Duvduv

And among epistles within the same epistles there are contrasting statements about God and Jesus doing particular things.

Galatians 1:11 It is Jesus who revealed himself to Paul.
Galatians 1:15 It is God who revealed the Christ to Paul.

God is the Savior in 1 Timothy and Titus, whereas Jesus is the Savior in Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

2 Timothy 1: This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus.

God is over all in Ephesians 4 but Jesus is over all in Romans 9.

The "churches" were of Christ in Romans 6 but of God in 1 Corinthians 11.

The kingdom belongs to Christ in Colossians 1 but belongs to God in Colossians 3.

The Judgement Seat belongs to God in Romans 14 but to Christ in 2 Corinthians 5.

Paul is a servant of God (and apostle of Jesus) in Titus 1 but a servant of Christ in Galatians 1.

I think it is very clear that not only were there more than a single person writings and changing texts, but the editors never bothered to keep track of anything.

Duvduv

I think it is pretty clear that the bottom line is not simply whether this or that epistle was written by "Paul" but whether entire epistles are single documents or even written by a single person.
How could one letter (for which we know there is no evidence they were either mailed, received or responded to by the addressee) say two different things unless it had originally been written by two different people:

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased
16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being

Duvduv

1
3but in his own seasons manifested his word in the message, wherewith I was intrusted according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
4to Titus, my true child after a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and [Christ Jesus] our Saviour
2
10not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things
13looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour [Jesus Christ];
3
4But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared
6 which he poured out upon us richly, [through Jesus Christ our Saviour; ]

EarlDoherty

Paul needed no archons, just scripture. That told him that the heavenly Christ had risen from the dead, just as they told him he had died.

1 Corinthians 15:12-16 tells us where this information came from: God. That can only mean scripture. (See Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.79-80)

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Please, your myth theory is based on PRESUMPTIONS of an early Paul of the 1st century. Your theory is NOT supported by the actual DATED Pauline writings, P 46, which is the mid 2nd-3rd century.

I no longer deal with nor accept PRESUMPTIONS about Paul.

Based on the ACTUAL DATED Pauline writings, P 46, the Pauline writers are NOT credible so I cannot accept what you have presumed.

The writings of Justin Martyr appear to corroborate that the DATED Pauline writings are in their chronological order. They do NOT belong to the 1st century.

It is most remarkable that 100% of all DATED Text of the Jesus story are NOT earlier than around the mid 2nd century yet people still RELY on imaginary evidence to support their theories.

The DATED EVIDENCE stares us in the face. 100% of all DATED Text about the Jesus story is from the 2nd century--000%--ZERO--NIL--NONE from the 1st century.

The Pauline writers were NOT EARLY--they were very late and last.

James The Least

Ah, so Matthew's infamous night of the living dead passage is actually just yet another out-of-context borrowing from OT prophecy. This time Ezekiel 37:12 and Daniel 12:1-2. Thank you. I didn't know the background of this passage but now it makes sense.

I really don't know how people can still maintain the illusion that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts/oral history.


Daniel 12:1-2
At that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people, all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape. Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

Duvduv

OK, so "Paul" couldn't get it straight whether his revelation(s) were from God or from Christ. He couldn't get it straight whether he was a servant of God or a servant of Christ. He couldn't decide whether God was the savior or Christ was the savior. And he couldn't decide if the Kingdom belonged to God or to Christ.
What else couldn't he decide upon, and surely this indicates more than one writer of the epistles and even of individual epistles??
I wonder where GJohn had the idea of God sacrificing his only begotten son when Galatians says the exact opposite, that Christ gave himself up.....

In any case, it's interesting that "Paul" did not have a Logos-based Son religion of either GJohn, Justin or Athenagoras. And of course the GJohn Word/Logos orientation was far preferred by the ecumenical councils than either the HJ story or even the exclusive revelation of Paul whose writings are not hinted at in most of the Creeds. One would think indeed that the revelation to the gentiles in Galatians would be a CORE idea of a Creed, but on the other hand the Second Antioch Creed of 341explicitly identified the Great Commission to the Nations without any mention of Galatians or Paul, and the Second Sirmium Creed of 357 identified the Great Commission with an anonymous citation from Romans, and the Creed only calls the writer "THE APOSTLE" suggesting perhaps uncertainty as to the authorship:

And His one only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, ‘I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’ (John 20:17). On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle taught: ‘Is He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes of the Gentiles also; since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith’ (Romans 3:29, 30).

But the original author of this piece of Romans contradicts the view of nulifying the law in the next verse in Romans not mentioned in the creed: 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Duvduv

If the original letter was a straight monotheistic sermon that was adapted by a Logos-Son religion of an unnamed Son, what then? The Logos-Son teaching is not in the synoptics or in the pauline epistles.

Indeed, the Son of Man/Enoch typology is not in the pauline epistles, nor is the Jesus biblical messiah typology, nor is the Logos-Son typology, but only the indwelling divine Christ typology - except for Hebrews which has the Divine High Priest typology.

Sheshbazzar

It's what happens when men try to make their god to be in their own image and after their own likeness.

An Eternal God that never ages, never tires, never weakens, never loses potency, never needs to retire.

Among men however, the sons soon wish to take over the reins of power, and for this to happen 'the old man' needs to retire, turn over the farm, and get out of the way.

So we end up with the queer theological concept of a God Junior taking over the family business and authority and running the whole show ever after.

And old papa God, the Eternal YHWH, is supposed to just retire into the background, put his feet up, and just twiddle his thumbs for the rest of eternity?

Maybe God Junior will get the poor old fellow a few puzzles to put together? Perhaps let him putter around in the garden as long as he stays out of the way?

The proposition that an Eternal and all powerful God, would ever need or have any use of a son to take over His position and authority, has to rate as one of the stupidest ideas that religion has ever came up with.

Grog

The definition you supply does not preclude applying the term to people who believed they were anointed in God. I don't see how you think it has to refer to Jesus Christ. IF there was a group of people who were to identify themselves on the bases that they were anointed of God, what term would then use? "Pertaining to" can be pertaining to being the anointed of God.