aa5874

Paul could NOT seem to be before because gMark SPECIFICALLY has ZERO from the Pauline writings. ZERO.

The Pauline writer mentioned SIX Post-Resurrection visits by his resurrected Jesus but the author of gMark mentioned ZERO Post-Resurrection visits.

The Pauline writer claimed he preached Jesus Christ was resurrected and that without the resurrection there would be NO salvation but the author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead because the visitors were AFRAID.

Paul claimed his resurrected Jesus Christ was Lord who had a name above EVERY Name on earth and that every knee should bow to the name of Jesus but quite remarkably in gMark Jesus did NOT first tell his own disciples he was Christ it was PETER and immediately the Markan Jesus commanded that NO-ONE be told that he was Christ.

gMark SPECIFICALLY could NOT have been AFTER the Pauline writings.

outhouse

Poor arguement.


Gmarks author was in a different circle and Pauls letters were not collected together yet .



Your making a poor assumption that once Paul wrote these letters they went into instant circulation for every person in the world to read. THAT wasnt the case.

How many years do you think it took for these private letters to be gathered into a collection??

and then when was GMark written????

Duvduv

Outhouse, we don't have any evidence that someone named Paul wrote any of them, that they were written individually, that they were actually sent out to the designated collective recipients, that anyone actually received them, that anyone replied to any of them, or that they were retained for posterity by anyone.

Many of us believe that the letters were in fact never actually written to anyone but were simply didactic documents that were produced together and distributed together, and supplemented and interpolated individually and with additional letters along the way.

outhouse

correct

you have faith



I dont

Duvduv

When I use the word "believe" it is a verb used based on inferences, observations and comparisons of documents and context.

aa5874

Well, please state the argument that gMark is AFTER the Pauline. Let us hear it because I want to see how "RICH" it is.
Come on!!!! Present your argument.

That is the poorest of arguments and contradicts any claim that the author of gMark knew the Pauline writings.

Those who argue that gMark was after the Pauline writings generally claim the author of gMark knew the Pauline writings.

Again, the weakest of arguments and quite illogically too.

It is claimed Paul himself TRAVELED and PREACHED ALL OVER the Roman Empire supposedly before the Fall of the Jewish Temple so there should have been an ORAL tradition of the TEACHINGS of Paul throughout the Roman Empire.

It is most absurd to suggest that the authors of the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, and gJohn did NOT ever HEAR about Paul nor SAW any of his letters to the Churches.

It is clear that neither Paul or his letters were known to the authors of the Gospels and did NOT attend a Pauline Church.


Again, the poorest of arguments!!!

How Many years is it claimed Paul preached Christ crucified and Resurrected BEFORE gMark was written??

Paul supposedly personally Preached Christ crucified and resurrected for at least 17-20 years ALL over the Roman Empire before any Gospels were written and supposedly Before the Fall of the Temple.

In Acts, it it is claimed Paul went on TWO world tours and in the Pauline letters we see MULTIPLE letters to the Corinthians and to those of Thessalonica.

It is therefore completely illogical that the authors of ALL the Gospels could have NOT known of Paul and his letters.

It is clear that gMark MUST be before the Pauline writings were composed.

outhouse

Your missing out on so much real history with your conspiracy theory


we are talking about a movement that started with john the baptist, continued with jesus, was furthered by paul for pagens that started the movementin a direction it was never intended to go. And compounded by the synoptic gospels and J

outhouse

except for the fact paul was not liked or accepted by the early movement.

he would have been what amounts to jesus enemy, jesus hated romans, and he hated how the romans infected judaism. Its why he went the way of Johns radical movement


they could have known all about paul, but hated him

Grog

Outhouse, your understanding of early Christianity seems to be based on some pop history that has made the rounds in recent years. The main one that I see is the "Paul hijacked True Christianity" which led to the Monstrosity known as the Roman Catholic Church.

I think our earliest evidence strongly contradicts this view. In this, I agree with Earl Doherty that Paul's writings are expressions of Jesus belief that already existed mid-1st century and did not rely on a Jesus of Nazareth or a recent crucifixion event under Pilate.

You would do well by immersing yourself in the early christian literature and forego some of the pop history making the rounds. It is very revelatory to see that the Apostolic Fathers often make no reference to this "Jesus" at all.

To be honest, I think the state of the evidence is such a quagmire that one can get stuck in any particular paradigm (Christianity based on forgeries, Paul hijacked true Christianity, Gospel Truth, HJ evolved out of MJ belief, etc) and find compelling evidence to support your view as long as you put on blinders to ignore everything else.

I, for one, currently accept an early Paul and several letters as authentic. HOWEVER, I acknowledge that I can't resolve every paradox. For example, who went around and collected these particular letters? Aren't some of these letters rather lengthy for the time to have been produced (and, according to some theories, in duplicate) by an itinerant prophet? How is it that such an important apostle could have been unknown to later generations of Christian scribes, gospel writers, etc.

That being said (and I am prepared for the coming the feeding frenzy), I accept Paul in part because what is written there seems to chaotic, inchoate to have been forged for a particular purpose. I could just be duped though!

Here is one thing I toyed with as I read this..and it pertains to the 2-voice hypothesis: Let's take Detering's hunch that Paul is Simon and explore that. If "early" Paul was actually Simon Magus, wouldn't that be a reason that there is no mention of Paul? Later, Simon is reconciled into the story as the great apostle Paul. I don't know, just a thought. I, myself, disregarded this when I first read it, but the 2-voice argument here has caused me to reconsider.

Just throwing that out there.

Also, is there a different way of viewing these threads than straight chronology? Like a threaded view or something? A hybrid?

outhouse

Wondeful take on it all. we all have our opinions.


But the fact jesus hated romans is not up for debate at all. he also hated the roman infection in the temple that extorted huge amounts of taxes levied on the people just to worship in the temple.

Of course with roman versions of paul and Mark laying the foundation, any anti roman material would have been edited out of oral tradition once it hit papyrus.


lets start with this, if you really want to understand pauls writings.


You really need to understand the anthropology based on archeology of Galillee before you can understand jesus, to know how paul based his letters