Sheshbazzar

Agreed. The early 'Pauline' writings knew of no earthly 'Jesus'. The 'Pauline' birth or resurrection from the dead was originally conceived as a spiritual transformation, accomplished in the heart and mind of a believer when they received the indwelling of the Logos. Latter 'Pauline' writings were accommodated to the existence of an earthly christ figure named 'Jesus'.

Some. They certainly do incorporate and capitalize on the fictional tale.

Yes. In the Book of Acts a highly creative encounter is related, where he asks the Voice one single question What was the answer?
That is called accommodation. works great.

There is an echo in here.

Observant.

aa5874

You don't seem to agree that the Pauline Jesus was God Incarnate--God's own Son MADE of a WOMAN

Where are you sources that the Pauline birth or resurrection was originally conceived as a spiritual transformation???

You have NO such evidence or written statement anywhere in antiquity.

The Pauline writings contain NOTHING about an indwelling of the Logos.

The Pauline writer did claim he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus and that he and over 500 persons were Seen of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV The Pauline writer is claiming he is a corroborative source for the Jesus story of the Resurrection.

The Revealed Gospel of Paul was derived from the Resurrected Jesus.
They incorporate a resurrected Jesus--God's Son made of a Woman who DIED for our Sins, BURIED, and was raised on the THIRD day and Seen by over 500 people.

The Pauline writings are far more creative than Acts of the Apostles. At least the author of Acts did NOT dare claim Paul wrote letters to Churches up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea c 59-63 CE.

The author of Acts did NOT even claim that Paul and Peter were MARTYRED when he supposedly wrote after Peter and Paul should have been already Gloriously Martyred like Stephen.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are Highly creative works to Historicize the Apostles/disciples and the resurrected Jesus character, Son of a Ghost and God.

Chili

You are your own biggest enemy with your sloppy reading because where in the bible does it say that Jesus as Son of God was born of a woman, as in 'any female as woman' because that just is not so!

"Born of woman under the law" specifically refers to 'woman' as taken from man and not banned for Eden (by inference), and that is just not any female as you are tinking of woman, but is in fact the nucleus of his own life and hence the betrothal allegory is made.

Now "under the Law" refers to Joseph as upright Jew standing convicted by his own in sin complex that was carved in his soul as if upon stone.

Duvduv

It's kind of funny. You demand from me what you don't demand from yourself. You have no original manuscripts from Josephus or your precious second century Justin, on which you hang your second century hypothesis.

Sheshbazzar

I have wrote a lot in this Forum. I believe I have made it abundantly clear that I find these writings to have been tampered with. Just because you have a text were 'Paul' allegedly says something, it is no indication that the initial 'Pauline' documents ever said any such thing.
Sure I do, just recognize and ignore the identifiably latter inserted quasi-historical 'Jebus' material. 'Paul's' Christological theology began and developed with no historical 'Jesus' material.

Sure they do.

Acts 13:7 ὃς ἦν σὺν τῷ ἀνθυπάτῳ Σεργίῳ Παύλῳ ἀνδρὶ συνετῷ οὗτος προσκαλεσάμενος Βαρναβᾶν καὶ Σαῦλον ἐπεζήτησεν ἀκοῦσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

15:7 πολλῆς δὲ συζητήσεως γενομένης ἀναστὰς Πέτρος εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὅτι ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐξελέξατο διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ πιστεῦσαι
8. καὶ ὁ καρδιογνώστης θεὸς ἐμαρτύρησεν αὐτοῖς δοὺς αὐτοῖς, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καθὼς καὶ ἡμῖν

13:48 ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

Rom 8:8. οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται

9. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ

10. εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην

Col 3:16 ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλουσίως ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ....

II Cor 6:16 τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ εἰδώλων ὑμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε ζῶντος καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι Ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεός καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι λαός

Of course he is ...after the Church's writers got done with 'him', he would 'testify' to, 'claim' or 'say' anything they wished.

Or seem to be .....after the Church heaviliy interpolated, edited, and doctored his writings.

They incorporate a resurrected Jesus--God's Son made of a Woman who DIED for our Sins, BURIED, and was raised on the THIRD day and Seen by over 500 people.

Quite obviously we agree on that.

You still didn't answer; 'In the Book of Acts a highly creative encounter is related, (in Acts 9:5, 22:8, 26:15) where 'Paul' asks the Voice one single question. What was the answer?'

Do you believe 'Paul's 'testimony'? on this matter?
We can argue details for years. But do we not mutually agree that these stories, 'testemonies', and writings are not credible? and have been tampered with, and are not the product of any real 1st century CE 'Paul' or 'apostles'? but are the religious propaganda forgeries of a 2nd century CE and latter Church?

aa5874

It is deduced that Acts of the Apostles is a late Apologetic source of the Canon so we can see if the author of Acts was influenced by the Pauline Revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus.

The very first thing the author of Acts did NOT mention the Pauline 500 that was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

The author of Acts mentions one visit by the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem. It is clear that the Pauline writings have the highest number of visits.

But, what did the Holy Ghost tell the disciples to preach for Remission of Sins??

It was baptism.

Again, the author of Acts seems like he did NOT attend a Pauline Church, did NOT read a Pauline letter.

Acts 2:38 NIVActs 8:12 NIVActs 9:18 NIVActs 19 In Acts, SAUL/Paul himself was baptized and Saul/Paul did baptized others.

However, in the Pauline writings, Paul did NOT state that Remission of Sins was obtained by Baptism. In fact, Paul claimed he was NOT called to baptize.

This is the Pauline writer in the Epistle to the Romans. Baptism has nothing to do with Remission of Sins in the Pauline writings.

Romans 10:9 NIV The Pauline Revealed Gospel was composed AFTER Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

Shesh, it probably isn't worthwhile focusing only on a single item or even the claims of paleography, since it isn't an exact empirical science, and the field overall can include may disputes that can range over a few hundred years. John Wansbrough discusses the subject in the Islamic context.

Sheshbazzar

So we are just supposed to ignore any and all dates that the world finest textual scholars have collectively arrived at for these 49 individual documents .
(we are not talking about a single item or text but a very significant number of texts and the combined work and opinions of hundreds of very educated scholars.)

And what about the Dura Europos house church? Trained and credible Archaeologists and historians seem very confident in placing its infilling and abandonment to the Sassanian siege of 256 CE. The archaeological evidence is quite overwhelming in its abundance.

Are you accusing them all of colluding and participating in some conspiracy to misrepresent or plant all of that recovered archaeological evidence?
Or of incompetence? insinuating that your skill in interpreting and dating of this archaeological evidence, and in providing the historical context, exceeds that of all of those who have actually done the work?

I am intrigued here. If you reject the consensus of these Archaeologists and History scholars, You must have your own explanations for, historical sources and reconstructions, indicative of a latter than accepted dating for these various Dura Eurpos finds.

The academic community seems to have presented a very solid case for their history and dating, being able to point to the exact historical circumstances, battles, names, and dates.
Do you actually have anything more concrete to offer on this material than implied denials and suspicions?

In the absence of your presentation of a more credible explanation, history, and dating of this Dura christian material, I see no reasons not to accept the collective conclusions of academia that this material does in fact date to 256 CE or earlier.

aa5874

Those passage have NOTHING AT ALL about the "indwelling Logos". If they had you would have posted the passages in English.


Do you believe Paul wrote about the "indwelling Logos" in Romans 8.8-10, Colossians 3.16 and 2 Cor.6.6??

Do you believe Acts 13.7, 15.7 and 13.48???

It is most strange that the very people who use the Pauline Epistles and Acts are the very ones who question those who use them just like they do.

I have already stated and can show that the Pauline writer was a massive liar but in any event he wrote NOTHING of the "indwelling Logos" in the Pack of lies called Epistles.

The Pauline writings are about the Resurrected Jesus and that there there is NO remission of sins unless Jesus was raised from the dead.

Paul eventually LIED and claimed he was a witness of Jesus after the resurrection.

The Pauline writings are sources of Perjury.

Sheshbazzar

If I had posted them in accord with English 'Versions' they would not have been as accurate, and the word λόγον in them would not have been evident.

'For you are the Temple of the living Theos; as Theos has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them;'

O'Theos, Logos, and Pneuma Hagios are One. One cannot recieve one to dwell and to walk within the 'Temple' of their body (being) without recieving the others.
The Hebrew expression is יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃ And the Greek; ' κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστίν'

The 'Pauline' writer, yes.
I believe you meant 2 Cor 6:16.

No. But I do recall that I asked you this question first.

So you believe. Based on the collective content of the Hebrew and the Greek texts I believe otherwise.
No doubt. ...after the Church got done with them.
Obviously. The Church writers were liars. They could make 'Paul say' anything they wished. Naturally they made 'Paul' to be a liar like themselves.

If that's what it pleases you to call it. I see it as religious mythology and fabrication composed with a purpose.