aa5874

Please, it is NOT YOUR BOOKS that contain the actual evidence. It is the writings of antiquity.

It is the EVIDENCE that really matters--not opinion.

Evidence TRUMPS opinion.

Now, you have NO corroborative evidence at all that the Pauline Jesus was heavenly and was not claimed to be on earth before and after the supposed crucifixion.

All Apologetic sources that mention the existence of the Pauline Jesus claimed he was on earth up to the resurrection.

In antiquity, there is no argument in the Canon or outside the Canon that Paul claimed his Jesus was not ever on earth.

You seem not to understand that a wholly heavenly Pauline Jesus would mean that the Pauline writings were heretical and would be no different to the heresy of Marcion.

Church writers used the Pauline writings to argue AGAINST Marcion purely spiritual Son of God.

See "Against Heresies" and "Against Marcion"

I have READ the EVIDENCE.

It is the EVIDENCE that really counts.

Marcion did NOT NEED the Pauline letters when they claimed Jesus was raised from the dead--Marcion's Son of God had no birth and no flesh.

gurugeorge

I challenge you to find anywhere in the writings of "Paul" a reference to "disciples".

It's just not there.

As Richard Carrier said on that recent podcast, this is one of the keys to looking at this whole problem afresh.

The idea that the earliest Christians were disciples of the cult figure (and consequently for us modern investigators, that this might tolerably be construed as historical evidence for a human Jesus) makes its first appearance in GMark, a post-Diaspora product, after which the true origins of the movement might well have been a bit garbled, and at any rate not many alive to remember.

There is just no sense of human-on-human eyeballing of this figure called "Jesus Christ" until GMark.

In Pauline understanding, if you just take it as it comes, at the time we suppose it comes, and bracket what comes later, it seems that there are only "Apostles", "Pillars", and other terms, that he uses to refer to the Christians before him.

As for the "gospel" point, that has been sufficiently dealt with by Earl I think. Again, we must be careful of importing later senses of the term into an earlier understanding that might have meant no more than "good news" per se, with only a sketchy "bio" (such as we find in Corinthians - executed -> resurrected).

Indeed, far more likely, is that "gospel" meant for "Paul" something more or less like "channelling" today. Not a story told to him by other people, and passed on, but the very words of his hallucinatory Christ, telling Paul about Himself and his doings, about how to behave, etc. - the Last Supper being a primary example. This is just a verbatim report of what "Paul"'s hallucinatory Christ told him had happened.

Again consider the passage in Cornithians about the form of Christian meetings under Pauline aegis. The production of gospels itself was a product of that kind of semi-occultist gathering. "Channeling" of the Word of the Lord, some of which would be tidbits of the "Lord" talking about His own doings in the past. And over time some flesh is built on the basic bones.

But it's not until GMark that the "jolly good story" we all know and love takes shape, and is - as the saying goes - taken as gospel.

stephan huller

The commandment, then, "Thou shalt not lust (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις)," says, thou shalt not serve the carnal spirit, but shall rule over it; "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit," and excites to disorderly conduct against nature; "and the Spirit against the flesh" exercises sway, in order that the conduct of the man may be according to nature.

It is, then, rightly said by the apostle, "This Thou, shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not steal, Thou shalt not covet (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις); and if there be any other commandment, it is comprehended in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." [7.16]

Further, the Lord shows very clearly of HimSelf, when, describing figuratively His manifold and in many ways serviceable culture,--He says, "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman." Then He adds, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit He pruneth, that it may bring forth more fruit." For the vine that is not pruned grows to wood. So also man. The Word--the knife--clears away the wanton shoots; compelling the impulses of the soul to fructify, not to indulge in lust (οὐκ ἐπιθυμεῖν τὰς ὀρέξεις ἀναγκάσας). Now, reproof addressed to sinners has their salvation for its aim, the word being harmoniously adjusted to each one's conduct; now with tightened, now. with relaxed cords. Accordingly it was very plainly said by Moses," Be of good courage: God has drawn near to try you, that His fear may be among you, that ye sin not." [Paed 1.8]

Now hatred of evil attends the good man, in virtue of His being in nature good. Wherefore I will grant that He punishes the disobedient (for punishment is for the good and advantage of him who is punished, for it is the correction of a refractory subject); but I will not grant that He wishes to take vengeance (τιμωρεῖσθαι δὲ μὴ βούλεσθαι). Revenge (Τιμωρία) is retribution for evil, imposed for the advantage of him who takes the revenge (τιμωρουμένου). He will not desire us to take revenge (Οὐκ ἂν δὲ ἐπιθυμήσει τιμωρεῖσθαι), who teaches us "to pray for those that despitefully use us." [ibid]

It is on this account, as appears to me, that the Instructor does not permit us to give utterance to aught unseemly, fortifying us at an early stage against licentiousness. For He is admirable always at cutting out the roots of sins, such as, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," by "Thou shalt not lust' (τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις διὰ τοῦ οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις). For adultery is the fruit of lust, which is the evil root. And so likewise also in this instance the Instructor censures licence in names, and thus cuts off the licentious intercourse of excess. [ibid 2.6]

And what are the laws? "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God ("Οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδο μαρτυρήσεις, ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου)." And the complements of these are those laws. of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men's hearts: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other "thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery. (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν καὶ τῷ τύπτοντί σε εἰς τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην καὶ οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, ἐπιθυμίᾳ γὰρ μόνῃ μεμοίχευκας) [Exhortation 10.108.5]

stephan huller

gurugeorge

It would hardly be surprising to a Marcionite that Paul would not mention other disciples of Jesus

aa5874

Let me answer this question. We can determine who is right by looking at the evidence.

1. The author of Acts of the Apostles mentioned Saul/Paul without acknowledging that he wrote letters.

2. The author of "First Apology" mentioned Marcion without ever acknowledging Pauline letters.

3. In "First Apology", Justin did NOT acknowledge any writings of Marcion.

4. In "Refutation of All Heresies" Hippolytus acknowledge that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

5. In "Against Celsus", Origen acknowledged that Celsus wrote Nothing about Paul and the Pauline letters.

6. Ephrem wrote Against Marcion and did NOT acknowledge that Marcion used the Pauline writings.

It is clear that Apologetic sources themselves cannot account for the Pauline letters before Marcion.

Apologetic writers did NOT account for any Pauline letters sometime in the 2nd century or later.

Up to the mid 2nd century there are NO known writings of Paul and Marcion based on Acts and Justin.

It is clear that it is dead wrong that Marcion used the Pauline writings and also dead wrong that the Pauline letters were composed before Marcion.

stephan huller

Okay I have made some progress, I found the reference in Basil of Caesarea:

stephan huller

The saying derives from the Diatessaron (see Ephrem above). It is also found in John Chrysostom:

stephan huller

Perhaps even more significantly Origen has it too as a variant of Matthew:

Ἐῤῥέθη γὰρ, φησὶ, τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐ φονεύσεις· ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Οὐκ ὀργισθήσῃ [Expositio in Proverbia 17.177]

aa5874

Your statement is just not logical.

The Apostles of Jesus, Peter/Cephas, James and John were his disciples in the Myth Fables of the Canon.

In Galatians 1.18-19, the Pauline writer claimed he stayed with the Apostle Peter/Cephas for 15 days and Met the Apostle James the Lord's brother.

The Pauline writer is claiming to have met the Apostles who were supposedly the very first disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Galatians 2, the Pauline writer attempts to corroborate stories in Acts of the Apostles where he allegedly met the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem when he was with Barnabas.

Your statement is erroneous. The author of gMark made no statement at all that he eye-balled Jesus or that he was writing historical accounts of Jesus.

The stories about Jesus in gMark do not historicise the Jesus character but confrim his Mythology.

Every single account of Jesus is either fiction or improbable from events at the baptism to the resurrection.

In your myopic view of the Pauline writings you have completely forgotten that the Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith and that he Wasted the Church of God.

The Jesus story was ESTABLISHED, preached, taught, written when Paul was a Persecutor.

Do you not understand that the Pauline writer claimed he was LAST after OVER 500 people to see the Resurrected Jesus??

The Pauline writer implied that OVER 500 people knew of the Resurrected Jesus story before him.

You will notice that gMark's Jesus story is NOT from the Pauline so-called hallucinations of the resurrected Jesus.

The first gMark's Jesus story ENDS exactly where the Pauline revealed "hullicinations" from the Resurrected Jesus BEGIN.

The Jesus character in gMark Fable MUST First Die and later Resurrect BEFORE the Pauline revealed "hallucinations can BEGIN.

Chili

The horse Paul was riding on his way to Damascus was like running away from God to the end of his world, and than got zapped to fall of the high horse he was riding, which has nothing to do with horseback riding but with taxing religion for what it is worth.

There is paintings on this wherein you can see the celestial light as well as the sun and that should tell you enough.

Kind of like Joseph the wily carpenter he was, and with stripes on his shoulders came to realize that he was co-creator with God, and wanted to know 'who he really was.'

Sinners they were, all of them, and that is what made them the greatest among men of good will. Notice here that I have a different concept of sin, to which the laws of Moses were attached in effort to bait people so sin, and is why the forbidden fruit still is sweeter than wine to this very day. Read Romans 8:8 on this and see for yourself.

And every mythology will have a set of taboo's that drives the system and really is the life-blood of the mythology itself.

And those 500 present were at his own Cana event, which is measured in years (sic), like the ancients did to make them up to 1000 year old.

You must read the poetic verse to understand what he wrote and not like wheel barrow pusher uphill.

Paul was not hallucinating, but his prose is noetic and far beyond the common reader today.