gurugeorge

There you go, off on a tangent again. Haven't I already made clear (fairly early on in this conversation) that I believe the Jerusalem cult (whatever it was - obviously I'm saying it was like his, i.e. visionary and mystical) existed before him? I'm saying that visionary and mystical experiences such as Paul's are sufficient to start up a religion.

This is typical of you, to misunderstand a comment and then start screaming and shouting.

For the last time, this is my proposed scenario, based on accepting the standard dating of Paul, and therefore taking the "Paul" writings as the earliest-written Christian writings we have, and therefore reading them as I think they are (although being aware that they are somewhat interpolated with later Catholicizing glosses), without being influenced in my interpretation by the gospels or by later developments and traditions:-

1) Early to mid 1st century CE. Small cult starts in Jerusalem, based on scriptural exegesis and the cultivation of visions and mysticism, which proposes that the Messiah has already been and done his work, only in secret, and it was foretold in scripture. None of the "apostles" of this idea knew or claim to have known the Messiah they're talking about personally, they are proponents of a novel idea about the Messiah that has some historical content (but not much) and a lot of spiritual weight, and it's highly likely they are also having visions of the entity too. Why do I think these people were as I describe them? Because in the "Paul" writings, it says they were before him in a line of people who "saw" their Messiah, and there is no distinction in kind between "Paul"'s seeing (which we know elsewhere, from "I got my gospel from Christ himself", was visionary) and theirs;

2) "Paul", who is himself a visionary and mystic (again IN HIS OWN WORDS), either independently or by hearing about it through the folks in 1), has a similar sort of vision of a Messiah, who (like the Jerusalem people) he thinks came to earth and did his work sub rosa, and is now talking to him, "Paul" (and directly giving him, "Paul", the gospel he, "Paul", teaches);

3) there's an attempt to join forces, but eventually they do their stuff separately.

All this is pre-Diaspora. It's after the Diaspora (70-90 CE) that the story of the Messiah-having-been-and-gone acquires a greater encrustation of pseudo-historical detail, with the "Mark" writer perhaps being the first one who thought that the early (pre-Diaspora) apostles (not including "Paul") knew the cult deity personally, etc.

So "Paul" was "last" in a line of people to have the visionary experience and be inspired by this idea of a recent-ish (but secret) Messiah - but this "lastness" needn't amount to more than a few years.

He did not know any gospels (at least he gives no sign of knowing them in the accepted "Paul" letters - whatever else later Church writers may have said).

Now IF I WERE TO DATE THE "PAUL" WRITINGS LATER, then my reconstruction would be quite different (more like the Dutch Radical idea), but this is my reconstruction BASED ON ACCEPTING THE STANDARD DATING. And I don't see anything in your responses - or any of your other posts that I've read - that convinces me to revise my acceptance of the standard dating.

Petergdi

I have learnt that it is practically always possible for me to be mistaken, but the reason I think my opinion is worth something is that I have been willing to revise it.

"Son of God" is a royal title and a messianic one. It is hard to miss in Psalm 2. The Gospel according to the Ebionites (in common with some copies of Luke) had the voice at Christ's baptism quote "You are my son, this day I have begotten you" from Psalm 2.

It isn't a matter of Paul calling Jesus "Son of God" and the Ebionites not doing so - they both did.

Paul uses the "Son of God" metaphor to also include followers of Jesus as God's children. It is the same metaphor extended because he wants us to know that we can be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. (Romans 8:17) If he meant what you wish to make him mean, he would not have extended the metaphor in that direction.

Peter.

ScanMan

It is the opinion of most biblical scholars that Luke wrote Acts and was apparently a companion of Paul at some point in his ministry due to the use of 'we passages' throughout the text.

Paul also mentions someone named Luke as a fellow coworker in his letter to Philemon.

With this in mind, the Damascus Road account is most likely a retelling of what he learned directly from Paul.

aa5874

What are tangent are you talking about?

I am DIRECTLY addressing your BASELESS or FAITH- BASED speculations that a Pauline writer was the earliest writing of the Canon.

There is no information in the Pauline writings that show the writer claimed he started any religion from visionary and mystical experiences and there is no information in the Canon that show there was a teensy weensy cult before the Fall of the Temple.

And the Church writers did not claim any Pauline writing was earlier than gMatthew, and further an apolgetic source implied a Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

And this is precisely the reason why I am replying to your posts. I am telling you DIRECTLY that your proposed scenario is BASELESS or FAITH BASED. You are attempting to propose a scenario that has no historical evidence external of the NT and Church writings.


You have no historical sources of antiquity to support your speculation. You are just inventing events.

Whether or not the Pauline writings were the earliest, no source of antiquity external of apologetic source can corroborate your speculations.

Acts of the Apostles gives a chronology for Saul/Paul after Jesus ascended through the clouds, after the day of Pentecost when the apostles became multi-lingual and after Stephen was stoned to death.

Your speculations cannot be found either internally or externally. They are simply inventions.

And further, the Pauline writings imply that there was a massive Jesus cult SPREAD all over the Roman Empire including Judea by the the time he wrote his letters.

Again, these are unsupported faith based speculations. No source of antiquity, internal or external can support your STANDARD speculations.

You appear to have totally forgotten that an apologetic source claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.


What external source of antiquity can confirm that there was a Pauline character who attempted to join forces with people who was claiming that a man called Jesus was a God in Jerusalem?

You are just making the STANDARD faith-based speculations.

You have it upside down or back to front.

The Pauline writer mentioned characters called Mark and Luke, but the author of gMark and gLuke did not mention Paul.

gMark and gLuke were written after the Fall of the Temple and an apologetic source claimed a Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

And up to the early third century, Jesus believers were still operating in secret associations and were called cannibals based on an apologetic source under the name of Origen in "Against Celsus".

Your speculations are not even compatible with internal sources.

How could this be? What (secret) Messiah have you invented?

By the time of the Pauline writings the JESUS cult was MASSIVE with churches or converts ALL OVER the ROMAN EMPIRE including JUDEA.

So whatever you BELIEVE about Paul is true regardless of the evidence.

This is your STANDARD mantra. BELIEF supersedes EVIDENCE. Or reject evidence that contradicts your belief.

But, whether or not you see anything in my post cannot be an excuse for not attempting to reconstruct a scenario with a late date for the Pauline writings.

I have already considered a EARLY date for the Pauline writings and have found massive problems with such a theory so I have examined scenarios with a LATE Paul and have discovered that the late Paul is far more compatible with the evidence from apologetic sources.

Toto

That is not true in general, except for evangelicals. There are many reasons to think that the author of Acts was not a companion of Paul.

This is straining to harmonize the texts. The author of Acts shows no other indications of learning anything from Paul. And he or she includes three different contradictory versions of the Damascus Road incident.

Besides this, there are too many problems with the Damascus Road account. Was Paul a Pharisee? If so, why did he go to the chief Priest, a Saducee, to get authority to persecute Christians - this was not how Pharisees operated. Why go to Damascus in any case?

Or are you saying that Paul was in fact mentally ill, and the Damascus Road story is proof?

Petergdi

Is that actually the case, or wishful thinking on your part? Wikipedia quotes Raymond Brown (1997) as saying that scholarly opinion is about equally divided on the Lucan authorship issue.

Peter.

aa5874

But, there is a massive difference between "revision" and "correction". Sometimes a revised version can have more mistakes.

So you made a mistake and instead of a correction I get a revision.

You must admit that the Pauline writers did specifically and directly called Jesus the son of God, in the form of God and EQUAL TO GOD and that the Pauline writers did claim that the name of Jesus was above all other names in heaven and in earth.

Philippians 2:5-11 You are mis-reading the Pauline Epistles. You assume quite erroneously that all references to Jesus as the Son of God are metaphors.

Philippians 2.1-11 has exposed your errors.

Now, look at more exposure of your errors in Colossians 1. JESUS was the CREATOR of all things in heaven and in earth. Jesus was God and with God.

Colossians 1:12-29 - Please correct all your mistakes.

The Pauline Jesus was in the form of God, equal to God, the Creator of everything in heaven and earth, the SON OF GOD, and Lord of all in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

Toto

Evangelicals are a significant part of what passes for scholarship in this field, so opinion might in fact be equally divided.

But I have not seen a coherent case for the author of Luke Acts as a companion of Paul if the conventional dating of Paul is at all close. Acts was pretty clearly written after Josephus, so a companion of Paul's would have had to have survived all those shipwrecks, war, and persecution, and then forgotten what Paul said, in order to write Acts in his dotage. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

spamandham

What is Brown's argument for an early dating of Luke/Acts?

Petergdi

You aren't reading it correctly. You are just inserting a meaning into it that suits your purposes without any concern for what the text is about.

You seem to have completely missed the fact that Jesus is being contrasted with the man and the woman in the garden of Eden. Jesus (like our first parents and all humanity) is in the form of God (Genesis 1: 26-27), but unlike our first parents he did not think that equality to God is something to be seized. Remember that the serpent in the Eden story said that eating the fruit would make one like God, knowing good and evil. But Jesus wasn't like that, he chose the path of obedience even though the way of obedience got him crucified.

You are also getting the second part somewhat wrong It echoes Isaiah 45 and probably also Psalm 148 or something similar. The name above all other names is still YHWH. God has given Jesus his own Name because of his obedience, so that the same kind of praise is due to the name of Jesus as that due to God (see Psalm 148).


Of course they are, everything said about God is metaphor (except possibly for the bare minimum of negative theology: the things that God isn't).

You are mangling the meaning of this passage too, to suit your purposes.

Paul isn't attributing personal pre-existence to Jesus, Paul is saying that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and then saying things about the Image of God. One common interpretation is that there is an echo of Proverbs 8:22-31 in the passage in which Wisdom is personified as a participant in the creation.

Your echo of the prologue to the Gospel of John is actually perceptive. John is actually doing the same thing there that Paul is doing here. In both cases Jesus is identified with God's agent in creation, but the indirectness of the attribution is even clearer in John. The Word was the agent of creation, and Jesus is the Word made flesh, but it is not quite the same thing as saying that Jesus was the agent of creation.

Peter.