JP2

But none of those passages suggest, as you maintain, that Paul equated Jesus with God. The "Canonical NT" mentions Jesus as the "offspring of the Holy Ghost" in just two of its 27 books, both of which - by any sensible dating - come at least two decades after Paul's last writings. It's an anachronism (and the same mistake made by conservative / fundamentalist exegetes) to assume that all of the NT authors must have shared a common theology. There is certainly no indication from his epistles that Paul shared, or was even familiar with the myth of parthenogenesis. Paul's only mention of the circumstances of Jesus' birth (that I am familiar with, at least) states explicitly that Jesus was "descended from David according to the Flesh" (Rom. 1:3), hardly a parthenogenetic formula.

As for "Son of God", that's an ambiguous title which needn't say anything about the divinity of Jesus, particularly if we assume (not unreasonably) something of an adoptionist attitude on Paul's behalf (e.g. Rom 1:4 - "declared to be son of god... by resurrection from the dead").

Well he had to push the virtues of quietism out of political necessity (and he wasn't the only one - cf. 1 Pet. 2:13-17; Mk. 12:17 and parallels), but his consolation is that such imperial subjugation will be overturned by God's will in the imminent eschaton.

It's hard to read passages like 1 Thess. 5:1-3:

1 Cor. 2:6-8:

or 1 Cor. 15:24-25:

and not recognise the anti-imperialistic edge. There are parallels between this attitude and that of OT literature, where in periods of occupation the impossibility of any meaningful resistence was mitigated by the fact that God's providence would soon make all right again. Crossan and Borg also make mention of the fact that Paul's formula, "Lord Jesus, Son of God" may be a deliberate co-option of the Roman formula, "Lord Caesar, Son of God" which - if accurate - is a fairly seditious sentiment (albeit a rather impotent, passive-aggressive one).

In any case, I think this philosophy of "inversionary ethical eschatology" was integral to both the philosophy of Jesus and Paul, which explains the popularity of the early Christian message among the disenfranchised.

We have to be content in knowing that we will never know the specific details of Paul's life or much of his missionary work, but the histor(icit)y of the Pauline writer is assured by his surviving writings. If he was not the author of these letters (the seven "authentics" at least), then who was and why? If you want to argue that the Pauline epistles were composed late and based on the account in Acts, then why the discongruities between the two and why were some of the most striking features of Paul's evangelical career in Acts (e.g. Damascus conversion) left out?

Six of them are, but the other seven most assuredly are not, even amongst the most skeptical of credible scholars. That's a claim that will require far more evidence than you've shown so far to be taken seriously.

These would be the same church fathers who believed that the authors of gMatthew and gJohn were original disciples of Jesus? That Peter, James and Jude actually wrote the epistles bearing their name? You don't really want to cite their opinions concerning NT authorship as reliable, do you?

Of course the Jews didn't believe that, only the Christians. I'm not sure why you're going for such a convoluted reading of the text and its historical context when a much simpler reading will suffice.

Yes, severity fell on those who were "broken off because of their unbelief" - i.e. failed to recognise the divinely ordained ministry of Jesus. That is the past-tense "severity" of God's judgment (rendering such unbelievers as being separated from his chosen people) and this is the most natural way to read that passage. As I have already said, your particular reading of this passage renders the metaphor insensible. Please explain:

aa5874

Well, your argument is extremely weak.

The Synoptic Jesus was born of a woman.

Just look at Matthew 1.18-20 and gLuke 1.34-35. The Pauline writer propounds nothing different.

The Synoptic authors have even supplied their genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

The Pauline writer propounds nothing different.

You seem to have forgotten that the Pauline writings are part of the Canon.

Your argument is becoming more and more absurd. The Canon, of which the Pauline writings are a part, presented Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth without ambiguity.

Ro 1:9 - Your arguments are extremely weak.

Now, explain the differences in the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke, one of them was written after the next? Why are not the birth narratives the same?

Explain, the differences between gJohn and the Synoptics? Why is it that the Last prayer of Jesus is vastly different in gJohn to the Synoptics.

Why is the birth narratives of the Synoptics left out of gJohn?

And, why did the Pauline writer respond to information found in Acts if the Pauline writings were earlier?

The author of Acts wrote that Paul went to Jerusalem shortly after his magical conversion and Paul responded and claimed he first went to Arabia and then went back to Damascus before going to Jerusalem three years later.


But how do you know that six of thirteen letters were written by a character called Paul when you have admitted that there are seven other letters with very name Paul that were not written by the same person who wrote the other six?

You really don't know who wrote any Epistle with or without the name Paul. You are just guessing. Even the writings that you claim to be genuine may have been manipulated.

And, you have admitted that Acts is dubious. Paul is a disaster.

In effect, the name 'Paul" really is the synonym for "anonymous, forgery and non-historicity."

But, you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. And you have shown the exact problem. You are demonstrating quite correctly that the Church fathers were in error about the Canon with respect to dating, authorship and chronology.

Please do not cite their opinions that the Pauline writer wrote early or before the Fall of the Temple. The church fathers have an awful record of providing bogus information about the Canon. It must be that the awful erroneous and mis-leading information applies to the Pauline writings.


But, the disciples were Jews.

Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews circumcised on the eight day, a Pharisee.

What are you talking about?

In the Canon, Jews were the first Jesus believers, and there were thousands according to the author of Acts.
See Acts 4.4.

But, we have the writings of Philo and Josephus. They have nothing about any "SEVERITY" that fell on the Jews because of unbelief before the Fall of the Temple.

In fact, these two Jewish writers show the reverse, the Jewish nation was the only one that did not worship the Romans as Gods. The Jews did still believe in their God and His commandments that they were willing to have their necks chopped off rather than bow to the Roman Emperors.

The historical records will show that it was after the Fall of the Temple that many believed that Severity fell on the Jews and were separated from their GOD based on so-called prediction in Hebrew Scripture.


The Pauline writings are anachronistic. His doctrine matches a post 70 CE period when Jerusalem was destroyed

JP2

A part of the canon, yes, but an early part: the Christology of the early Jesus movement evolved long after Paul. There is no indication in the Pauline epistles that he believed that Jesus was a God, and there is no indication in the Pauline epistles that he believed Jesus was born of a virgin. Considering the variety of Christological formulae espoused by Paul, if Paul believed either of these things about Jesus then his complete neglect in mentioning them anywhere in his surviving writings seems quite odd, wouldn't you say? :constern01:

Some of the "Canon" might have "presented Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth without ambiguity" (I'm struggling to think of anywhere outside of gJohn and possibly Hebrews, though) but Paul certainly didn't. One passage to the contrary will be enough to change my mind, so take your time.

As for the title of "Son of God" , yes it really is quite ambiguous. From my blog:

Well since you ask, my suspicion is that the Matthean nativity was written first (in accordance with Matthew's proclivity for building narrative around OT verses) and that the Lukan nativity was constructed later (perhaps with an awareness of the content of the Matthean nativity, perhaps not - but in any case the textual evidence suggests that they were composed independently). I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with Paul, though?

Because gJohn was written by an isolated community that had awareness only of the Markan narrative, or something quite like it? Again, I'm not sure I understand the relevance?

Again you note that there is a discongruity between Acts and the Pauline epistles and again I say: this is not news. But is this due to the creativity of the Lukan author who almost certainly did not have a collection of Paul's epistles before him as he wrote, or is it due to the abject stupidity of a 2nd century Pauline author, who - even with a copy of the proto-canonical Acts before him - couldn't get even the most basic details of that narrative right?

Principle of parsimony. We know that collections of Pauline epistles (including the undoubtedly late Pastorals) were in circulation as early as the turn of the second century (thanks to 1 Clement - unless you want to suggest a comically late date of authorship for that as well?), so if there was a forger then he must have got in pretty early. Either they were written by Paul or they were written by someone who decided to forge letters in the name of a prolific non-letter writer with such uncanny skill that apparently even the churches Paul had established (but never wrote to, of course) couldn't recognise the difference.

Which seems the more likely explanation to you?

The same could be said for any ancient document for which the original is missing (i.e. all of them). What are we to do, presume that all of ancient history might just as well have been a hoax?

Right, so why did you bring them up in the first place?

First of all, I didn't cite them: you did. Secondly, I don't accept the "traditional" dating of the (authentic) Pauline epistles because of the church fathers, I accept it because it happens to fit in with the available evidence and also (not so insignificantly) due to the findings of modern Biblical scholarship.

As an aside, why do you think that such scholarship has rendered so many of the beliefs of the early church fathers as erroneous, including the authorship of six of the Pauline epistles in their canon, but the authorship and dating of the other seven has been largely affirmed by their skeptical enquiry? That's not an appeal to authority, btw, I'm genuinely curious to hear why it is you believe that they have all (to a man - including the mythicists, so far as I am aware) managed to get it so wrong and how only you have managed to arrive at the conclusion the evidence apparently demands.

I am (and Paul is) obviously making a distinction between the Jewish followers of Christ and the Jews who remained in their "unbelief" concerning the messiahship of Jesus. Of course the early followers of Christ were either Jewish or (in the case of Paul's converts) drawn from gentile initiates into Jewish mysticism, but that's not to say that there was not an early perception (apparently dating to Paul) that a rift existed between those who acknowledged Jesus as messiah and those who did not.

But the severity clearly hasn't fallen "on the Jews" in this passage, because only some of the branches have been broken off. There is literally nothing in this passage (or any of the other passages in the authentic Pauline epistles) which suggests that Paul was aware of any calamity on the scale of the destruction of the Temple. I'll also note that for a second time you have refused to directly address my main qualm with your exegesis of this passage, to wit:

arnoldo

If the Pauline writings are anachronistic then so is the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians which references the Apostles, Paul and the sayings of Jesus

How could the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians document events surrounding the ministry of Paul/sayings of Jesus without being anachronistic?

aa5874

Well, that is exactly what the evidence shows. The name Paul and Pauline writings are associated with forgeries, and non-historical activities.

arnoldo

Supposing that all of the letters attributed to Paul were written in the second century what exactly are the Anachronistic mistakes? For example does Paul mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple, the Jewish revolt headed by Simon bar Kokhba or some other event a person who died before 70 A.D. wouldn't be privy to?

aa5874

But, you have no evidence whatsoever that the Pauline writer was earlier than the Gospels.

You simply cannot show that the Pauline wrote about Jesus before there was a Jesus story.

This is a partial list of the facts that tend to show the Pauline writer was aware of the Jesus story

1. The Pauline writer claimed that there were Jesus believers before him.
2. The Pauline writer claimed he now preached the faith he once destroyed.
3. The Pauline writer claimed there were apostles before him.
4. The Pauline writer claimed he met Peter a supposed disciple and the Lord's brother.
5. The Pauline writer claimed he received information from Jesus about his Last Supper on the night he was betrayed.
6. The Church writers claimed the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.
7. Acts of the Apostles places Paul after the ascension of Jesus.
8. Acts of the Apostles places Paul after the day of Pentecost.
9. Acts of the Apostles show that Peter and the other disciples were the FIRST to ever speak in "tongues".
10. The Pauline writer spoke in "tongues" but was not present at the day of Pentecost.

The abundance of evidence show that the Pauline writer was NOTthe first to write about Jesus or was NOT the first to propagate information about Jesus.

You cannot present a comprehensive list of any facts that show the Pauline writer was the FIRST to write about Jesus or was the FIRST to preach about Jesus.

Now, it is pointless for you to attempt to blatantly contradict the teachings of the Pauline writer when I have already piointed out passages where Pauline writer called Jesus the Son of God.



But, anyone who reads the Pauline Epistles can clearly see that Jesus was called the Son of God. Please what Bible do you read?

This is Colossians 1.12-17 where the Pauline writer claims Jesus was the creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus was described as the son of God without ambiguity. His supernatural conception and activities undoubtedly matches his description.


You are the one who questioned that the Pauline writer could be after Acts of Apostles and still have differences. You seem to think that there would not be any differences.

I have pointed out to you that in the Canon, even the Gospels have major differences. The birth narratives of gMatthew and gLuke are very different but one was written before the other.

But, your suggestion is self-contradictory. How could gJohn's community be isolated and still be not isolated from the Markan narrative?

But, you are the one who implied that discongruity would be a problem for me when I demonstrated that the Pauline writer responded to information in Acts.

This was your reply.

You are arguing from both sides of your mouth or may be suffering from amnesia.

Based on the Synoptics alone, the Pauline writings could be after Acts and still have differences, like gMatthew and gLuke have major differences in the birth narratives



You are not making sense. Why do you need an early forger for a late forgery?

AJ 18.3.3 required a late forger.

Clement and Josephus could have been written the same time, even the same day, month and year in the 1st century and the forgeries could have been carried out in the 4th century.

And what available evidence is that?

It is not in Philo or Josephus. It is not in the Gospels. It is not from the church fathers.

Where is your "available evidence"?

You have no evidence.

Your claim that there is available evidence for an early date for the Pauline writings appear to be erroneous.

You are blatantly appealing to authority.

I did not make any claim that only I am right or that only I have gotten anything right.

I am simply involved in a discussion and have given my views about the matter.

It is my view that the Pauline writings are anachronistic and have provided sources of antiquity to support my position.

You seem not to agree but have not been able to produce any evidence of antiquity to even remotely support your position except to appeal to tradition.

You need to first provide evidence that the Pauline writer was early. You just cannot assume the Pauline writer was early in a thread that is demonstrating that the Pauline writer was late.

This thread is not about assumptions.

I had to look for evidence to support my theory.

It is just totally unacceptable that you have merely assumed Paul was early and not provide a single source to support your assumption.

What makes you think that you are immune from presenting evidence instead of assuming what you have to demonstrate?

So, far this appears to be your position: Paul was early therefore Paul was early.


What was the nature of the "SEVERITY" that fell on the Jews before the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem?

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus. There is no record of any "SEVERITY" that fell on the Jews before 70 CE and no record on any broken branch on account of a character called Jesus, the Lord and Saviour, Son of God, the Messiah..


But, did not the Church writers claim that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was because the Jews rejected Jesus and had him crucified?

It is without doubt that the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem can be akin to the "breaking off of the Jewish branch" and when Severity fell on the Jews.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

DCHindley

There are some. No clear anachronisms in Romans or the two Corinthian letters. However, Galatians chapter 4 has this story:

4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the [books of the] law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. (Gen 16:15)
23 But the son of the slave [Hagar] was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman [Sarah] through promise.
24 - 26 [...].
27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married." (Isa 54:1)
28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac [the son of Sarah], are children of promise.
5:3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4a You are severed [from God's promise to Abraham]
4b [...],
4c you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace [i.e, a free gift].
5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness [in a fruitful promise land].

That is pretty straightforward. In Genesis, God had promised Abraham that he would bear many sons and inherit the promise land even though Sarah was barren, and Abraham believed God. Still, Abraham grew impatient and had a son through his slave concubine Hagar in spite of God's promise that he would bear sons through barren Sarah. When Sarah did conceive and bore Abraham a son, he renewed his faith in God's promise by rejecting his son born through the slave woman Hagar. In several places, the Pauline letters tell gentiles that their faith in God justifies them before God just as much as Abraham's faith did, even before he circumcised himself, and so here too he is advising gentiles to be justified by faith rather than through circumcision.

But there is a strange digression in verses 24-26, which completely reverses the meaning of the previous. There, on the other hand, the digression says that Hagar actually represents the Law as given on Mt Sinai as well as Jerusalem and her people, who are in slavery:

24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

This digression is all about law and slavery, not faith in a promised gift. It is also an anachronism, as Jerusalem and her children did not become slaves until the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE.

Again, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16:

15 [The Judeans] who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men
16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved -- so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!

God's wrath? Again, this suggests a great punishment, spoken as if the speaker is not himself a Jew (Judean). I think this again is an anachronism for the war of 66-70 CE.

The rest of the letters seem clear of unmistakable anachronisms.

DCH

arnoldo

The Jews may indeed not have become literal slaves until the capture of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. However, they were also slaves to the law before 70 AD. The writer of Galatians also identified himself as being a slave at one time.

aa5874

Romans 11 contains [b]clear anachronisms.

The Pauline writer claimed in Romans 11.22 that "severity fell" on the Jews. The historical records will show that "severity fell" on the Jews when the Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed at around 70 CE about 4 years AFTER the Pauline writer was supposed to be dead.

Now, if Jesus died and was resurrected for the sins of ALL MANKIND, then the Pauline writer should have said "goodness fell on the whole of mankind". During the Pauline writer's lifetime Jesus was said to be the Saviour.

And when did Jesus, the Saviour, predict that "severity would fall on the Jews"?

Around the time of the Fall of the Temple.

The Synoptic Jesus did explain the magnitude of the SEVERITY that would befall the Jews in Mathew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.

And the Pauline writer knew it had already happened.

Ro 11:22 - Paul must have forgotten that Jesus so loved the world that he gave his only son for the Jews and Gentiles.

And these are the words of Paul in an earlier chapter of the same Romans.

Ro 5:8 - Only goodness and love should have fallen on the Jews up to the time of the Pauline writer's death.

Somehow, he managed to know that "SEVERITY" had already fallen.


The Pauline writings are anachronistic.