aa5874

It does not make sense. Pseudo-Clementines are forgeries by unknown authors at unknown times. I cannot assume that forgeries reflect history. It makes sense to think that they were written to deceive.


There was no bishops of the church before the Fall of the Temple. There is no evidence whatsoever that any one worshiped the Pauline Jesus as a God or asked the Pauline Jesus to forgive their sins.

The Gospel stories and the Pauline writings suffer from the same problem, there is no external source to corroborate anything they wrote about Jesus before the Fall of the Temple.

The salvation through Jesus for Jews only makes sense after the Fall of the Temple.

What apostolic succession is that when Jesus had no flesh. There was no Jesus story according to you. Not even Paul knew who Jesus was or how the story would turn out. He had no names.

I just don't understand your story. You can't talk about apostolic succession and don't even know that Jesus would be made a man.

If you want to understand the NT Jesus story you cannot isolate the Pauline writings and just accept what you want to believe is true.

The NT Canon must be read as a whole. It is a product of the Roman Church and presented as history. There is a reason why Acts of the Apostles was included in the NT Canon and that the author of Luke was claimed to be the companion of Paul.

There is a reason why Acts of the Apostles ended as if it was written Before Paul died.

There is a reason why the Church claimed Paul wrote ALL Epistles with name Paul.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are part of as scheme to deceive or to present fiction as history.

It was after the Fall of the Temple that the Jesus stories were written and it was after the Gospels that the writer called Paul introduce his new doctrine called SALVATION through the RESURRECTION.

No Gospel writer mention any doctrine called SALVATION through the Resurrection.

Up to the time of Justin Martyr, up to the middle of the 2nd century, there was no such doctrine taught.

The Pauline writers were fully aware of the written Jesus stories and aware of the numerous christian cults.

Why would a heavenly Jesus be born of an earthly woman and then be crucified in heaven?

Who needs to shed blood in heaven?

The NT is extremely simply to follow. Paul was after the Jesus story, after Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

That is where the Pauline story start. It is right there in the NT.

Paul was supposed to be the outsider. The external source that was supposed to prove that the resurrection did really occur.

But, there was no actual Jesus. No actual apostles. Paul has corroborated fiction.

gurugeorge

But so is most of the NT Canon, according to you - essentially unprovenanced forgeries. We don't know who wrote them, and we have only a very rough idea of when (within a few centuries). (We can argue for various times within that ballpark, as you do, as I do, as everybody does, but we don't know.)

No, of course not - I'm talking about after the Fall of the Temple, after the Diaspora. That's when the idea of apostolic succession begins.

Indeed, the apostolic succession is made up crap.

Before the Diaspora, there is no apostolic succession in fact. There was no human Jesus known by anybody. But there was (not exactly a story but) a basic biography of some sort, a myth of a divine redeemer figure, identified with the Jewish Messiah (who was purportedly on earth at some vague time in the past, and instead of being a big military victor coming with fanfare, came in obscurity, was crucified and resurrected, thereby fooling the Archons who were lying in wait for the military guy, and winning a spiritual victory over them), which some people proselytised, called "apostles". This is as much as you get from Paul (and therefore it's a peculiar thing for the orthodoxy, on your reading, to include in their Canon - see below).

With an idea like this, you agree, there might be a lot of variations - people would naturally making stuff up around it, right? Variations on the idea? (Bear in mind, at this point in time, nobody's claiming anybody knew this "revalued" Messiah personally, it's just something they think they see evidenced in Scripture - "kata tas graphas" - as having happened in the recent-ish past, and some of them are having visions about.)

Well, after the Diaspora, after (what one must presume to have been) some confusion and dislocation, one of the variations is the idea that those early people who proselytised about the divine figure actually knew the divine figure personally, were taught by him. Remember this is after a huge upheaval - lines of communication broken, people died, people scattered around the world, etc.

This idea, at first a natural and innocent variation in the myth (in GMark) gets taken up by a sub-sect (proto-orthodoxy - starting with people like Justin, Polycarp, Ignatius, etc.) - it's a lie designed to give them leverage over their fellow Christians (who are more numerous than them, and whose lineages come from the original "divine redeemer" Messiah myth variation).

I hope the above clears it up a bit more.

Yes, but the NT Canon isn't the whole of Christian writings from the time. It's orthodoxy's presentation of history. But we as historical investigators don't have to take it as all of a piece - it might have been forged as all of a piece, sure - but it also could have been cobbled together from various sources and adapted to look like it's all of a piece. You seem to think the former - I think the latter. I think that if you take the view that there are some genuine elements from previous times in there, and that they are adapted and co-opted by orthodoxy, the whole picture of the real history makes much more sense.

Again, my point against your idea that it's all a coherent forgery is that if it was forged to be all of a piece, it was certainly a botched job, because if orthodoxy was having trouble with Gnosticism and Docetism from the middle to the end of the 2nd century (which I take it you agree was the case?), then the idea that they would forge at that time a writing that has one of their founders be a screaming proto-Gnostic, visionary and mystic, with nary a peep about the human aspect of Jesus, just doesn't make sense.

If Paul, who is doctrinally and theologically troublesome, was included, that means he HAD TO BE INCLUDED, it means they COULDN'T AVOID including him. It means that, to make him palatable, they had to patch him up (interpolate) and hedge him about with similar but more Catholic forgeries (the Pastorals).

And this is because Paul was the only apostle from the pre-Diaspora times (an apostle not of a Jesus known to him personally, or known to anybody personally at that time, but of an idea of a divine redeemer who had been at some more vague time in the past relative to them) who had actually seeded some viable churches that had existed through the Diaspora (in gentile places) and had mutated into what was becoming Gnosticism, various forms of mystical Christianity, philosophical Christianity, etc. (Remember, this is according to the heretics' own claims, reported by the Fathers - i.e. the heretics were saying "Paul was our apostle, our founder". Again, why on earth would orthodoxy include the writings of an "apostle of the heretics" in their own Canon? Please think about this aa5874.)

Those churches knew of Paul as their founder, their apostle (the "apostle of the heretics" from the orthodoxy point of view - from the point of view of this upstart sub-sect who was trying to leverage the error that some of the early apostles had known the cult figure and been taught by him personally). The proto-orthodox had to include him to try and attract that majority of "heretic" churches to their side. (Or, to be more charitable, to try and create an umbrella form of Christianity that would include all of them.)

How can somebody who wasn't there be an external source? The unknown authors of the Pseudo-Clementines wouldn't have been taken in by such an argument! - "Peter's" argument there is that "Simon Magus" (aka Paul) isn't as good a source as "Peter" who was (supposedly!) there.

jgreen44

I am inclined to agree. In your estimation, do Christ's failed prophecies of a second coming within the lifetime of his contemporaries narrow the time frame of composition to less than ten or so years after the fall of the Temple?

aa5874

It is not my view that all the NT Canon are forgeries. Acts of the Apostles and all the writings under the name Paul are not related to actual historical events before the Fall of the Temple.

So, the author of Acts did NOT travel anywhere with a character called Paul and Paul was not in a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas as both the author of Acts and the Pauline writer himself declared in Acts 9.25 and 2 Cor.11.32-33.

There was no crisis regarding salvation or remission of sins for Jews before the Fall of the Temple and no external historical source can account for a Pauline Jesus Messiah who was believed to have been raised from the dead to REMIT the sins of Jews before the Fall of the Temple.


So, when was the supposed Peter the bishop of the Roman Church? It was BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

We have writings attributed to Justin Martyr that have essentially destroyed any time line for the Pauline writings before the Fall of the Temple and before the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr did give some details about his search for the truth about God and did not once mention that in his search he came across a single Pauline writing, or the Pauline doctrine of SALVATION through the RESURRECTION.

Justin Martyr did not mention a single bishop of any church and even referred to the leader of the congregation as "president".

"First Apology" LXV There was not even any idea about apostolic succession up to the middle of the 2nd century since there was no such thing as bishops of the Roman Church or any congregation.

It was the 4th century Roman Church that needed to establish that its founder or first bishop was the supposed Peter.

Justin Martyr did not one time ever used apostolic succession to show that the his belief was handed down by the apostles.

That story that you obviously made up without any evidence whatsoever cannot be found anywhere at all. There is zero external historical evidence that anyone in Judea worshiped a character called Jesus the Messiah, heavenly or earthly, who was believed to be a God or the son of a God and was crucified, in heaven or earth, and had the ability to remit the sins of the Jews before the Fall of the Temple.

How could "Paul" be so confident about his doctrine of "Salvation through the Resurrection" before Jesus even had a body?

That makes no sense.

"Paul" has given his story. Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, was raised from the dead and he was the last to see Jesus. There is no other story from "Paul". It is either true or false

Visions are the very least credible source for historical investigation.

After what "Diaspora"? You need to supply corroborative source that can show what you presume is even plausible.

Before the Fall of the Temple there is zero about any Pauline Jesus as a God who was believed to the creator of heaven and earth and was equal to God by Jews.

You are admitting that your sources are liars. Well, liars are not credible source



But you still have to examine it as a whole. The Church writers claimed that the NT as a whole represents actual history.

The Church writers claimed the author of Acts and "Paul" did travel all over the Roman Empire and that "Paul" was in Damascus during the time of Aretas.

Well, no historical source has corroborate one single thing in the Pauline writing and Acts of the Apostles, not even Justin Martyr up to the middle of the 2nd century.

You really don't know my theory.

My theory is that some unknown invented a story about a Jesus God/man Messiah character AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are simply variations of the initial invented story with possible interpolations from the Roman Church.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles do not reflect actual events before the Fall of the Temple and were all after the writings of Justin Martyr.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that "Paul" was doctrinally and theological troublesome.

In fact, "Paul" blamed "Peter" for problems in the Church.

Ga 2:11 - ALL Church writers used the Pauline writings extensively and regarded the Epistles in high esteem. It simply does not make any sense for the Church to have put 13 Epistles under the name of "Paul" knowing his theology and doctrine was troublesome while at the same time declaring that one Epistle of Peter does not belong to the Canon.

You are just imagining your own history for "Paul". Your imagined history for "Paul" has failed because no external historical source can account for any character called Jesus, the Messiah, real or imagined, heavenly or earthly, BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Whatever you imagine about "Paul" as history is subject to scrutiny using external historical records.

The external historical records from Jewish and Roman writers can ONLY support Jesus, the Messiah AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Again, your imagined history of Paul has failed. You must produce external credible historical sources for anything you imagine about "Paul".

Justin Martyr will put your imagination about "Paul" to rest.

What are you talking about. Your imagination is running wild. You can't invent your own history and then believe them when you have no external credible source.

Galatians.1.15 It is clear that "Paul" attempted to show he was an outsider in the NT Canon when he did not even bother to confer with flesh and blood, with the apostles before him, or go to Jerusalem but went to Arabia for three years.

GakuseiDon

If the Scriptures are describing something that will happen in the future (from its perspective), then surely it isn't un-determinable. From this little bit of evidence, Paul is indicating that Christ would come some time after Abraham. Once that is established, we can look at the implications of other passages.

It depends on what you are examining the passage for. Let's get the implications before deciding whether it supports a HJ, an MJ, or anything else.

Really, who cares? Isn't the issue that people just assume that a historical Jesus existed? So why not forget about a HJ or MJ and just look at the evidence?

That is true, from a "seed of Abraham" perspective. But once we have established that Paul's use of Scripture shows a belief that Christ came at some point after Abraham, then that conclusion can be used when we look at other passages.

I agree with you. Both scenarios should be looked at. But in either scenario, Paul is indicating that he believes that Christ came at some time after Abraham, AFAICS.

aa5874

The HJ is NOT about the belief that Jesus merely existed.

HJ is a proposal or theory that Jesus was a man.

The written evidence in the Pauline writings clearly show that the Pauline Jesus was presented as some kind of God, the creator of heaven and earth, who was equal to God, and had the ability to REMIT the sins of mankind through the resurrection.

Once Jesus was just a man, then the Pauline writings are not credible. Once Jesus was simply a man who lived in Galilee for 30 years and was executed for blasphemy, then the Pauline writers were completely dishonest, insane or a combination of both.

gurugeorge

Sure - so what are you arguing about?

My interest is in which is the correct reading - "in accordance with Scripture" or "according to Scripture", and in either case, whether it's a forgery/interpolation or a genuine bit of "Paul".

There are 4 possibilities:-

1) Genuine "according to" - my reading which supports mythicism, i.e. events believed to have happened at some time in the past but not personally experienced by the people involved, are believed to have been reported (prophesied from the point of view of Scripture, but reported as new information, from the point of view of the people involved);

2) Genuine "in accordance with" - probably a main type of reading of believing biblical scholarship, i.e. a claim that events personally experienced by the people involved (at least the Jerusalem people) are believed to have been prophesied by Scripture, and those events are a fulfillment of Scripture;

3) False "according to" - obvious fake, anachronisically meant to insinuate the synoptics. Probably most Christians have been taken in by it in this way, like my younger self did at one time. Particularly sceptical scholars might understand it this way.

4) False "in accordance with" - obvious fake, but more like the result of a theological quarrelling (e.g. a later "Matthean" interpolation). This might be a typical position amongst some types of "liberal" biblical scholars (those who take an euhemerist stance on the Jesus myth).

gurugeorge

Yes of course, because orthodoxy want to trace a lineage back to someone before that time - someone who knew Jesus personally. So they invented him, on the basis of Cephas, and on the basis of GMark's having the apostles be people who knew Jesus personally, something that's NOT evidenced in the Paul writings per se. If they wanted to forge Paul, why not just have Paul knowing Jesus personally? What was stopping them?

Not necessarily, there are any number of reasons why, supposing "Paul" existed, he might not have been mentioned by Justin - one being that he is mentioned by Justin, as "Simon Magus".

No, there's Ignatius and Polycarp who are beginning to lay stress on the lineage idea. Justin, Ignatius and Polycarp are the first writers who are starting to put forward what later becomes the orthodox Christian line.

Remember - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You say that Paul presents the idea of a big, widely spread Church. From that point of view, one would expect mention of it in external sources. But from my point of view, as I have said, I do not see Paul touting a big, widely spread Church. I see him having travelled to a few places and set up small groups here and there. That's how it reads to me - therefore I would not expect to find mention in external sources.

It's mystical, it's not supposed to make sense. (Actually it does make a kind of sense in terms of mysticism, but that would take us too far off the point atm.)

But actually of course "Paul" does obviously believe Jesus had a body. That's not the crux of the matter - the crux of the matter is, was the bodily manifestation known personally by any of the people Paul mentions? Does Paul say this, or let it slip in some way? It's really just a question of when the proposed Jesus (god-man, with some spiritual and some fleshly component, mixed) was supposed to have existed. Orthodoxy - based on GMark - is pushing the advent towards 0CE, whereas it's clear from Hebrews and from Paul that the advent was supposed to have been earlier - at least prior to the lives of the apostles and Paul (since they're not mentioned as knowing Jesus personally).

That's not how I read the text. The text says that Jesus was crucified, died and buried, and raised, and that [the only reason that] a bunch of people know that this happened because Scripture tells them it happened, and they had visions of this Messiah (remember, there is no posited difference in quality between Paul's predecessors' apprehension of the Messiah and his, and we know elsewhere from Paul that his apprehension is visionary).

No, if someone says they had a vision then that is a datum for historical investigation.

(I understand you are saying that there was no Paul etc.)

This is a cogent and viable idea, but I doubt it's true, because I think it depends too much on an AFS based on Justin.

Yes it does not make sense IF THEY WERE INVENTING HIM, that's the whole point. Therefore, one possibility is that they included him BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. They had to because the extant churches (remember, the "heretical" ones they found established wherever they went, according to Walter Bauer's investigations) knew of "Paul" (Simon Magus) as their founder, and would not have accepted a totally fictional account of beginnings. (Orthodoxy wants to bring them on board if it can.)

Paul had to be included because he gives the orthodoxy the only credibility it really has - the only real link to the pre-Diaspora history of the movement. Peter (the Peter of Acts) is their invention to shore up their apostolic succession idea. That's the whole point of "Paul" and "Peter" making nice in Acts. (The real "Paul" has been split into the "Paul" who makes nice with "Peter", the "good" version, and Simon Magus, the "bad" version, who represents recalcitrant proto-Gnostics who won't toe the orthodox line. Ostensibly - according to the partly-made-up history they're touting - orthodoxy is generously ratifying Paul, the heretics' apostle, by linking him with Peter; but the secret purpose is to ratify Peter - who didn't exist - by linking him with Paul - who did.)

But he was not there, he didn't know Jesus personally, according to the Pauline words which you say are invented. So he can't be an external corroborative source from the point of view of orthodoxy.

aa5874

Do you think I know why everybody commit crimes or forged or manufacture documents?

Why did the author of Acts claim that "Paul" went to Jerusalem from Damascus and did consult with the disciples before he started preaching when he should have known that '"Paul" did NOT consult with flesh and blood, did not go to Jerusalem to see the apostles before him but went to Arabia?

"Paul"in the PRESENCE OF GOD swore that he was NOT lying yet the written evidence in Acts depicted a different story.

Galatians 1.20 The author of Acts claimed "Paul" WAS WITH the disciples of Damascus as soon he could see and then immediately started preaching and then escaped to Jerusalem when attempt was made to kill him.

See Acts 9.18-20.

Now in Acts, the author traveled with Paul all over the Roman Empire.

Why does the author of Acts makes "Paul" look like a LIAR when they were supposed to be partners? They were not supposed to severely contradict each each other BEFORE God.

You think you can answer every question in the NT?

It would appear that one answer is that the author of Acts did NOT SEE Galatians 1. It may not have been written yet.

After all, the author of Acts and "Paul" traveled and preached all over the Roman Empire.


That is not what I told you. You must have forgotten.

Do you remember that I told you that ALL things considered non-existing have no evidence for their existence?

Do you remember that in order to argue for non-existence that there should be absence of evidence of existence?

And can you now remember any thing considered non-existing that has evidence of existence?

Please forget about ""absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" since it has been debunked.

Remember this. It is logically sound and virtually undebunkable.

"Absence of evidence is not ALWAYS evidence of absence" and All things considered non-existing will have no evidence of their existence."

This works well for Apollo, Unicorns, Romulus, Achilles, Mermaids, the sons of Jupiter, first century disciples, Peter, Paul and Jesus.