aa5874

Please present any Credible source that show the Pauline writings were composed before the Jesus story was known. There is NO actual corroboration for the date of authorship of any Pauline letters in the NT itself

1. The very Pauline writer claimed he Persecuted those who preached the Jesus story. Galatians 1

2. There were People in Christ BEFORE Paul. Romans 16

3. There were Churches in Christ BEFORE Paul. Galatians 1

4. There were Written Sources about the Jesus story BEFORE Paul. 1 Cor.15

5. Paul claimed he was the LAST of over 500 People to Witness the resurrected Jesus. Galatians 1

6. The Jesus story was KNOWN before Paul was called to preach about Jesus called Christ. Galatians 1

7. Paul NAMED Apostles BEFORE him. Galatians 1

8. The author of Acts wrote about the Jesus story butd NOT mention a single Pauline letter.

9. Acts of the Apostles contains supposed Activities of Paul up to c 59-62 CE.

10. The Pauline conversion from Persecutor to Preacher was due to the very claim that Jesus had ALREADY resurrected.

Actual written statements in the NT place Paul LAST of ALL the Apostles.

The Jesus story and Cult was already developed and established BEFORE Paul.

The Present dated avaliable evidence suggest that the Jesus story and cult developed in the 2nd century.

From 2nd century writers there is mention of Persecution of the Jesus cult of Christians. See All writings attributed to 2nd century writers.

The Jesus Christ Myth Fables were developed WITHOUT Paul.

The Pauline writings had ZERO influence of the Jesus Christ Myth Fables.

It was the short gMark story that IMPACTED the Jesus Christ Myth Fables in the Roman Empire.

The added mythological details in the long gMark and gMatthew were NOT even derived from the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

Each of these points is interesting in its own right:

1. The very Pauline writer claimed he Persecuted those who preached the Jesus story. Galatians 1 Here we have a guy ostensibly claiming the utter uniqueness of his revelation from the Christ who was chosen from his mother's womb who does not even hint that the people persecuted could have possible had a correct knowledge of the Christ since "Paul" prides himself in not receiving his gospel from any man, and yet he doesn't even discuss how this differs from the gospel allegedly given over while his Christ was still in the physical world, or how it is superior to the earlier earthly Jesus gospel.

2. There were People in Christ BEFORE Paul. Romans 16
See above. Incredibly the church dogma would claim such unique greatness of Paul, yet assume that earlier people "in Christ" were as good as he.

3. There were Churches in Christ BEFORE Paul. Galatians 1
The writer "Paul" shows no concern at all that such churches were inferior to his own - clearly some kind of confusion.

4. There were Written Sources about the Jesus story BEFORE Paul. 1 Cor.15 To be technical, the term "received" does not have to refer to anything written.

5. Paul claimed he was the LAST of over 500 People to Witness the resurrected Jesus. Galatians 1 And he makes no distinction or comparison at all of his own revelation (chosen at birth) to the appearance of the Christ in an evidently INFERIOR manner to everyone else before him.

6. The Jesus story was KNOWN before Paul was called to preach about Jesus called Christ. Galatians 1 Of course as par for the course here the writer "Paul" says nothing about what KIND of Jesus story was known, or even what kind of Jesus story HE KNEW ABOUT.

7. Paul NAMED Apostles BEFORE him. Galatians 1 How could this unique recipient of Christ's revelation consider others to be "apostles" when he clearly argues that his revelation was superior to anything anyone else could have seen in the physical world or otherwise.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Toto

aa5874's reply did not seem to have anything to do with Raskin's hypothesis, so I have split it off here

Duvduv

The more I think about it, the more strongly I feel about the idea of epistles as composites. The verses of chapter 1 in Galatians, as elsewhere, definitely sound strongly dogmatic sermonizing material to be taught by clergy to reinforce official Byzantinian Christian dogma in relation to competitors of whatever type......("let them be anathematized").........which fit in well in the environment of homilies such as those attributed to John Chrystostom.......

If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

The official State Christian position would of course naturally included everything they believed that Paul knew about, including the four gospels as well as his own teachings which of course he received directly from Christ himself.

MrMacSon

That is a reasonable proposition: as is the proposition of Paul as a literary device.

Duvduv

The attitude of the biographical material in Acts is not at all as dogmatic as in Galatians. So it makes one wonder why they were not reconciled, unless it was believed that each version expressed an " authentic " source and they didn't want to judge which was "more authentic" especially if each was from a different location. But that might preclude that they thought Paul was actually a literary device rather than an actual person.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

At first Paul (the Runt/Shorty) is a fictional device. Unfortunately, the ability of people at this time in history to distinguish literature from history was not very well developed. At a certain point, as the conditions of composition were forgotten, they would be regarded as authentic

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

The idea of a literary device for Paul could work for the epistles but not for Acts, the author of which doesn't know the epistles, and which could have preceded the epistles.
So there must have been an assumption of a literal person, which is why the regime church didn't reconcile them.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

It seems to me that Acts makes use of a number of different Apostle stories as its source material. Some of the epistles seem to be referencing that source material.

Let us say there is a lot of apostle material written before the gospels, an Acts of Paul, an Acts of Peter, an acts of John, an Acts of Saul, Acts of Cephas, Acts of Stephan, etc. None of these say anything about an historical Jesus, but only apostles who envisioned the mystical Lord Jesus the Christ. The beginning of Acts, with Jesus appearing to unite and teach the apostles, is designed to connect these numerous text to an early gospel.

The epistles of Paul are mixing earlier epistles with bits and pieces of information, not from Acts of the Apostles, but from the source Apostle literature.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

Then that would account for the fact that the overall Acts story doesn't know about the epistles (or vice versa) because the two derived legends from one or more (probably oral) sources that came out similar but not identical: The epistles didn't know about Saul, the Baptist or the revelation in Damascus, and Acts didn't know about writing epistles or certain doctrines found in the epistles - especially in Galatians.