EarlDoherty

Maryhelena, you have completely garbled what I have said about my position. My "imaginary Q founder" has nothing to do with Paul and the Pillars or the church which he persecuted, either the pre-Pauline phase or the Pauline one. Nor did I say that the Gospel death and rising of Jesus owed nothing to Paul. I said that it could be possible to see the Gospel Jesus' dying and rising dimension as not having to be based on the Pauline celestial sacrifice, but as an allegory of the believer's own fate, but that I still believe that it is more likely the Pauline faith had an influence, and my books put forward that theory.

But you can't even explain your own theories in a way that makes any sense, so it is perhaps no wonder that you can't understand anyone else's.

Earl Doherty

DCHindley

I see you have been reading. Very good.

But why waste it on "aa"? He's a dry well.

DCH

Kent F

None of this answers any of the questions I put forward. The Pauline epistles have different roots, emanating from Alexandria, and are earlier than the writings of the Roman church (RC), like gLuke and Acts, and that's why they were manipulated later by the RC. If written from scratch by the RC there would be far less editing necessary and no need for the Pastorals.

And to say that Marcion did not use the Pauline epistles - well, I can just shake my head in disbelief. There are plenty of sources available showing that Marcion had different versions of the epistles: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Jerome - to name but a few. I don't really care when they wrote - they are there as evidence nonetheless.

The Muratorian fragment mentions that Paul had an epistle To the Alexandrians but it claims that this epistle was "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion" - so this epistle existed and the Alexandrian connection had to be denied by this later writer. Why?

And please, at least try to answer my other questions:

1) The NT Canon would stand on it's own without the Pauline writings, you say, but they were included to historicise the other apostles. But where does Paul in a better way historicise the other apostles than the authors of the gospels did, or the author of Acts?

2) If the epistles were written later than Acts, after 180 CE, then why do they contradict Acts and why do they contradict some of the fundamental beliefs of the Roman Church?

3) Writers later than 180 CE - why would they abstain from mentioning the virgin Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus miracles, the empty tomb, but instead keep silent on all of this, making it possible to claim that Paul's Jesus was entirely spiritual?

4) Since all is invented anyway, as you claim, then why did they not invent such an episode as Paul standing at the empty tomb to get him tied closer to their own beliefs? Had they done it, they would have historicised Jesus but since such an episode is not present despite all of the editing and manipulating, the writings of Paul had to be known among followers of an earlier church and therefore the RC had to abstain from including it.

mountainman

They instead produced THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO SENECA, WITH SENECA'S TO PAUL.

It was a forgery mill.

maryhelena

Earl, unless your prepared to withdraw what you said in the post below - you very much need to allow your theories to go as far as they are able.

That statement leads to the very obvious conclusion that the gospel crucified JC story did not, in anyway whatsoever, need the Pauline epistles. Perhaps, Earl, you need to face that reality. A conclusion supported by Paul's own story that he persecuted the 'church of god' and that his JC was 'born of a woman' and of the 'seed of David'. That, Earl, is the conclusion your imaginary founder figure of Q leads to. With such an imaginary Q founder figure, you have no need to run rings around these two Pauline quotations. Paul is supporting your imaginary Q founder figure. An imaginary figure, a mythological figure, an ahistorical figure - a figure that can be 'born' any which way and from any lineage it's creators so devise.

aa5874

You are making stuff up. You have no evidence. Your claims about the Pauline writings are uncorroborated.

Not even the Church knew when the Pauline writers really lived, wrote and died.

[

You don't care about the evidence. You don't care that an Apologetic source, Hippolytus, claimed Marcion did NOT use the writings of Paul but those of Empedocles.

See "Refutation of All Heresies" 7.

You don't care that Ephrem, although supposedly writing AFTER Irenaeus and Tertullian, corroborated Hippolytus that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings and also corroborated Justin Martyr claims about Marcion's teachings.

You don't care about the historical accuracy of ancient writings.

Let me make it very clear that the writings "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian are Massive forgeries and are not historically accurate.

The Muratorian Canon is an Apologetic source which corroborates the writings of Justin Martyr.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed that the Pauline Epistles were composed AFTER Revelation by John. Justin mentioned Revelation by John but NOT the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer is the ONLY Canonised author who claimed he STAYED with an Apostle Peter a disciple of Jesus for 15 DAYS and ALSO Met the Apostle James the Lord's Brother another disciple of Jesus.

In the ENTIRE NT Canon ONLY ONE author, Paul, attempted to historicise the Apostles of Jesus.

You appear to be confused. The contradictions between Acts and Pauline writings will always be evident regardless of the order of composition.

Again, open your favorite NT Canon and you will see that ALL the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate in Jerusalem and that ALL Epistles are fundamentally doctrinal.

The Jesus story was ALREADY known when Paul was a Persecutor. Churches of the Jesus cult ALREADY existed. The Pauline writings are about the revealed gospel AFTER the RESURRECTION of Jesus.

This is what Paul preached "all over" the Roman Empire.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite Texts composed in the 2nd century or later EXACTLY as the abundance of evidence suggests.

The Pauline writer claimed OVER 500 people was SEEN at once by the Resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

Again, the Pauline writer Attempted to HISTORICISE the Resurrection of Jesus, a most fictitious event.

Without Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings there would have been a BIG BLACK HOLE in the Canon exactly like the Big Black Hole in the writings of Justin Martyr for the post-ascension Activities of the Disciples and Paul.

maryhelena

That way turns the NT story upside down. And will not 'sell' to the JC historicists - and will not further the HJ/MJ debate. Timeline? Dating manuscripts does not have relevance for the NT storyline. How could it? What would happen if a new ancient manuscript turns up - a manuscript of gMark, for instance. What would then happen to the theory of first a celestial being - then an earthly being? Would the JC historicists then have the trump card in the HJ/MJ debate? Surely not.

Whatever the faults of traditional christianity, it's attempts to counter Gnosticism is not one of them. Yes, the gospel JC story with it's storyline of lineage etc is not history. However, it's a story set in a historical time frame, a story set in real flesh and blood time. Yes, that story is ahistorical but that does not negate the relevance of flesh and blood for Christian ideas. Yes, of course, knowledge is vital - our ability to live well and flourish is dependent upon it. But our physical existence, our flesh and blood existence, is fundamental. There is no rational choice here between these two aspects of our human nature. The NT storyline has striven to support both. A story about a crucified JC in a historical, flesh and blood, time frame. And a story about a crucified JC in a timeless cosmic, spiritual, context. No going all the way with Gnosticism for those early Christians. They might have sipped it's wine but kept a large glass of water at the ready...;-)

Yes, big problems for theology with euhemerization ideas...and for those mythicists that would attempt to use reverse euhemerization in the HJ/MJ debate.

aa5874

gurugeorg's post is just a bunch of speculation without a shred of support.

It is not logical at all that Peter/Cephas in the Pauline writings is not the same Peter/Cephas character in gJohn.

No Apologetic source of antiquity has denied or argued that Peter/Cephas in the Pauline letters is some other Peter/Cephas not found in the Gospels.

Now, Epistula Apostolorum is DATED no earlier than the 4th or 5th century and gurugeorge knows it.

Epistula Apostolorum cannot be used as credible evidence for the 2nd century.

There is NO--ZERO Provenance for the Epistula Apostolorum. No 2nd century Apologetic writer mentioned it.

mountainman

I see. "Saint Paul" represents your hard evidence.

Do you not perceive that with respect to the field of ancient history the existence of "Saint Paul" is hypothetical. I would have to agree that nearly every single theological student treats this hypothesis as true.



I could start with the Dutch radicals and the followers of Herman Detering who treat the Pauline writing as 2nd century. However I would point out to you that all these thousands of so-called scholars are graduates from theological colleges and other similar institutions and are not, I repeat NOT, ancient historians.

Eduard Meyer was, at least in Germany, the first non-theologian to write a
scholarly history of the origins of Christianity, and this happened only in 1921.

Are non theologians like myself ( I see myself as an amateur historian) entitled and/or qualified to research the history of Christian origins, and are such people entitled to approach the task with different (and perhaps antithetical) hypotheses than the continuous stream of theology graduates?

The evidence is the common ground between theology and ancient history and each discipline makes its own types of hypotheses about this evidence. Where you are essentially content to see the Pauline letters as evidence for the 1st century historical existence of Dear "Saint Paul" I am not so content.

Your hypothesis may be correct.
But it also may not be correct.
Hence these discussions.

stephan huller

I normally don't reach out to the impossibly misguided but I am firmly convinced that the Epistula Apostolorum is for the most part preserved from the second century. Look at the order of the gospel listed in the contents. It matches no known gospel text.