Sheshbazzar

aa don't miss the forest for a tree, Joseph's lengthy analysis totally discombobulates any claim to an actual "Paul" as being the author of the writings passed off under that name.
More Joe, more.

aa5874

Are you really sure about that? It would appear he thinks "Paul" was a figure of history.

Sheshbazzar

Not my take on his position, but I do think it would be best to let him explain his position in his own words.
Certainly I, at times discuss "Paul" and "Paul's" writings without need of "Paul" to be a real figure of History. What Joseph has been building here is a chronological indictment, showing exactly how and when "Paul's" writings were fabricated and successively modified by an evolving religion.
I only posted in attempt to forestall a useless derail.

JoeWallack

JW:
My guess is that Paul is historical. We have letters which appear to identify him as the author and the letters have qualities which sound historical:

1) Short on personal Impossible claims.

2) Long on theological blah blah blah.

3) Letters are unclear and have contradictions.

4) Wants an Impossible Jesus and rejects historical witness to Jesus. Makes sense since there was no historical witness to Impossible Jesus. Must get Impossible Jesus from Revelation.

On the other hand we have the following problems with Paul's credibility as a witness, including witness to his own existence:

1) Claims that most of what he writes is via communication with Jesus and we can be certain that there were no such communications.

2) Has very little to say about HJ.

3) His basic philosophy that the Jewish Bible is solely messianic and predicted the messiah would end the law is very dishonest and it's hard to believe that someone raised Jewish and therefore familiar with the Jewish Bible would consider it possible.

4) Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") is the only Church Father to claim and identify a link of witness from himself to Jesus. Irenaeus assures us that Jesus was an old man when he was crucified under Claudius which would mean that while Paul was going around preaching about the significance of Jesus' death, Jesus was still alive! No wonder Paul had to do it outside of Israel.

I think the evidence in this Thread does support an evolution of the Jesuspecies whereby Christianity starts with Paul and his basic doctrines of Sacrifice and Resurrection. Subsequent authors than work with their predecessor authors, interpreting it (making explicit what was implicit or just making it) Ad Nazorean. There may have been historical witness for subsequent authors to use and the process may be a mixture of both. Or it could be all, or at least mostly, Interpretation.

It's possible that GP (Gospel Peter) is a product of this evolution:

1) Paul starts Christianity with Revelation.

2) Christianity motivated to support Paul with historical claims.

3) Implication from Paul that Cephas/Peter was historical witness.

4) Implication from Paul that Peter shared some beliefs with Paul.

5) Subsequent Assertian that Peter and Paul were Partners.

6) Subsequent Assertian that Peter was the primary witness to Jesus.

7) Subsequent Assertian that Peter was authorized by Jesus to promote Jesus.

8) Subsequent Assertian that Peter was authorized by HJ to promote Jesus.

9) Subsequent Assertian that Peter issued instructions to Christians.

10) Subsequent Assertian that Peter issued written instructions to Christians.

11) Subsequent Assertian that Peter documented HJ.

12) Subsequent Assertian that Peter was one of the sources for a Gospel.

13) Subsequent Assertian that Peter was the source for a Gospel.

In other words, subsequent Christianities Assertian of GP could originally be based on his name being found in Paul rather than from independent historical witness.



Joseph

Sheshbazzar

Thank you Joseph, for clarifying your position with regards to the historicity of Paul.

FWIW, I also conclude that there was an actual individual behind the Saul/Paul character presented to us in the NT writings.
Although I do not at all trust that any of the Christian Epistles ever actually originated with him.
My view is that he did preach Jewish Messianism in the synagogues of the Diaspora, and that his verbal teachings were subsequently Hellenized, greatly modified, and expanded.
The writers then employing his "good name" and reputation to create their own "talking head" where "he says" whatever it is that they wanted him to say.
I do not hold the actual "Paul" to be at all responsible for anything that appears written under the pseudonym of his hi-jacked name.
This, I believe, was also the view held by the 1st through 4th century Jewish Sect of The Nazarenes, they believing in the actuality of Paul, sans the fabricated Gentile antinomian "Christian writings" attributed to "Paul".

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

No.


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

No.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

No.

Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are:

1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul.

2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century).

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

N/A

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

N/A (no authority mentioned)

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

N/A



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A

Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are:

1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul.

2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century).

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

N/A

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

N/A (no authority mentioned)

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

N/A


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

Yes

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Received the Gospel from Jesus.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Implication that he was:

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No (he preached)

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A


JW:
Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles.



Joseph

aa5874

Again, this is the fatal flaw in your guess.

You must use some other source than Paul to corroborate Paul's writings.

There are writings with the name Paul, it has been deduced that they were written by more than person.

All that has been deduced is that there was at least one Fake Paul and the other Pauls are questionable. All may be fake, but it is almost certain that there are fakes, only that is sure.


A questionable and manipulated source cannot be an authoritative source.

All the authors of the NT are questionable, they wrote information that are fiction, implausible, incoherent and chronological erroneous and this appears to have been done deliberately.

Scholars have deduced that even the character called the Son of God, if he lived, said very, very little of what he was reported to have said in the NT.

Now, by what means or source did you use to know that Paul SOUND historical?

Please, do not tell me Paul.

I think the Fake Paul must have wanted to SOUND historical or SOUND like he was really living in the 1st century after the God called Jesus ascended through the clouds.

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A

Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are:

1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul.

2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century).


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

N/A

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

N/A (no authority mentioned)

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

N/A


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

Yes

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Received the Gospel from Jesus.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Implication that he was:

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No (he preached)

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A

JW:
Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles.


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

Yes

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Issued commandments as Apostle.

4) Is he the most important authority?

Equal to Paul but mentioned first.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

No mention.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No mention.

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A




Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Now that the data has been gathered it's time to analyze the Timelion for criteria indicating the Source of "Mark". Possible sources already identified are:

1) Revelation

2) History

Another possible source, which is the title of this Thread, The Tale Wagging The Dogma, is Interpretation of previous written sources. Subsequent authors make Explicit what they knew was not explicit in their source and subsequent subsequent authors take it as Explicit without knowing it was not explicit in the original source (and than add their own interpretation. Thus you can end up with a combination of Revelation, History and Interpretation that is partially, mainly or fully historical Not. We can be absolutely certain that this process not only works but is exactly what happened with the Christian Bible as we have huge contradictions within it. We are guaranteed that some of it did not have a historical source.

To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original Jesus' narrative "Mark" lacks history as a source, it may not drive a dagger into HJ but it's at least a paper cut.

The first criteria for possible source of "Mark" is Peter. What does our data tell us about Peter and his possible relationship to "Mark"?:

1) Is Peter mentioned?

2) Is he a claimed authority?

3) What is the nature of his authority?

4) Is he the most important authority?

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?


c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes if you think Paul's Cephas = "Mark's" Peter.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No according to Paul. But Paul has an implication that Peter was thought of as an authority by others.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Peter promoted Jesus before Paul did.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Not explicitly. Possibly by implication.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No.

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A


c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

No.

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A

Notice that for the 1st century Paul and his disciples generally avoid documenting what Peter believed about Jesus. The implications are:

1) Peter had significantly different beliefs about Jesus than Paul.

2) Paul and his disciples could not claim that Peter believed what he didn't really believe while Peter and than those who knew Peter were alive (1st century).


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

N/A

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

N/A (no authority mentioned)

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his witness to HJ documented?

N/A


c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

Yes

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Received the Gospel from Jesus.

4) Is he the most important authority?

No.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

Implication that he was:

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No (he preached)

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A

JW:
Note that at this point in the timelion, c. 110, Christians generally would no longer have known Paul or anyone who knew him. First Clement, in contrast to the 1st century era of Paul, is now picking out positive implications of Peter from Paul. At this point though they are not portrayed as working together, just two separate Apostles.


CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

Yes.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

Yes

3) What is the nature of his authority?

Issued commandments as Apostle.

4) Is he the most important authority?

Equal to Paul but mentioned first.

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

No mention.

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

No mention.

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

1) Is Peter mentioned?

No.

2) Is he a claimed authority?

N/A

3) What is the nature of his authority?

N/A

4) Is he the most important authority?

N/A

5) Was he a witness to HJ?

N/A

6) Did he document his witness to HJ?

N/A

7) Was his documented witness to HJ identified?

N/A



Joseph