aa5874

I am extremely happy that you have admitted that writings about Jesus were INVENTED and were INVENTED after the supposed time of Jesus.

Now, the ONLY TIME we have RECOVERED records of their INVENTIONS, including from the Pauline writers, are from the 2nd century or later.

And that is EXACTLY what I expected.

The words and deeds of the character called Jesus are INVENTIONS of the 2nd century.

That is PRECISELY when the Jesus cult originated.

The Pauline writings are from the 2nd century or later.

My argument cannot be overturned by your imagination so you are wasting your time.

You will NOT find any Pauline letters that will be dated by Paleography or CI4 to before the death of Nero or before c 68 CE.

Not one author of the Canon claimed there were Pauline letters to SEVEN Churches or claimed there were Pauline letters before the death of Nero--Not the author of Acts and NOT the author of 2nd Peter.

Not even the Letter from the Church of Rome attributed to Clement claimed there were Pauline leters to Seven Churches and were composed before the death of Nero.

No manuscripts of the supposed early sources that mentioned Paul have been found and dated to the time of Nero, the Emperor.

Everything about Jesus and Paul that have been found and dated is From the 2nd century or later which is compatible with the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Julian the Emperor, Lucian of Samosata, and Celsus in Origen's Against Celsus.

The Pauline writings MUST post date the stories of Jesus because the Pauline admitted he PERSECUTED the Faith.

The FAITH in the Jesus stories orignated in the 2nd century based on the PRESENT actual recovered DATED manuscripts and Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources.

maryhelena

? No, Bernard, it's just a statement....

Bernard, the ball is in your court if you are proposing that the NT figure of Paul was active pre 70 c.e. That is the conventional theory. I don't have to disprove something I'm not upholding....

I'm not out to disprove stuff - I'm out to establish stuff. If stuff gets knocked down in the process - that's collateral damage not the goal of my research...I've far more interesting things to be doing with my time than throwing stones at phantoms......

Duvduv

Now we are getting somewhere. However, it was only in the 4th century and thereafter that the advocates of a new religion had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to promote, even coercively, a new empire-wide faith, and their is no actual evidence that any of the writings existed in the 2nd century.

In any case, it always interests me how those who accept the idea that a Christian faith existed PRIOR TO PAUL explain the correctness of such a Christianity, even by "apostles" who knew a HJ, that did not include the doctrines of Paul, who according to the texts concerning him had the singular teaching for salvation.

andrewcriddle

Stephan is referring to this blog post ephrem-syrus-on-the-composition-of-the-four-gospels and the subsequent discussion between Stephan and me.

I think I'm right but I'm not certain.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

And as the more intelligent person in the discussion you are likely to also be the more correct. Nevertheless I have modified my position from that discussion (as the inferior are often forced to do). I am suggesting that Ephrem and Clement are citing a shorter version of Luke which is the same text which Tertullian's source uses in Against Marcion Book 4. Williams first noticed that Tertullian's text is not Luke. He often complains about things which are only found in Matthew being taken out of Marcion's Luke.

jakejonesiv

Hi Bernard,

Acts can't be trusted as history.

In the Pauline Epistles, Paul is an apostle because he received his authority directly from Jesus Christ in vision by direct revelation. Acts has three contradictory accounts of Paul's vision (Acts 9, 22 and 26), and never once does the author of Acts confer the title of apostle to Paul for visions. Instead he is a witness (martus), a self-witness is not sufficient.

Isn't it striking that the only time that Paul is labeled an apostle in Acts [But see note 1], it is as a team with Barnabas, who is a figure of minor authority, lesser than the Twelve? (Acts 4:33,36). And Barnabbas is named first! "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd..." Acts 14:14, cf 14:4.

Thus if Acts 4:4,14 confers full apostleship equal to the Twelve upon Paul, it also does the same thing to Barnabas. I can find no record of this in any document of the early church.

Barnabas is called an apostle in the lesser sense because he and Saul were sent forth by the church at Antioch on a particular mission (13:1-3). This is in contrast with the definition of Apostle given in Acts 1:22. They were not Apostles, as in the Twelve, but apostles as in messengers. Thus I have have stated, Paul is not an Apostle with a capital "A" but with a small "a" no higher than Barnabbas. [See note 2].


And when Paul goes off on his own in the last dozen chapters, the term apostle disappears from the text.

Thus the author of Acts strips Paul of his Epistles and Apostleship. Paul is rebuilt from the ground up as a powerful catholic hero, but one no longer useful to the heretics. And that is the goal of Acts.

[Note 1: Unless the Western text preserves the original
[Note 2: This is an analogy used by e.g. Ben Witherington _New Testament History_ page 29.]


Jake

aa5874

No such thing is in the story of Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles--It is total propaganda that Saul/Paul was stripped of his Epistles in Acts.

Saul/Paul was NOT introduced as a Heretic but as one who made Havoc of the Church and Consented to to killing of Stephen.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was a Persecutor who PREACHED Christ Crucified after a blinding light encounter with a Voice.

Acts 8In fact, it is claimed Paul went to Jerusalem to address what appears to be Heretical teachings from some in Judea.

Acts 15

Bernard Muller

to Jake,

Sure "Luke" embellished that vision/revelation thing. The fact there are 2 different versions (the two first ones and the much longer last one) in 'Acts' for the same thing just indicates that. Plus Paul said he got the revelation from God, not Jesus.
I cannot argue on that, just that both Paul & "Luke" said that Paul's conversion was the result of some alleged revelation/vision from above. In case of differences between Paul & "Luke" on the same item, Paul always had the least embellished version. This is certainly true for the two meetings in Jerusalem (Gal1:18-19 <=> Ac 9:26-27 Gal 2:6,9-10 <=> Ac 15:4-21).
It is obvious "Luke" wanted to show Paul well accepted by the whole Church of Jerusalem, when Paul was barely tolerated by only the pillars and rejected by all other members.

It is certain "Luke" embellished and tried to show Paul a lot more connected (not a loose cannon) with the Church of Jerusalem and a lot more Jewish than he looks in his epistles.

I do not see what is so significant in "never once does the author of Acts confer the title of apostle to Paul for visions".

Note: If Gal1:18-19 was not originally in the epistle, then why the catholic redactor had the members & apostles of the Church of Jerusalem (with the exception of James and Cephas/Peter) not wanting to meet Paul?

So, what's the big deal about that? Paul started as the sidekick of Barnabas, eventually doing the talking and then, in the 2nd and 3rd journey, good bye Barnabas, and Paul is the top dog. I find that's very logical. And I do not see what is significant about Paul called "apostle" only here. What do you conclude from that?

There were many other apostles, as mentioned from Paul's letters, whom we do not know the names. Unfortunately, early Christianity did not come with many chronicles. Actually none.
At least, Barnabas appears in 'Acts' and two Pauline epistles (1 Cor & Gal), just like Apollos is in 'Acts' and also in '1 Corinthians'.

Sure, I agree. But what is your point? Apostles as messengers! I would rather prefer early Christian missionaries.

Luke" described very highly the Church of Jerusalem, as the earliest (proto-)Christian church, founded by eyewitnesses of Jesus (I do not agree with that), with Paul (a late comer as an apostle/disciple) preaching the same thing than them (I also do not agree with that). So that would explained the "a".

So what's wrong about "Luke" calling Paul just "Paul". And certainly Paul is described here doing a lot of apostolic work.

I do not see why you say Paul was stripped of Apostleship, when he is described in 'Acts' doing a lot of that. About the epistles, you may be right in some way. By reading 'Acts' and the seven Pauline epistles, I am convinced "Luke" did not know about most of the seven, certainly not Galatians, the Corinthians and Romans. That's a mystery for me.
However, it is likely due, in part, because 'Acts' was written early on. It is much harder to explain if Acts was written late, after complete sets of Pauline "Catholic" epistles were in circulation. It is also hard to explain that, if 'Act' and the Pauline catholic letters were written within 20 years (from 160 to 180), they would not have similar embellishments and greater concordance.

So how do you explain the "a" instead of the "A"? And Paul was used by heretics in the 3rd century, according to Tertullian, 'Acts" or no 'Acts'. And later, Chrysostom wrote 'Acts' was not well known.

What about "catholic"? No mentions of Jesus pre-existence and sacrifice for atonement of sins to be seen in 'Acts'.

And how do you explain that 'Acts' has the disciples staying in Palestine, when Aristides, Justin Martyr, even Irenaeus (in Demonstration Apostolic) and also Origen have the 12, immediately after the resurrection or ascension, going all over the known world making Christian converts among Jews & Gentiles? A much better proposition than having a "a" list non-eyewitness doing that job instead.

Anyway, by using data from 'Acts' and the Pauline epistles, and being careful about sorting out the crap (more like detective's work), and explaining my analysis (the later on my website) I did make a backbone timeline of Paul's 2nd and 3rd journey, which is documented, justfiable, comprehensive and logical.
See here for this timeline (without explanation) and here about why & how the Corinthians were combined (3 for each canonical).

Acts external evidence? I found some in gJohn (100), epistle of Barnabas (97), Papias (130) and Epistola Apostolorum (150) (I hear aa screaming).

I am not too impressed about your arguments against 'Acts'. Is it all you have?

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller

Isn't the best way to date Paul is to test the limits of knowledge about him. It seems to be true that Justin did not know Paul, the fact that the Severians rejected Acts and the Pauline epistles seems to be connected with Justin. Nevertheless what can we say with certainty about Tatian? Tatian seems to have been aware of Paul and used his writings yet is listed after the Severians in Epiphanius. I think the Encratite tradition is key to unraveling a proper dating and the proper identity for Paul.

stephan huller

Tertullian implies that Marcion rejected Acts (Adv. Marc. 5.2,7; Praescr. 22. 7) More specifically he can be read to imply that they had a very different Paul - someone other than the Paul of Acts - perhaps even a figure of a different name:

Here let me say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was—both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,— so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. [Praescr. 23]