X = ‘Paul’ marks the spot.

The gospel JC figure is a composite figure - ie no historical gospel JC. Consequently, that figure can have a crucifixion story any time within the rule of Pilate. Pilate dating being ambiguous re Josephus - that time frame runs from 19 c.e. to 36 c.e. (The Acts of Pilate having a crucifixion in 21 c.e., the 7th year of Tiberius).There is no fixed date for the JC crucifixion story - as there is no fixed nativity date.

Did Josephus write the relevant NT scenarios that are now contained within Slavonic Josephus? Who knows? Personally, I doubt that he was the creator, the originator, of the wonder-doer story. That does not mean that he could not have used a source. The relevance is the story that it contains not the source - and how that story can throw some light upon the development of the JC storyboard. Josephus can spin tall tales just as fine as those spun by the writer of Acts.

aa5874

It is most critical to understand that the author of Acts did NOT at all state that Saul/Paul wrote letters to churches.

Incredibly, there is NO support in the NT Canon for the claim that Paul wrote letters to churches.

If we ASSUME that the author of Acts wrote LONG after the supposed Paul, perhaps 40-200 years later, presumably c 90-250 CE, then it would be expected the author would have seen a supposed Pauline letter and would have heard Paul wrote letters to many churches.

Remarkably, the author of Acts, if it is ASSUMED he wrote Late ONLY claimed Paul traveled and preached all over the Roman Empire and did NOT write anything about Paul's letters.

The author of Acts claimed it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters and gave them to Paul and his travelling companion to hand deliver.

Acts of the Apostle was MOST likely written before the supposed letters to the churches and was NOT originally about Paul but a character called Saul.

It would appear that the name Saul in Acts was changed to Paul after the Pauline letters were composed.

The author of Acts did NOT get the name Saul from the Pauline writings and it is NOT expected that an author who supposedly wrote long after writings under the name of Paul to have INTRODUCED the character as Saul knowing that he would change it back to Paul.

The most reasonable explantion is that Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE it was claimed Paul wrote letters to churches.

Duvduv

IF we ask why the second name of Saul was even important to Acts we realize that it makes no appreciable difference to anything in the story line UNLESS the tale was originally about two different individuals.
For some strange reason the author introduces the name change totally out of the blue without any explanation whatsoever in a few words in Acts 13:9 in a manner that suggests an interpolation for the sake of the transition:
"Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said"
The new fellow, Paul is not named again until 13:13:
"From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem."
And then in 9:16 to give a speech, one of several (whereby Saul didn't give such speeches):
"Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: "Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!"

Bernard Muller

To Maryhelena,
Well that still looks very complicated to me. And you put too much reliance on writings like the Slavonic Josephus and Acts of Pilate.
Well, the so-called prophecy moment in Jotapata is just politics to me, something Josephus sold to his captors in order to save his skin and kept repeating it to assure him of a good life in Rome.
As far as the prophets are concerned, true, it seems that they were written history, but that was mostly with hindsights (after the facts), or because cursing against enemies was interpreted as prophecies later whenever that enemy got destroyed or conquered, or because of tenuous interpretation (such as about Daniel also predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans). And Josephus, as a good Jew, would go along with that (the so-called successful prophecy becoming history) but I do not think he was going overboard and making his own prophecies in guise of history. That needs to be proven. Where does Josephus predict the future and create prophetic writings?