hjalti

The author of that passage is lying because he wants to make Paul into a good friend and a co-worker (even a disciple of sorts) to Peter and James.

Kapyong

So,
pretty much as expected.

The same ol' tired apologetics dressed up as scholarship.

How profoundly dissappointing.


K.

spin

tanya, you asked me some questions related to what I said earlier. Fair enough. I answered them. I have little sympathy for Ehrman, so I feel no obligation to defend him or his ideas. It should be clear to you that my thoughts are fundamentally unrelated to his. You asked me a question about Paul's use of christos as compared to that of Mark. I answered that. It has nothing to do with why I see Paul as earlier than Mark.

aa5874

Your statement about Paul is extremely erroneous. The Pauline writings show FAR MORE KNOWLEDGE of the Jesus story than any other authors of the General Epistles. And not only is the Pauline writer familiar with the Jesus story, he appears to have knowledge of gJohn [the Last Canonized Gospel] and Acts of the Apostles

1. The Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith that he PRESENTLY preached. Galatians 1

2. The Pauline writer claimed there were Apostles BEFORE him. Galatians 1.

3. The Pauline writer claimed there were people in Christ Before him. Romans 16.

4. The Pauline writer claimed that Jesus was NOT human. Galatians 1

5. The Pauline writer stated Jesus was made of a woman. Galatians 4.

6. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's OWN Son. Romans 8

7. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was in the Form of and EQUAL to God. 2 Philippians.

8. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was of the seed of David. Romans 1

9. The Pauline writer stated the names of Apostles found in the Jesus story, Peter/Cephas, James and John. Galatians 2

10. The Pauline writer knew of the Ritual of the Eucharist. 1 Cor.11

11. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was BETRAYED in the Night after he had supped. 1 Cor 11.

12. The Pauline writer knew of a written source that stated Jesus died for OUR SINS was buried, and resurrected on the THIRD DAY. 1 Cor.15

13. The Pauline writer claimed there were SIX post-resurrection visits of Jesus. 1 Cor.15

14. The Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be VISITED by Jesus. 1 Cor.15

15. The Pauline writer claimed he SPOKE in Tongues. 1 Cor.14


The Pauline writer was familiar the Jesus story and the writer placed himself LAST.

1 Cor.15

Sheshbazzar

Damn aa, your facts are always getting the way of everyones pet theories. :Cheeky:

EarlDoherty

Shesh, I hope your tongue is in your cheek here, because virtually every one of aa's points is his characteristically ornery distortion and misrepresentation of the 'fact' he presents. Largely, his interpretation of each 'fact' is governed by his disposition to regard Paul as later than the Gospels. But it's impossible (and a waste of time) to try to point such things out to him. Circularity has a habit of creating a dizzying impediment to seeing straight, let alone being able to hear what anyone else has to say.

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

'ave at 'em aa.

EarlDoherty

Thanks for a useful posting on the many applications of "myth", which is why we have to be careful in using the term to make clear our intent.

As for the above, you are right on the last part, wrong on the first part. The Gospels represent an amalgamation of two different strands on the first century scene. The Synoptic JC, beginning with Mark, stands on two feet which are derived from a preceding phase of Kingdom of God preaching, witnessed in Q. From that milieu and its traditions comes the ministry of an itinerant teaching Jesus. The Markan dimension of a cosmic sacrificial Christ who underwent crucifixion on earth comes from a Pauline-type cultic movement based on a heavenly Christ and crucifixion, not from the Kingdom of God preaching which had no sacrificed Son and no soteriological role for its invented founder figure. (Notice I do not say necessarily from Paul himself, because others were preaching a spiritual Son/Christ as well, and Mark may have been influenced by, or was a part of, some other expression of that movement, since the evidence for direct reliance on specifically Pauline elements is very weak).

The Gospel of Mark amalgamates these two quite distinct strands. It's called syncretism, and the history of religion is full of it. This is by far the simplest and least problematic explanation for the development of Christianity as we now know it. Unfortunately for people like yourself, it is based on the realization that Paul and Q (or whatever you want to style that body of tradition) initially inhabited two different spheres, that both belong most naturally in the first century, not the second, and that Paul was a real figure partially represented within the corpus in his name.

As they say, that's my theory and I'm stickin' with it.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

And I'm not buying it......

Sheshbazzar

If true, and only you can say, That's sad Earl, as dogmatically doing so will only serve to prevent you from growing any smarter or wiser through continued open minded consideration and incorporation of any new understanding and knowledge.