Solo

It's actually more complicated, aa. The scholars agree almost unanimously that Paul's epistles preceded the gospels, and Paul himself consistently himself maintains 'the fulfilment-of-the-law-in-Jesus-Christ' thesis :

Rom 2:14 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Rom 13:8,10 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. ....Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

1 Cr 9:20-21 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law--not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ--that I might win those outside the law.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

No way. It is NOT complicated at all.

You SIMPLY cannot provide the basis or the historical source of antiquity that can show that the Pauline Epistles preceded the gospels.


There is NO known historical source of antiquity external of the very questionable multiple unknown Pauline writers that can support the theory that the Pauline writers wrote anything about Jesus, Peter, Cephas, James, John, Barnabas, or any disciple of Jesus called Christ, or that that there was one single Pauline Church or Pauline convert anywhere in the habitable earth before the Fall of the Temple circa 70 CE.

There is NO known historical source external of the very multiple unknown questionable writers that there was a character called Paul who had revelations that Jesus was betrayed in the night.

There must have ALREADY been written information or an oral tradition that Jesus was betrayed in the night or Paul's revelations would be be meaningless.

There must have already been written information or oral tradition about Cephas, James and John or Paul's audience or readers would not have known who he was talking about.

The Church writers all placed Saul/Paul's conversion after the ascension of Jesus and the death of Stephen so it is quite useless to use the NT to claim that the Pauline writings were the first to be written.

You cannot use the NT to claim the Pauline writings are first when there are NO OTHER HISTORICAL SOURCE external of the very questionable multiple unknown authored Pauline writings.

Now, please tell me from where did Paul get the name Jesus, Cephas, James, John and Barnabas?

And please tell me who the Pauline writers claimed they persecuted?

It is not complicated at all. The Pauline writers placed themselves after the God/man Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The Pauline writers placed themselves after the Jesus story. The Pauline writers in the NT are after the Gospels.

Galatians 1:23 - 1Co 1:23 - Ro 16:7 -
It is that simple unless you want to complicate things by introducing your imagination without any historical support.

jgreen44

Yes. But was that "written information" (if it existed) the gospel story? Certainly there is no historical source which can show that the Pauline Epistles preceded the gospels. But it is inferred from internal evidence. Specifically, if the gospel story existed prior to the composition of the epistles then surely Paul would have been aware of it (them) and he would have incorporated some elements of the earthly biography of Jesus into his own writings. But he did not. This suggests that the gospel story had not yet been "fleshed" out. This suggests that the gospel story was still under development when the Pauline epistles were written.

aa5874

But, we DO have information in the Pauline Epistles that

1. Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had supped.
2. Jesus was crucified.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day.
4. Jesus would be coming back to earth again.


Now there are NO Epistles with the name James, John, Jude and Peter that have any more information about the FLESH or BIOGRAPHY of Jesus even though those Epistles are assumed to have been written after the Gospels.

Not even Revelation by John or Acts of the Apostles, assumed to be written after the Gospels contain any more information about the FLESH or BIOGRAPHY of Jesus.

Only the Gospels have detailed information about the FLESH or BIOGRAPHY of Jesus. The Epistles, Acts and Revelation deal with the POST-ASCENSION activities, visions, revelations and teachings of the disciples including Saul/Paul.

Now, the internal evidence places Paul after the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. The internal evidence places Paul after Jesus, Peter, James and John.

A Pauline writer claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

The internal evidence shows that no Gospel writer used the Pauline story that over 500 people saw Jesus after he was raised from the dead. The author of gMark claimed the visitors ran away trembling and the author of gMatthew claimed the soldiers were told to say the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Even Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century did not make any reference to the Pauline 500 story, Justin Martyr made reference to the story of the stolen body story found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

There is just no evidence whatsoever that the so-called Paul wrote anything about Jesus, Peter, James, John or had any Pauline Churches or had any converts before the Fall of the Temple or that he wrote anything before the "Memoirs of the Apostles" called Gospels as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

jgreen44

And no epistle writer used the gospel stories (or names) of Mary & Joseph, Bethlehem or the Star of Bethlehem, the 3 wise men, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the virgin birth, Nazareth, Galilee, John the Baptist, the 40 days in the wilderness including the temptation by Satan, turning water into wine, healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, exorcising demons, the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the Transfiguration, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the scourging of the monyechangers at the Temple, Gethsemane, Judas Iscariot (by name), Pontius Pilate (by name), Golgotha or Calvary (by name). Not one single detail of the arrest, trial, crucifixion or resurrection. How could Paul fail to mention some of this?

I get your point about the individual books of Revelation, Jude and James but the writings of Paul make up much more of the NT than those works and, somehow, Paul *always* misses an opportunity to talk about the biography of Jesus or the words Jesus spoke while here on earth.
Maybe the 500 story is a later interpolation?

aa5874

So, how could James and Jude the supposed brothers of Jesus fail to mention virtually all of those things in their Epistles?

How could Peter the supposed disciple of Jesus fail to mention almost all of those things?

You seem not to understand that the Epistles are fundamentally theological, the Gospels are fundamentally biographical, Acts of the Apostles are about the post-ascension activities of the Apostles with Saul/Paul and Revelation is about apocalypse and the second-coming of Jesus.

You seem not to understand that the Pauline writer is FUNDAMENTALLY writing about the "Gospel" he RECEIVED from Jesus from heaven. The Pauline writer did not claim that he saw Jesus except in a non-historical state, in fact, in the NT, the Pauline writer appears confused about his meeting with Jesus or some man, "God knows".

2Co 12:2-3 - But Pauline writer knows Peter, James and John, the disciples of Jesus that saw him transfigure, walked on water, and raised a young girl from the dead.

The Pauline writer could not have met Peter, James and John, they are all fiction characters in the Jesus stories.

Ga 2:9 -
So, now you admit that you really don't know what you are talking about. Please tell me all that you know for sure was interpolated and the source of antiquity that support your claims of interpolation.

IS not the name PAUL an interpolation?

It seems that whatever does not support your position are interpolations.

We know that presently there are no extant historical sources external of the NT and Church writings for the Pauline writings and we know or it is almost certain that the Pauline writer wrote fiction when he claimed over 500 people saw Jesus in a NON-HISTORICAL state.

The NT is essentially a non-historical account of Jesus, the disciples and Paul. They all have no history in the 1st century before the Fall of the TEMPLE.

jgreen44

Paul knows these people but he doesn't know anything about these miracles.
OK. So you are saying that Paul got what little earthly data he cares to share from the gospel accounts. But, again, for some reason, he doesn't care to share any earthly data about the life of Jesus.
I'm definitely ok with that but haven't seen much about Paul being a myth. Could you recommend a book or two about this? Also when does the non-fiction history of Christianity begin? And how did this religion manage to take hold if it's early history possessed *no* basis in reality? I mean every religion has to start off with a highly effective (and real-life) used car salesman. If it wasn't Jesus, or the disciples or Paul, then who was it?

aa5874

So how did the Pauline writer manage to know and meet Peter, James and John? You won't find Peter, James and John outside the NT and Church writings.

And, based on your view then the author of the Epistle called James wrote before PAUL or before Paul was "FLESHED". The author of James did not mention the Pauline writings.

But, please tell me where did the author of James get the name Jesus Christ?

Again, based on your view, then the author of 1st Peter wrote before PAUL or before PAUL was "FLESHED". The author of 1st Peter did not mention Paul.

But, where did the author of 1ST Peter get the name Jesus Christ?

The author of Jude wrote nothing about Paul, did he write before Paul was "FLESHED"? And where did this author get the name Jesus Christ?

The author of Revelation did not write about Paul but he wrote about Jesus Christ.

Where did PAUL and all get the name Jesus Christ?

Now this is Matthew 1.24-25
This is what I am saying.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all non-historical 1st century characters as presented in the canonical NT. And the Pauline writer wrote fiction when he claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state and that it is completely false that he was in the presence of Peter, James and John.

The Pauline writings, like the other Epistles are not biographical, they are fundamentally theological. The Epistles deal with doctrine and Paul claimed that he went to Arabia perhaps to get visions or revelations of the Pauline Gospel from Jesus in the third heaven if I got the number of heavens right.

Who told PAUL Jesus was in a heaven? It was not Jesus.

This is the author of Luke telling us where Jesus went after he was raised from the dead.

Lu 24:51 - Unless you can find some external historical source for Jesus Christ, it would appear that ALL the authors of the Epistles, Acts and Revelations were aware of the Gospels or the Jesus story where he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.


I am saying that the Pauline writers wrote in some other century. And that the Pauline writers wrote after the writings of Justin Martyr or after "Revelation" by John and the "Memoirs of the Apostles" called "Gospels".

How did Joseph Smith start Mormonism? Was it not with non-historical information yet today there are millions of Mormons? What basis in reality did the angel Moroni and the Golden plates have?

In the NT, unless Jesus was a real God, then he could not have started any religion, when he was arrested his disciples ran away and Peter denied ever knowing Jesus and his body had vanished. The Jesus sect was dead as soon as Jesus died if he was just a man.

Paul and Peter would have to be a madmen and suicidal to tell Jews that Jesus was a God, their Lord and Saviour and that Jews should ask a dead man who was crazy-like to forgive their sins and abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Jewish Temple was still standing.

You can read Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" and then tell me if you find any basis in reality for Paul in the 1st century.

jgreen44

The smoking gun for me in this regard is the NT writer's complete devaluation, and allusions to the destruction, of the Temple in Jerusalem. I don't think this would have been done if the Temple were still standing when these passages were written.

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

But at some point someone was willing to be a "madman and suicidal" in service to this lie called Christianity. Someone in real life had to be the first to sell the lie and someone in real life had to be the first to believe the lie. Who was the first to do these things. How did the first real-life Christian used car salesman get away with it? And why was the deception initiated in the first place?

aa5874

But, there need not be any madmen if the Jesus was story was invented at about the end of the 1st century outside of Judea by an unknown inventor and then sold to a gullible apocalyptic character by a "used car salesman" as an authentic writing from the supposed apostles of Jesus.

There may be numerous ways the Jesus story could have ben manufactured and then believed to be authentic once there were gullible characters in antiquity.

Even in "Church History" a writer called Eusebius claimed he had a letter written by Jesus Christ to the Ruler of Edessa, King Abgarus.

This is "Church History" 1.13 It would appear that in antiquity there were many who were gullible and were likely to believe Gods could live on earth.

However, it is hardly likely or realistic that the Pauline writer could have been actually preaching to Jews in Jerusalem that a Jewish man was to be worshiped as a God and that the Laws of Moses were to be abandoned including circumcision. Even Jesus Christ, the son of God, the Lord and Saviour of the Pauline writer was circumcised on the 8th day and asked a leper to make offerings to the priest.


Mt 8:4 - Luke 2:21-24 - This is the Pauline writer claiming circumcision is nothing even though in gLuke Jesus was circumcised.

1Co 7:19 - Ga 5:2 - It is most contradictory to ask Jews to keep the commandments of God and still claim circumcision is nothing when the Laws of Moses including circumcision are the commandments of God.

The Pauline writings appear not to represent any history of the 1st century with respect to Jesus, the Jews, and the disciples before the Fall of the Temple.