stephan huller

My difficulty has always been that the gospel, the story of jesus, and its development as a liturgy is a greater accomplishment than anything jesus ever did. Its the mevasser not the thing being "mevassed" which should be venerated. Jesus just isnt enough like moses

aa5874

Please, stop your BAIT and SWITCH.

HJers rely on the historically worthless Acts of the Apostles to "corroborate" the Pauline writings.

Without the historically worthless Acts of the Apostles HJers would NOT be able to use the Pauline writings alone to reconstruct the ACTIVITIES of the Pauline writers.

Apologetic sources ALSO claimed Paul was executed under NERO but was ALSO aware of gLuke. Susch a claim is Historically Worthless.

HJers have already acknowledged that the Gospels with FAKE authorship and unknown date of composition are NOT historically reliable.

It is clear that the Pauline writings are historically worthless since they are NOT corroborated and NO Pauline writings have been dated to the 1st century by Paleography.

Diogenes the Cynic

I do not give the slightest credence to Acts or any other Pauline traditions. I draw conclusions about "Paul" based on the (authentic) corpus alone. None of my opinions rely on Acts or anything outside the letters themselves. I treat them as non-existent. I ignore them and just regard what Paul says himself.

Solo

I happen to think Mark's gospel was originally an allegorical letter written for the Petrine Nazarenes. The Jerusalem emigres from the first war, evidently found Gentile communities in near Diaspora preserving and teaching Paul's gospel and requested copies of the corpus. Mark's community sent the parabolic narrative as a digest of Paul's teachings instead.

I read chapter 7 of Matthew, the close of the sermon, as a passionate rebuff of Paul and Mark. The request of bread/fish and the sending of stone/serpent as a "good gift" (7:9-12) encodes IMO the request for Paul's gospel and the response by Mark.

Verse 7:29 mimicks and ridicules Mark's self-referencing style of discourse. "Their scribes" (hoi grammateis autwn) points transparently at Paul and Mark.

This ironically testifies to Mark's resounding defeat at the hands of Matthew who asserted that the gospel originated with the disciples. Mark was just too convoluted for mass consumption.


Though I like Price I don't find this particular idea very appealing. I think that Mark created the allegory of the Transfig from Paul's 2 Cor 3:18 (And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.) This is one of Mark's patented transpositions (Other examples are: Jesus is arrested as a common robber and judged to illustrate "the day of the Lord (judgement) that comes like a thief in the night". People with Jesus notoriously forget to feed themselves and it is taken as a sign it is Jesus who is out of his mind. The salvific spirit stands on the floor of the house while the paralytic descends to him from above., etc, etc.). It is clear from the way that Matthew and Luke rewrote the Transfig. that they understood Mark wanted to deny that the disciples actually received the vision. Both go to some length to assure the reader that the three received the vision. Also why would the writer of 2 Peter 1:16 perhaps eighty years later feel it necessary to make oaths that he - as Peter - saw Jesus transfigured ? All three synoptics seem to agree on it, no ? For Mark, I believe, the transfiguration was a way to render the experience of the risen Christ. But the fumbling Peter actually thinks (9:5-6) that the highly excited Jesus (conversing with Elijah and Moses) is talking to him about the two prophets.

So, to Mark, Peter and the Zebs would see nothing. They were "psychics" who knew nothing of things spiritual, according to the earliest gospel.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Again, WHEN did Paul say WHAT???

Who is "Paul" himself???

WHEN was Galatians written???

We are doing History!!!!

When did God reveal his Son to Paul in Galatians???

What does the Galatians writer say about WHEN it happened???

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN????

What year, what month???

WHEN, WHEN did the Galatians writer PERSECUTE the Faith???

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN did he STAY with Peter for 15 days and Met James the Apostle???

Surely you MUST understand that it is EXTREMELY important that it is ESTABLISHED when Galatians was written.

We all can read Galatians BUT we don't know WHEN it was written.

Sources that place Paul in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries and Apologetic sources claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation by John and was ALIVE after gLuke was written.

This is a SERIOUS matter.

Presumptions of authenticity is a TOTAL waste of time.

Iskander

Take it easy, my dear fellow

stephan huller

Here's my problem. Compare Jesus with Socrates for a moment. True neither man left any writings. But at least we have Plato and Xenophon for Socrates. If we just had Mark it wouldn't be strange. It is possible I guess to have one witness. But the idea that an editor(s) would come along and manipulate the original text to make it seem there were multiple witnesses to a historical figure is disconcerting. Plato and Xenophon is an example of a real historical figure who never left any writings. Matthew, Mark and Luke is a problem for the historical position. This isn't the way multiple witnesses testify to the existence of a historical figure. It's more like the manner in which someone makes it SEEM as if there were multiple witness to a historical person.

I am assuming that at least some of the nitwits at this forum have actually seen how different Xenophon's portrait of Socrates is from Plato's.

aa5874

Tell that to Diogenes the Cynic.

I will NEVER take it easy when people spread Chinese Whispers about the Pauline writings day after day.

I can't recall that you told Diogenes the Cynic to stop his unsubstantiated claims about the Pauline writings.

You can't stop me now.

I am doing History.

Stop those who use Myth Fables to suppot their history of Jesus.

The Pauline writings are Sources of Fiction, fraud and forgeries yet Diogenes the Cynic claims he relies on them.

Can you stop him??? Tell him to take it easy because he does NOT make much sense when he PRESUMES the Pauline writings are historically accurate.

aa5874

Are you serious??? The short-ending gMark says NOTHING about the ascension and claimed the visitors told NO-ONE Jesus was resurrected.

Please, read gMark before you make those worthless statements. In the short ending gMark there was an EMPTY Tomb.

Only the INTERPOLATED long-ending gMark is compatible with the Pauline writings.

Keep talking. What else is ridiculous in the Bible??? Galatians 1.18-19!!!

The Lord Jesus, Peter and James were fiction characters in the Jesus Myth Fables.

tanya

Jiri, do you possess some evidence in support of this hypothesis?

So far as I am aware, the author who addresses the 2nd century "heresy", i.e. sect, known today as Nazarenes, Ναζωραῖος is Epiphanius. As explained, poorly, by me, in another thread, "Full Text of Book One of Epiphanius Panarion in English at Scribd", Epiphanius claims that Paul was a "Nazarene", and wore that title with pride. What is a bit difficult for me to follow here, is the notion, also coming from Epiphanius, so far as I can tell, that the Nazarenes relied on MATTHEW'S Hebrew text.

So, I hope you can appreciate why I would find your comment, difficult to grasp.
I don't know, of course, the actual dates when these manuscripts were written, but here's my concept of what went on...

The first document, by Mark, the second by Matthew, then Luke, and John, all composed after the conclusion of the Roman-Jewish Wars, circa 125CE.

Meantime, I view Paul's letters as having been authored at the earliest, in the mid second century. Apart from the ambiguous statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3 κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
which, for me, refers to the four gospels, NOT the Tanach, I don't find anything in either collection that refers to the other's writings.

It is very difficult to understand how FOUR separate authors, (MMLJ) accustomed to quoting Hebrew parables, scripture, and homilies, should be unable to quote even one passage from Paul's epistles, had they been in possession of same.

On the other hand, Paul's reference to "writings", gives at least grudging acknowledgement of the four authors' gospels. Yes, sure, κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς could indeed refer instead to the old testament, if there had been some document in that collection, in Paul's possession, explaining how a guy named Jesus from Galilee, designated "the annointed", had been murdered for our sins.

If Paul is a member of a notorious second century "heresy", then how could he have written his epistles before the gospels? Is it not more reasonable to interpret Paul's epistles as a reaction to the four gospels? Writing AFTER the four gospel authors, also explains the elephant in the room: Paul never met Jesus, he acknowledges living and writing AFTER Jesus had already died. That's the sort of extraneous data one inserts into written text, if there has been a long duration between the event and the description of it. We don't find that acknowledgement in any of the gospel writers' books, though, so far as I can determine, none of their four texts acknowledge the author's having personally met Jesus either.