Bingo the Clown-O

Convinced of what?

What opinion am I convinced of?

Tell us!

EarlDoherty

So here we have aa admitting that, let’s see, the Pauline letters, the Revelation of John, the epistle of James, the epistle to the Hebrews, all lack any details about the Gospel Jesus and the Gospel story, characters, setting, time place and agencies of the death, etc. etc., but he calls it "absurd" to think that this vast void could possibly point to a date of composition for these documents (which comprise the great portion of the non-Gospel and Acts part of the NT, to which we can add the pseudo-Paulines, the Johannine epistles, 1 Peter and Jude which likewise contain an equal void on such details, with 2 Peter being doubtful as well) BEFORE the Gospels which are the first to contain any such details. A “flawed methodology” aa calls it. A "logical fallacy."

And on what does he base the opposite claim, that all these writers and their communities did know of the Gospel story and all those missing details? On “born of woman”? On the bare epistolary ‘fact’ of Jesus having been crucified? On anything that doesn’t amount to a colossal case of begging the question?

(We also have to make the qualification that it doesn't even have to be before the Gospels were composed that all these documents had to have been written. In some cases, it need merely be the case that the documents were written before the Gospels were disseminated and became known beyond their own communities, where they may even not have been originally regarded as history.)

AA is tearing me to shreds??? That’s a joke, right, Jake?

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

There seems to be a disconnect here.

How is 'Revelation by John' translatable as, or connectible to 'The Revelations of Paul ? '

(whatever that is. The apocryphal 'Revelation of Paul'?)

Their entire writing styles, and focus are entirely different, if not in outright opposition.

And given Justin's account of the works used and familiar to him and the christian church of his day, it is certain the 'Revelation by John' was known, while any of 'The Revelations of Paul ? ' were as yet (c. 150 CE) completely unheard of.

'The Book of 'Revelations' by JOHN' was not based on a historical JC, does not require a historical earthly JC, and could very well have been composed well before the Gospels.
Whereas 'Acts of The Apostles', and the various 'Pauline' situations and statements reported in Acts and Paul's Epistles absolutely demand that there had been a historical JC in their past.

aa5874

Please, Doherty do you see the word 'IF'??

I admit your methodology is hopelessly flawed.

If Lack of details about Jesus in the Pauline letters mean the Gospels were composed AFTER the Pauline letters then Lack of Details about Paul in the Gospels means the Gospels were composed before the Pauline letters based on YOUR FLAWED CONTRADICTORY methodology.

I do not employ your hopelessly flawed methodology to make arguments for late Pauline writings and Hebrews.

TedM

Your refusal to read the plain English of Mark is nonsense, aa. Just what do you think the author was saying if it wasn't that Jesus paid the price through his death and resurrection for the salvation of others from their sins? Why do you think the author of Mark had Jesus forgiving others of their sins? It's a very similar theology of salvation of others that Paul and gJohn wrote about, aa.

TedM

The animal sacrifice for sins set the pattern. IF the actual crucifixion happened during Passover the comparisons could be obvious and nearly immediate for one familiar with the OT writings--and especially passages like Isaiah 53--someone like Paul. It would have been strange for their NOT to have been such a theology early after the crucifixion and alleged resurrection. The idea that there needed to be 100 years or so for the development of these ideas is pure fantasy and nonsense.

The very fact that Philo was writing about a heavenly man shows that the idea was around when Paul allegedly lived. How hard would it have been for Paul to apply the idea to this crucified man that many had thought was going to be the Messiah and were now claiming had resurrected? Not hard at all.

You say gJohn was written early -- prior to the Pauline writing, yet gJohn doesn't refer to a heavenly man and Paul does, and Paul's writings don't reference gJohn! I think all of this could easily have happened in tandom and early, and is reasonably explained by the idea that Paul -- perhaps having the greatest insight into idea of salvation for sins -- was very focused on the meaning of the resurrection and NOT on the events of Jesus' life, which others found more appealing.

aa5874

What is wrong with your English??? The Theology of Paul and John is very different to that of the short gMark.

In the short gMark Jesus did NOT need to to be crucified and resurrect to forgive sins. The short Mark Jesus only needs to be considered by faith to be the Son of God for Remission of Sins.

Mark 2:5 KJV In the Pauline writings the Sick with Palsy could NOT have had his sins forgiven and his Faith would have been in Vain if Jesus did NOT resurrect.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

aa5874

Anything is possible but what is your argument?? Are you arguing that Revelation by John was composed before stories of Jesus were known??

You would need to present corroborative evidence and not just state it is possible. Anything is possible when there is no evidence.

Your statement is in error. Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters DEMAND a Mythological Jesus.

Only a Mythological Jesus can Resurrect, ascend in a cloud and send a Holy Ghost to give Power to the disciples on the Day of Pentecost to preach the gospel.

In Acts of the Apostles, the supposed life and miracles of Jesus were made Obsolete and Irrelevant when the very Jesus told the disciples that the MUST wait for the Holy Ghost BEFORE they could preach the Gospel.

Acts 1 Similarly, the Pauline writers DEMANDED a Mythological Jesus when it was claimed Jesus MUST Resurrect for the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJVActs of the Apostles and the Pauline writings DEMANDED MYTHOLOGY.

Sheshbazzar

We don't know when the 'Revelations' of John was written, only that it was before Justin's 'First Apology' circa 150 CE, because he mentions it.
And Acts and Paul were then yet unknown.

I concede that you are entirely correct here. Sorry for my error.

The idea however is consitent that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings demand at least an imagined earthly JC to be in that past to fit their story line.

aa5874

The story of Jesus only makes sense if he was considered to be a real Son of God who was on earth, that is, it must be believed from the very start that Jesus did carry out all the miracles, was crucified, suffering appearing to be human and then Resurrected and ascended.

God made Adam and Eve and God made Jesus his only begotten Son. It is all an almagamation of Jewish/ Roman/ Greek mythology.