Bernard Muller

to Toto & Gakuseidon,
Yes, proto-Christianity started by the same ones who acclaimed Jesus as the future King of the Kingdom of God to come soon when he was approaching Jerusalem. Some time later, after the crucifixion as 'the king of the Jews', some of those started to look at the scriptures and tried to justify that the one they thought would become King was saved in heaven. And he will come back in time! In another words, they did not want to be wrong or look like fools by putting their hope in somebody who very quickly was crucified.
Those (hellenized Jews) started to do their preaching among the Greek speaking Jews in temporary residence in Jerusalem only. Then after the Greek dispersion (in the persecutions where Paul was involved in), this proto-Christianity propagated around the Roman empire, mostly the East, but including Rome (and also cities in Judea).
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html
I am rejecting 1Cor15:3-11 as a later interpolation and I do not think claimed revelation from above (if any) was a big factor then (Paul may have been the first one to claim any). I am basing that on the ending of gMark and the fact that in gMatthew, the author is trying to respond to accusations that the resurrection belief was due to the fact the body was removed from the tomb (by the disciples). That tells me that "Matthew" did not have any believed Jesus reappearances to show for at the time.

aa5874

Where did Modern Scholarship get such information from??? Are you sure all modern scholarship have credible evidence of the death of Paul???

Please tell us the source that provided the information of Paul's death??

The sources of antiquity that claimed Paul died under Nero before c 68 CE also claimed he was AWARE of gLuke.

Scholarship have deduced that gLuke was written AFTER gMark and gMatthew or very long AFTER c 70 CE.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed that Paul wrote his letters by IMITATING Revelation by John.

Apologetic sources place the Pauline writings AFTER Revelation by John.

You just put forward a Logical Fallacy--Paul says so therefore it must be true.

And Paul did NOT claim to have gotten it from voices in his head.

Why do you invent your own stories???

Paul claimed he RECEIVED it from the LORD.

1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV I cannot even rely on you to repeat the written evidence.

When you alter the written evidence you distort history.

As I said before people who try to defend the historicity of Jesus, the disciples and Paul MUST, I repeat, MUST use logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims and inventions.

Diogenes the Cynic

If the Gospels already existed, then why would Paul lie and say he got something directly from Jesus that was already known (presumably) to Paul's audience to be written in the Gospels?

GakuseiDon

Doesn't gMark suggest both resurrection and visionary appearances?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

aa5874

Logical fallacies--- Paul says so therefore it must be true.

What did Paul say in the Pastorals???

It is a modern notion that Paul did NOT write the Pastorals.

Presumably Paul's audience knew he did NOT write the Pastorals so why would the interpolator LIE???

Sheshbazzar

'Paul' allegedly was out preaching his Gospel, and founding new 'churches' where the Gospel had not been taught. (Rom. 15:20 & 2 Cor 10:16)
His audience would not likely have been familiar with the content of the written Gospels even if they existed.
(and likely did, as he was able to raid them for the the 'Last Supper' Eucharist trope___without giving credit)

Why would he want to give his 'thunder' away to these other preachers unknown to his audience, particularly when his claim was that his Gospel was not from (these) men, but by a superior and direct-pipeline revelation straight from a heavenly Jeebus?

He would be pulling the rug from under his own vaunted authority by drawing any attention to these Gospel writings of other men, particularly as their writings did not confirm nor conform to that unique type of 'Gospel' that he was peddling.

Doug Shaver

That hypothesis is not prima facie implausible, and nobody is claiming that it is. All we are claiming is that when all of the evidence is taken into consideration, it is not the most parsimonious explanation of that evidence.

mountainman

You may be forgetting that that pagan world already had its god of medicine Asclepius, who was also capable (according to the sources) of healing, and of resurrecting people. Archaeologists point to an extensive network of Asclepius temples throughout the empire and beyond it, but cannot point to any christian temple for healings. Therefore I do not see any reason why the pagans would choose to change healing god horses over the literary claims in the NT.



This claim is hearsay, and is probably 100% Eusebian propaganda.

Vorkosigan

Nothing, but that's not what the gospels say actually happened.

Vorkosigan

Doug Shaver

Assuming there was a crucifixion, yes.