anethema

true that !!!!

J-D

I have seen no evidence of that. On the contrary, more than once I have seen people vigorously expressing agreement with what they thought aa5874 meant, only to be violently repudiated by aa5874.

Grog

I don't think so. This has happened to me several times, but the fact is that I do not ENTIRELY agree with him (as you can see above). aa demands purity in holding to his methodology. From his standpoint, the criteria he applies, he is consistent and logical. If you don't agree with his criteria (that you cannot infer copies of copies, for example), then he will attack you. However, I have never been violently repudiated by him, just adamantly and energetically repudiated. I can live with that.

I still believe that we do not have originals of the writings of Paul and what we have are copies of copies, some with redactions, some that are composites of multiple letters, etc. Based on this inference, and internal, contextual analysis of the writings themselves, I accept a first century Paul. If I am wrong, though, then aa is probably likely correct that Christianity is of second century origins. I recognize a tenuous thread here holding down an early Paul. aa sees that as illogical. Ok, so that's where it is.

Grog

Maybe not. It could be that we have fragments of manuscripts very close in time to the originals. That is aa's position. I don't reject out of hand, but believe that it is more likely that we do have copies of copies going back to the first century. HOWEVER, I do recognize the problems with holding this position:

--no dated manuscripts to the first century
--the problem of how the collection came to be (I see no easy solution to how anyone collected letters sent, for example, to "the Galatians").
-observations that the style of the epistle writer resembles the style of Josephus...an observation first made by W. Whiston.
--aa's observation that mid-century writers like Justin Martyr apparently do not know of Paul or his writings

I am sure this is not an exhaustive listing of the problems.

Is there a first century Josephus manuscript? I thought we only had medieval manuscripts.

That is aa's position, yes. You seem to understand it quite well. My point was that it was understandable.

Grog

It's like the cIRA vs the rIRA!

aa5874

Why do you believe such a thing??? Who told you that the Pauline letters were composed in the 1st century???

Was it Irenaeus??? Irenaeus is the Guy who claimed Jesus was crucified when Pilate was procurator of Claudius.

Let us go through Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters chapter by chapter, verse by verse, word by word and you won't see any claim that any letter was composed before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.



You seem NOT to realize that those are YOUR problems. You ADMIT "the" problems but still hold on to your problematic position.

I NO problems. I have Justin, Aristides, Arnobius, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Julian the Emperor and the dated recovered texts.

J-D

Maybe you haven't seen it. I have seen it.

aa5874

Please, it is UNHEARD of that in an investigation ONLY the statement of the Defendant is accepted.

You simply cannot use the same QUESTIONED Pauline writings as Corroboration for their own veracity.

And even more terrifying, the Pauline letters themselves do NOT state when they were composed.

There is NO INTERNAL statement in the Pauline writings that any letter was composed Before c 70 CE.

Please, the Pauline letters have already been analyzed by Experts and even the chronology of Pauline activities cannot be assembled WITHOUT Acts of the Apostles.

Please, INDICATE the internal evidence of the Epistles that YOU used to support your belief they were composed Before c 70 CE???

anethema

understandable yes, but not preachable. imho the Q people were trying to get the lower classes to find a kingdom of god within themselves. and to hell with the status quo. i know thisiis watered down crossan speech, and also alittle bit preachy in its own rite. to look for understanding imo you have to look at the history of the herodians vs hasmoneans and their tax laws. its reality can be boiled down to the anthropology of the time.

aa5874

The recovered Dated Texts suggest that there was NO known Jesus cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Non-Apologetic sources mentioned NO such character until the mid 2nd century in Lucian's Death of Peregrine and Celsus "True Discourse" based on Origen.

And even in the NT itself we see NO knowledge of the Pauline letters or Pauline Gospel.

Examine the Short gMark and there is NO Post Resurrection visit.

Examine the Pauline letters--the Pauline writer wrote of MULTIPLE Post-Resurrection visits and even claimed OVER 500 people at once saw the resurrected Jesus.

Now when the authors of the LONG gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn were ready to composed their Gospel they WROTE NOTHING about the Pauline 500.

Examine all NON-Pauline Epistles, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.

Again, we have the same problems, None of them emulated the Pauline Teachings and Gospel.

The Johanine Revelation is theologically different to the Pauline revelations.

The Johanine Revelations seem to be compatible the Short gMark.

If the Pauline letters to the Churches were BEFORE c 70 CE and Paul ACTUALLY preached "ALL OVER" the Roman Empire in major cities since 37-41 CE then we would EXPECT the authors of the Gospels and other NT writers to be INFLUENCED by Paul and his letters.

We can SEE that authors of the Canon was INFLUENCED by Short gMark or his sources and there is NO evidence that the author of short gMark was an evangelist like the Pauline writer.

How is it an UNKNOWN writer or his sources was EMULATED by THREE Canonised NT authors and in some books word-for-word and NOT even a single sentence from Paul???

The Recovered Dated Texts show the answer.

The Pauline writings were COMPOSED in the 2nd century or later---AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known and AFTER Revelation by John was Already written as suggested in the writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, and Muratorian Canon.