mountainman

Also, why should the authority of this book about the dating of gJudas be more of an issue than the C14 dating of gJudas?

So who forged the letter exchange between Paul and Seneca in the 4th century and why?

Duvduv

AA, now you are saying that the epistles did not discard everything. They only discarded the nativity, john the Baptist, the life details and aphorisms. But you don't explain why this happened. And you cannot prove that it wasn't the other way around, that the expansion went from the epistles to the gospels. Doesn't that fit your logic better, since you already say that the gospels became progressively expanded?

And how do you know that some of your citations are not interpolations or represent a celestial Christ in the epistles ?

After all, if Paul says a historical Jesus was executed and crucified, what's wrong with saying he was born to the Mary figure? What's wrong with mentioning the Baptist? What's wrong with quoting a few aphorisms? What's wrong with talking about a couple of his miracles? And why not mention his explicit Great Commission? In fact, if Pauline writers knew of it then why did Paul need a calling to the gentiles when everyone was directed to preach to the gentiles by the gospels?

What if the gospel writers thought the celestial Christ was a historical person and embellished the story to put flesh on the bones but didn't know specifically about a preacher called Paul?

Bernard Muller

I did not claim that. My position has always been later writers did not necessarily shared the beliefs of the earlier ones, nor accept the same references writings of the earlier ones, at least in the 1st and 2nd century, sometimes for some (even non heretic) into the 4th century. There were then Christianities rather than one Christianity.
The main branches then were Jewish Christianity, Pauline Christianity, Ebionism and then Gnosticism, in many forms. Some were basing their beliefs on gospels (or only one gospel), other on the epistles (or only some), other in a mix of both, also including non canonical texts.
You established some continuity in points 1 to 4 (that is later writer knew about earlier(s)), but that stops at 5. Actually you just made a good case for the Pauline epistles to be first in line (according to your own criteria! And you suggested that a later writer can discard earlier writings by others!).
Going back to point 5, Yes, that's because Paul put all emphasis on death & resurrection of Jesus, "1Cor2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." but he also told about other things about Jesus, such as born of human father & mother, a Jew dealing with Jews only, poor, humble & of little reputation, having brothers, one named James and crucified in the Jewish homeland. Some of that are found in the gospels.

(Emphasis mine)
These declarations are rather hard to explain if placed after 1Cor15:3-11 and the gospels and Acts. And why would a later Pauline writer pretend that a very early preacher thought that believing in the Resurrection was a matter of faith? That would be undermining what the gospels and Acts (according to your theory, the writer knew about!) said: they were very positive and "factual" about it.

Why do you assume he did not know about the Jesus' story (and, according to your theory, more so 'Acts' which you claimed was written earlier!)? He certainly exposed a few things about it, not bad for somebody who was concentrating on Jesus' death and resurrection. If Paul did persecute, he knew it and to whom. And the ones he persecuted were obviously the earliest Christians. Once again, you are following the wrong assumption that Paul or others should state everything they knew in their writings (but you deny that in your point 5!).

Coming from disputed (not only by me) 1Cor15:3-11

Those Apostles before him could have started their apostolic job only a few years before Paul.
And even if Paul was the last to be visited, that does not put him many years before the claimed earlier ones who were (all of that again from 1Cor 15:3-11!)

That came very late and for obvious apologetic reasons. And Paul did not have any virgin and godly conception, among differences between the two.

aa5874

Again and again, the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith so he must be expected to know and IDENTIFY the Jesus story and those who BELIEVE it.

In the Pauline letters there is NOT ONE THING ABout the LIFE of Jesus, NO MIRACLES--NO GENEALOGY--NO TEACHINGS of Jesus before the resurrection.

The Pauline writer DISCARDED the teachings and life of the Synoptic Jesus and made the RESURRECTION the most significant Act of Jesus.

Eventually Nothing else mattered to Paul--ONLY the Resurrection.

Romans 10:9 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV Colossians 1:18 KJV
1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV The Pauline writer was claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and discarded the Gospel of the Synoptics.

Duvduv

AA, WHAT is the documentary evidence that the pauline writer DISCARDED the gospel of the synoptics that he would have known about? Please elaborate. Thank you.

aa5874

Do you see any birth narrative of gMatthew and gLuke's Jesus in the so-called Pauline documents??

Do you see any miracles of the Synoptic Jesus in the so-called Pauline documents??

In the so-called Pauline documents Do you see any teachings of the Synoptic Jesus when it is claimed Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to remain in Sin????

In the so-called Pauline Documents, do you see any claim that Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ as stated in the Synoptics??

In the so-called Pauline documents do we have the SAYING of Jesus as found in the Synoptics???

Those are the DOCUMENTED evidence that the Pauline writer DISCARDED the Synoptic Jesus.

Duvduv

This is NOT EVIDENCE of DISCARDING. All this shows is that the author DIDN'T KNOW about those details. I have made this point repeatedly. IF the pauline author DISCARDED, that means he knew about the entirety of the gospels. And according to you he did NOT discard everything anyway. But either way it does not prove the assertion that he DISCARDED anything from the gospels because there is not any evidence that he KNEW about the gospel stories at all.

And according to your own view of EXPANDING information, it should be the other way around, i.e. that the gospel writers EXPANDED from the information they had in the epistles!

Duvduv

What about this scenario, AA??
Pagans put together epistles for a celestial god savior. Then others in the empire argued that this was not "Jewish" enough in flavor and that a full-fledged story like the Torah is actually necessary, so the gospel of Mark was produced.

Then it was felt that the gospel of Mark didn't handle sufficiently the idea of the Jewish messiah, so someone put together Matthew. The reaction, was "Hey, that's good, but maybe this version is TOO Jewish for non-Jews who like aspects of Judaism but who like remaining gentiles."

So they put together Luke as a book like a biblical story with expansions along the lines of Josephus. It seemed that this was sufficient in terms of now attracting many elements in the empire. Except that there were gnostics and mystic pagans. So they put together GJohn to satisfy those people and determined that FOUR was good enough along with the epistles.

But of course there were many freelancers around who wrote their own texts as midrashic style stories that didn't always comply with the teachings of the official system.

The only issue is why "blessed Paul" wasn't included in an official gospel story as he is prophecied in the Epistola Apostolarum.

aa5874

You just have to PROVIDE the sources for your scenario. I am done with IMAGINATION and Speculation.

Think about it.

There are BILLIONS of people in the world so we will NOT ever have enough time to look at every one's IMAGINATION.

Keep thinking now.

If you have NO source for what you have IMAGINED then there is NO need to explore your scenario.

I want to EXPLORE EVIDENCE and Sources of antiquity.

We have the Short-Ending gMark, the Long Ending gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

These writers did NOT know of the Pauline Jesus and they were all written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

The History of the Church has been BUSTED.

There was NO Jesus cult or churches UNTIL AFTER c 70 CE.

Duvduv

I know, but you as well as I and others use inference and context to come to certain conclusions. We have talked about this before.

I don't think there were any gentile Jesus sects before the second century either, but we know from the Talmud that there was a fellow named Yaakov/Jacob of Sachanya (James?) in the Galillee who could heal with the power of the name of Yeshu ben Pandera (sound familiar?). And if Yaakov existed, he wasn't alone. So there was something going on early on. IF it only involved Jews ("minim"), in the 1st century, somehow it became adopted by gentiles along the way.