Horatio Parker

I have no particular investment in an early or late Paul. I'm trying to understand your position.

To the extent that I understand the issues, most authors I read, currently Randall Helms, which I suppose is now a bit dated, believe that Paul preceded the Gospels. And Acts was a harmonization seeking, among other things, to harmonize Paul with the Gospel. Generally.

The earthly ministry of Jesus, the core of the Gospels, is ignored in Paul. I don't find the broad-stroke references to the crucifixion and resurrection by themselves convincing that he obtained them from gLuke or gMark.

That Paul would've known the Gospels stories and said nothing about the life of Jesus seems unlikely.

anethema

Spin I dont think you get aa's point. The fact that there are churches belies the fact that Paul/ Saul, or whoever was trying to convert anybody to his view of his "christ". Show me anywhere in "pauls" letters where he trying arguments to convert anybody from paganism, no all he does is argue points of dogma for an established cult. Doesnt sound like an "apostle" to me.

aa5874

Please, you always attempt to mis-represent my position with your "leading questions".

Again, my position is that the short-ending gMark is the FIRST CANONISED Jesus story and that the Pauline writers were AWARE of Jesus stories that were composed AFTER the Canonised short-ending gMark.

For example, the short-ending gMark does NOT say that Jesus will resurrect on the THIRD day but AFTER THREE DAYS.

The LATER Gospels and Paul claimed Jesus resurrected ON the THIRD day.

Now look at gMatthew and gLuke they will CHANGE to ON the THIRD DAY.

Now, EXAMINE 1 Corinthians 15--the Pauline writer claim Jesus resurrected ON THE THIRD DAY according to the Scriptures.

The Pauline writer was AWARE of Jesus stories AFTER the short-ending gMark.

The Jesus story was ALREADY ACCEPTED as Scripture by the time the Pauline letters were composed.

Duvduv

I was not asking leading questions. I have not been disrespectful to you or Toto or Adam or anyone else.

I was asking a very simple question as to what sources claimed that any gospels were sacred scriptures on the level of the Old Testament long BEFORE the NT was canonized. For heaven's sake, why chew me out and then meander off onto another point without even addressing what I asked you?

And if 1 Corinthians 15 mentioned the third day, you have no way of determining that this was because the author derived it from the gospels and considered it sacred scripture BECAUSE IT IS NEVER MENTIONED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

For all you know it may have been a later interpolation or if not, the author derived it from his own source having nothing to do with the canonical gospels.

Now PLEASE do not stray off onto another point without addressing what I have asked you in plain English. Thank you.

aa5874

Please, I have shown that Justin Martyr did claim the Jesus story in the MEMOIRS of the Apostles was read in the Churches.

How many times must I answer your very same questions????

First Apology Now, look at Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho 109[/u] By the mid 2nd century, stories of Jesus was READ in the Churches.

The Pauline letters are DATED by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century which is COMPATIBLE with the claims by Justin Martyr.

aa5874

Well, it is NOT difficult to understand my position that Pauline writings are 2nd century or later and are Anti-Marcionite Texts.

You seem to have an investment or interest in an early Paul. Your posts BETRAY you.

What Randall Helms BELIEVE is worthless. Tell me what evidence Randall Helms presented for an early Paul???

The works of fiction in Acts of the Apostles, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus!!!!

Again, your posts BETRAY you. You seem to have some investment or interest in an early Paul. You constantly attempt to imply Paul was early and Not LATE.

Please, remember the Paul/Seneca letters. Please don't forget that even Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline letters are AFTER Revelation by John and that Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was written.

Please don't forget that phrases found ONLY in gLuke is found in the Pauline writings.

Please, do not ignore the fact that NO Pauline letters have been dated to the 1st century.

Please, don't forget that 2nd century Apologetic writers did NOT ackowledge Paul as the evangelist that preached to the Gentiles when it is claimed Paul was AUTHORISED to preach to the Gentiles by GOD.

Paul was more concerned about the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus. Paul knew a lot about the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus and claimed he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus and did TESTIFY that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In Epistles to the Churches Paul made sure he STATED clearly that Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

It is not reasonable at all that stories of the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus predated the stories of his supposed Life on earth as the Son of a Ghost.

The short-ending gMark is a story of Jesus the water-walker BEFORE the After-Life

Paul got his Gospel from Jesus in his AFTER-LIFE.

The PAULINE STORY began where gMark ended.

The Jesus story in gMark PREDATED the Pauline story of the AFTER-LIFE of Jesus.

Horatio Parker

If you don't know what conventional wisdom is, I'm not going to try and explain it to you.

Let's try it this way: would you agree that in the main NT scholarship considers Paul to be early?

It's not a question of difficulty.

I still find early Paul the better fit. But I'm willing to entertain alternatives. It doesn't matter AFAIC. The history of the early church is a huge puzzle; I'm not invested in any particular way the pieces fit.

Isn't Revelations the oldest or one of the oldest books of the NT? If so, Revelations is no help when it comes to Paul.

I don't ignore it. But since we know that many more documents existed than we have, that is inconclusive.

Is it possible that they had other reasons for doing so? Perhaps the 2nd century authors had a different divine vision than Pauls. If they preferred the Gospel narrative to Pauls, that could be sufficient reason.

I have read that in the earliest stories of Hercules he was a god. Later he was a hero. So why is it unreasonable for the Jesus to have begun the same way.


Or - they're the same story told in different ways.

aa5874

Well, if you want to introduce a phrase without having the decency to explain EXACTLY what you mean then it is pointless asking me questions.

I have NO time to waste.

I deal with Texts dated by Paleography and C 14, and sources of antiquity that are compatible with those Dated Sources and it is found that the Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionites Texts of the 2nd century or Later.

You very well know that in a case built on "circumstantial evidence" that each piece of evidence on its own cannot be the smoking gun it is the Preponderance of evidence, the accumalation of all the evidence, that show that the Pauline letters are NOT from the 1st centuty.

Matching Fingerprint alone means nothing.

Matching DNA alone means nothing.

Matching shoe-print alone means nothing.

A matching photo from an ATM machine on its own proves nothing.

Having the same physical body size on its own means nothing.

Having the same facial features on its own means nothing.

However, when everything Matches then we have something. An argument can be made.

It is the very same thing with the Pauline letters.

The Preponderance of evidence matches 2nd century or later Pauline writings.

Horatio Parker

It's a common enough phrase; there are references aplenty online.

I offered an alternative explanation. You ignored it.

Unfortunately that is an incomplete picture.

aa5874

Of course, you have nothing but rhetoric.

Now, let us go through some of the evidence quickly.

1. Letters to place Paul BEFORE the death of Nero have been deduced to be forgeries.

2. The Pauline letters have been deduced to have been manipulated by Multiple unknown authors.

3. Apologetic sources of the Church claimed Paul died under NERO but was stll ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written. gLuke is belived to have been written AFTER the death of Nero.

4. An Apologetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John. Revelation is believed to have been written AFTER the death of Nero.

5. Acts of the Apostles believed to have been written AFTER the death of Nero did NOT claim Paul wrote letter to Churches.

6. There is NO time given in the Pauline letters for their composition.

7. The author of the short-ending gMark, the long ending gMark and gMatthew did NOT copy a single verse from the Pauline writings.

8. A Pauline writer claimed he RECEIVED information from the Resurrected Jesus but the very same information is found in gLuke. A resurrected being could NOT have given Paul any information about the past.

9. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day which is compatible with the Later Gospels.

10. Paul claimed he Spoke in tongues which is compatible with the Later Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

11. Mid 2nd century Apologetic sources did NOT acknowledge Paul and that he evengelized the Roman Empire and wrote letters to churches.

12. No NT manuscript has been dated by Paleography or C 14 to any BEFORE the death of Nero.

13. Apologetic sources claimed Marcion around the mid 2nd century preached that the Son of God was in Galilee during the time of Tiberius WITHOUT birth and Flesh but in the Pauline letters Paul claimed he WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus.

14. The Pauline writer claimed if Jesus did NOT resurrect that there would be NO faith and NO remission of Sins which would be in DIRECT contradiction to Marcion.


Now, let us see your picture from "conventional wisdom"???

Kindly fill in the blank.

1............................................