aa5874

What a load of BS. You are the one who has swallowed not only the very claims of the Church that the Pauline writings were early but have swallowed the very same mutilated Pauline writings WITHOUT a shred of corroboration.

And further, you seemed to have swallowed sub-lunar Jesus.

Essentially you have swallowed both sides of the table.

May I remind you that I argue that ALL the Pauline writings were COMPOSED AFTER c 180 CE and that they are historically bogus.

Again, let me make it extremely clear the Pauline letters are fiction stories, fables, invented to historicise the Apostles/disciples and the supposed bodily Resurrection of the Son of a God called Jesus AFTER Marcion was DEAD.

Sources that mentioned all the letters to Churches, "Against Heresies" and "Against Marcion" were composed AFTER Marcion was DEAD.


No, No, No, gurugeorge, sub-lunar Jesus is NOT a Scholarly consensus.

You do not for a minute take scholarly consensus as valid and it is for that very reason why you support "sub-lunar Jesus".



But, I just showed you Galatians 1.18-19.

Are you claiming that the Apostles Peter/Cephas and James are Sub-Lunar characters in the fiction story of the Galatians writer??

The Galatians writer claimed he stayed with Peter/Cephas for 15 days.

The Galatians writer impled that he EYEBALLED the Apostles/disciples Peter/Cephas and James in Jerusalem

Examine Galatians 2.

Are you claiming that Peter/Cephas, James and John are Sub-Lunar characters??

The Galatians writer claimed he EYEBALLED and DIALOGUED WITH Peter/Cephas, James and John in Jerusalem.

You are the one with the Goggles. Your googles ONLY make you see Sub-Lunar things.

The evidence is abundant and clear. The Pauline writings are historically bogus and were composed in the mid 2nd century or later.

Again, whether or NOT the Pauline writings are authentic it is claimed that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day and that Paul SAW him.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

All these things can be seen rather easily WITHOUT Sub-lunar goggles.

1 Cor.15

tanya

I have no faith, Toto, in the notion that we know when the gospels were written. For all I know, they may have been composed in the same era as Origen was writing.

As a consequence of my ignorance, I cannot accept the idea that "Origen is not prior to the NT."

Thank you gurugeorge, this thread should be a sticky if only to preserve your several excellent posts, within the thread. I admire and enjoy your perspective, well elaborated. That sentiment, however, does not mean that I share your enthusiasm for accepting traditional Christian dogma that Paul's epistles preceded, rather than followed the gospels.

This is an illustration of one of your marvelous elaborations, truly exceptional. It is logical, thorough, and accurate. Well written. Your excellent descriptions, betray a selfprofessed "amateur" status.

What is missing from your otherwise excellent text, in my homely critique, is a rational elaboration of how Paul's epistles came to be the "earliest Christian writings".

Evidence please.....

aa5874

It is most remarkable that you label a post as logical, thorough and accurate when it was not based on any evidence.

In effect, you exposed that you are really confused.

The very essential EVIDENCE is missing and EVIDENCE is first and foremost the primary and fundamental requirement.

gurugeorge's post was never logical, thorough and accurate because he did NOT ever establish or present any evidence for the supposed "genuine" Pauline writings.

The fact is that gurugeorge knows that there is ZERO corroboration in the very NT of early Pauline writings, knows that Apologetic writers have placed Paul AFTER Revelation and AFTER gLuke, he knows that an Apologetic source claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings and knows that there is evidence that the Pauline writings have multiple authors.

And, the Pauline writings contain accounts that could NOT have happened--A dead entity could NOT have revealed anything to Paul and Paul could NOT be a witness to the the Resurrection of the dead.

Essentially, the Pauline writings are the very worse source to be relied upon for historical accuracy.

It was wholly illogical for gurugeorge to rely on known sources of interpolation, corruption and multiple authors to argue for Sub-lunar Jesus.

In "Against Marcion"--- Not even Marcion argued for Sub-Lunar Son of God.

Even the Phantom was on Earth in the Reign of Tiberius.

According to Tertullian, Marcion's Son of God, the Phantom, came down from heaven INTO Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

Against Marcion 4.1

gurugeorge

But he says some things about people he did know, meet and hear (Cephas, Apostles, Pillars, Brothers of the Lord). But none of the things he says about those people suggests that they were personal disciples of Jesus prior to crucifixion. Not unless you look at what he says with gospel goggles and assume that the people he's talking about are the same characters we first find later in GMark, who are personal disciples of Jesus prior to crucifixion.

He didn't need to make anything up, he was in contact with people who in some sense had priority to him in the Christian cult. In what sense? Well, in the Paul writings in and of themselves, there's no sense that the people he's talking about were personal disciples. It only looks that way if you read the later gospel story (deriving ultimately from GMark) back into the Paul writings and think "Cephas, Apostle and disciple", "Pillars, presumably other Apostles, and disciples", etc., etc. But there is no implication in the Paul writings themselves, that as well as being Apostles, Pillars, etc., those people had also been disciples of a living Jesus prior to crucifixion.

Look again at 1 Cor 15: Christ is executed, rises, THEN APPEARS to various people, last of whom is Paul. Nowhere is there any hint that the cult deity was in personal human-on-human contact with any of these people prior to crucifixion and resurrection, nowhere any sense that they received teachings from Him while he was walking the earth.

Sure you can assume a historical Jesus and guess that Paul may have left out that detail for various reasons. That's possible. But it's equally possible to take the writing at face value and simply note the absence of a sense of discipleship of these mentioned people (Cephas, etc.) in Paul.

But yet, from elsewhere in Paul, we see that the type of contact, the type of "appearance" Paul claims he has had of the cult deity is positively identified as visionary (i.e. hallucinatory - he seems to himself to be talking to Jesus, and Jesus is giving him his gospel directly, from the horse's mouth). There's no reason I can see not to take that positive identification of the quality of appearance as being visionary, as filling in the hole left by lack of evidence for human discipleship. We lack evidence for one thing, but we have evidence of another thing. It's only if the historical Jesus is assumed that we have to explain the lack by psychologizing Paul's motivations for leaving out stuff that, on the historicist hypothesis, is likely to have been in there, at least a hint of it somewhere.

So, since there's no distinction made in the type of "appearance" of the cult deity to those before Paul, it's logical to propose that the type of "appearance" he made to them was also visionary, and that they were not thought of by Paul as personal disciples of the cult deity prior to crucifixion.

And since the first text we have that makes these Apostles actual disciples of a living, preaching Jesus prior to crucifixion is GMark, which is maybe 30 or 40 years, or even more, after Paul wrote, then given that lack of "discipleship" in Paul, it's perfectly viable to propose that GMark is indeed the very first place where the Apostles are posited as having been personal disciples, and that the actual origins of the religion lay in idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture and visionary experiences (hallucinations), and that the first Apostles, in fact, were the messengers of a new idea of the Messiah (that he wasn't one to come, but one who had been, and had already sacrificed himself in secret, thereby winning a spiritual victory), and were inspired by nothing fleshly and human, but moved by their own readings of Scripture and their own mystical experiences.

gurugeorge

Again, where do you get this "Apostles/disciples" mixture? Certainly not from the Paul writings themselves, since the concept of "disciple" isn't to be found there.

I was talking about the scholarly consensus re. the earliness of the Paul writings.

No, he only eyeballed "Apostles", "Pillars", "Brothers of the Lord". That those Apostles were also "disciples" is just your interpretation, reading the gospel Jesus story into the Paul Jesus story. It's not in the text.

He "appeared" to a bunch of people, then Paul. But the quality of this "appearance", and the timing of the various "appeared"s is not so obvious. Nor is it obvious that this appearance is not simply the first "appearance" to anybody ever.

Sure, he claimed that the risen Christ "appeared" to a bunch of people then him. But what makes you think that this "appearance" is claimed to be of an entity that the same people knew personally before he appeared to them post-death?

Nothing but your looking at the Paul writings and assuming that these "Apostles" were also the "disciples" mentioned in GMark and subsequent gospels.

But there is another possibility: that the first time those people are thought of by any Christian as disciples is in GMark. And that the Paul writings do not think of them as Apostles and pre-crucifixion-disciples, but solely as Apostles.

i.e. that GMark is the first Christian text to come up with the notion that the first promulgators of this Messiah (Apostles) were also personal disciples of him prior to his crucifixion.

(All the above in the context that I just don't buy your argument that no mention of Paul in Justin means no Paul, therefore no early Paul.)

outhouse

Pauls statements of who he was in contact with are questionable at best.


He was paid to hunt down the leaders of this sect, we dont have a clue how many real apostles he may have murdered. One doesnt get paid for 3ish years of hunting without positiove results.

For all we know he eliminated the real apostles, then coming out with his own version of the movement, claiming to be hand in hand with them.


Lets grant you he had met members of the inner circle. All we have from that is that they were not happy about Paul taking the message to God-Fearers.

Think about, you have real Jews with a movement "only" in Judaism for the poor peasants in Galilee. Then along comes this Roman God-Fearer who hunted down leaders of this sect paid by the very enemies of the real Joshua charactor who fought the Roman corruption in the temple.

So your trying to tell me the enemy of Joshua and his followers made contact with them and they were all buddy buddy, after murdering their friends?

Sorry I will call Paul on these lies. Paul took the movement in his own direction away from Judaism and claims he got no message from another man. Because he didnt get anything from a man. Its why its called Pauline christianity.

In his text he wants desperately to be a real apostle and builds a identity claiming to be part of the movement he has no association with, other then murdering members, and having an awakening that this movement would appeal to his Roman brothers.




All of which is explained perfectly, by another culture deifying a man they never met, knew, heard, who didnt even live in the same geographic location.

The only contact Paul had was in murder. The real apostles would have despised him.


It was quite common for romans to deify mortal men. Its a standard practice to worship mortal men. One not need create a mythological man, when mortal men were normally used.

aa5874

Are you not aware that in the myth fables of the NT that the Apostles Peter/Cephas and James were disciples of Jesus, the Son of God??

You have become so myopic with your "sub-lunar" googles that you put forward the absurd notion that the Apostles Peter and James in the Pauline letters are not the same characters in the NT.

You ignore additional details about the Apostles Peter and James in the very Canon and want to use ONLY the same corrupted Pauline letters.

Now, where do you get your stories about a Celestial Jesus that was never on earth?? Such a concept is not in the Pauline letters. Such a concept is NOT in the Gospels. Such a concept is NOT in Acts and NOT in the Apologetic writings of those who mentioned the Pauline letters.


Where does it state in the Pauline writings that the letters were composed before c 68 CE?? Certainly, it is NOT in the Pauline letters and NOT in the NT.


I am talking about the fact that you have NO actual evidence or corroboration for Early Pauline writings yet you continue to argue that they are early and use the very uncorroborated statement as evidence for Sub-Lunar Jesus.

Why can't you admit that we have a scholarly assumptions of early Pauline writings??

You seem not to understand that other people have the NT and can see that the Pauline letters to Churches are totally uncorroborated to have been composed before c 68 CE.

Again, your are dead wrong. The Pauline letters are part of the NT Canon and the Apostles Peter and James were disciples of Jesus in the Myth Fables called Gospels. It is unheard of that additional details about the Apostles must be ignored.

Now, you very well know that your Celestial Jesus is NOT in the Entire Canon.

1. A Sub-lunar Jesus that was never on earth is not in the texts.

2. A Sub-lunar crucifixion of Jesus is not in the texts.

3. Claims of Pauline writings before c 68 CE are not in the texts.

Well, if THE QUALITY of the appearance is not obvious to you why are arguing for a Celestial Sub-lunar Jesus??

A Celestial Sub-Lunar Jesus is NOT obvious if the appearance of Jesus cannot be determined.

Now, the Pauline writer claimed Jesus the Son of God was MADE of a woman in Galatians 4.4.

The Quality of woman is NOT certain??

I am afraid it is extremely obvious that the QUALITY of your Celestial Sub-lunar Jesus is unknown and cannot be corroborated in the texts.

Your question is irrelevant. The Pauline writer claimed he testified that he was a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus whether or not the resurrected Jesus had disciples.


You are fabricating stories which are NOT in the texts.

You have already bought the Sub-lunar Celestial Jesus but did NOT realize that there was No such thing in the Pauline Texts.

No texts in antiquity mentioned Celestial Sub-lunar Jesus and crucified in the sub-lunar--NONE.

The Pauline Jesus was GOD in the FLESH--God Incarnate--God's Son MADE of a WOMAN--NOT sub-lunar woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV
The Pauline Jesus was EQUAL to God and was made in the likeness of man--God Incarnate--God in the Flesh.

[u]Philippians 2 Your Celestial Sub-Lunar Jesus is NOT in the Pauline Texts.

The Pauline texts support a Mythological Jesus as God Incarnate--God's Son MADE of a woman.

mountainman

To complexify the matter there appears to have been two separate Origen's writing in the 3rd century - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.

Kent F

aa wrote: Yes, you argue this over and over again but where does Paul in a better way "historicise" the other apostles than the authors of the gospels did, or the author of Acts did or what they did in the epistles written in their names? You have said that the NT would function without the Pauline epistles, and I can agree with that, so why were they included in the canon anyhow? And if they were written later than Acts, after 180 CE, then why do they contradict Acts and why do they contradict the fundamental beliefs of the Roman Church? 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? Why not make Paul go to the place where Jesus was crucified when he visited Peter in Jerusalem? Why not make him pay his respect to Mary? Since all is invented anyway, as you claim, then why not invent such episodes to get Paul tied closer to their own beliefs?

You have never been able to answer this in a satisfactory way. To say that the epistles are only about the resurrection is a cop-out because they clearly are not. There's plenty of room for 180 CE writers to put in a mention of Mary, and plenty of room for them to make Paul quote the gospels directly. Earl Doherty has several examples in his book where Paul's arguments would have been strengthened by references to the Jesus story. Since none of it is present in the Pauline epistles, the Roman church did not write them.

MrMacSon

We'd need a lot more true history about the writings of the time to have a chance of being able to answer that rhetorical question. Even then, logic about the writings is unlikely to have anything to do with a reasonable answer.


It's possible - even probable - all the stories were being edited and modified up to the mid-late 3rd Century; and possibly independently before disparate stories were forced together.
.