Duvduv

I don't understand why this line of inquiry is not discussed more intensively, since there is reason to see composites made of epistles which at least suggest a stratum of a monotheistic sermon combined with Christ references. This would of course not only bring into question the existence of a Paul writing a set of "christian" epistles, but it would also bring into question ascribing a mythist religion to "Paul" through his epistles that may not even be "his" at all or even reflective of a mythist religion.

Sheshbazzar

The christian NT writings were based upon 'borrowing' or employing supporting material from the Tanaka.
The NAME and TITLE of christianities mythical man/god was plucked directly from the prophecies of The LXX version of the Tanaka, just as the many other 'prophecies' were.

The mythic figures 'life' and 'sayings' were fabricated to fit and to capitalize upon these ancient prophecies, including the particular NAME Ἰησοῦν ('Jesus'* sic and Title χριστοῦ 'christos'.
The man/god called 'Jesus' 'christ' did not ever actually live, nor ever 'fulfill' any of the Jewish religion's prophecies. (except in a very negative and unsavory sense. -like a replay of the 'Nehushtan' snake-on-a-pole idol)
The 'Jesus' of the NT writings is nothing more than a fabricated and totally mythical literary figure fashioned from from OT prophecies, their midrashim explanations, and supplied with 'sayings' lifted or adapted from multiple sources or invented by the NT's creative writers.

*For those who don't know it the name 'Jesus' is the Anglicanized mispronunciation of the Greek Ἰησοῦ (Latin 'Iosue') which is a mistransliteration of the ancient Hebrew name יהושע 'Yah'ho'shuwa' or by some (Yĕ'ho'shuah) or 'Joshua' sic. meaning 'Yahh saves' or 'Yahh's Deliverer'.
-The form 'Yĕ'ho'shuah translates as 'He saves' or 'He Delivers' with out distinguishing WHOM it is that is doing the 'saving' or 'delivering', which is, in most instances as indicated by the context, being the Hebrew Diety named 'YAHH'.
(see 'JAH' Psalm 68:4 in the KJV. This form יָהּ 'YAHH', "The NAME most vehement" of The Deity of the Hebrew's, which actually occurs in an additional 48 places where the KJV editors rather senselessly obscured it with other generic terms, and hundreds of additional times as the 'theophonic' element in other proper personal names, all of those 'Jeh -s', 'Jeho-s' and '-iah's' that your Bible is so loaded with)


Sheshbazzar The Hebrew


.

angelo

The whole N/T writings are built on the foundation of the O/T which itself is a collection of myths historicised. The writer of Paul whoever and whenever he wrote the epistles say so himself when he writes that Jesus was crucified and buried in accordance with scripture which can only mean the O/T.

aa5874

Again, why can't you see that you are contradicting yourself???

Let us reason.

If Paul wrote in the mid 2nd-3rd century would "in accordance with Scripture" ONLY mean the O/T???

Of course NOT.

Unless you can corroborate the Pauline date of authorship then you should know that your statement is FLAWED.

The Pauline writings are DATED by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century and THAT is EXACTLY Compatible with the theory that "According to Scriptures" means The Gospels.

You will NOT find in the O/T that a man or Jesus died for our Sins. It was the sacrifice of Bulls and Goats.

You cannot show me where in the O/T it is claimed Jesus died FOR Our Sins and was resurrected on the third day but I can show that such statements are found in the Gospels.

tanya

Sorry, friend, I cannot agree with you here.

"which can only mean" ACCORDING TO THE WRITINGS.

The Greek is very clear:
1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

3παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας 4και οτι εταφη και οτι εγηγερται τη τριτη ημερα κατα τας γραφας

I could buy your argument, if it had been written with the descriptor hagios, "holy" as modifier of graphas.

Absent "holy writings", it is just as reasonable, in fact, more so, in my opinion, to mean, "new testament", (not yet "holy").

Either way, γραφας cannot refer EXCLUSIVELY to "old testament". γραφας is either ambiguous, else, referring to the New testament, because of the missing adjective, "holy".

Yes, to answer your question, omission of "holy" is significant, here, because Paul does describe γραφας as "holy", elsewhere in other places in his various texts, though, I have not got a reference at my fingertips....

I seem to remember Jiri, David, Jay, and spin, all noting, at one point or another in various threads, in recent years, where those references to "holy writings" in Paul's letters occur. Apologies for not having kept closer tabs on their many excellent contributions to the forum.

anethema

aa greetings, Ihave been following intently your dogged defense of your position, in the face of a lot of tom-foolery. If I can ask a question, what beside the paleography of P46 do you propose for its provenance? Is it a self contained collection of letters(forgeries?) in your opinion?

aa5874

My position is extremely easy to understand.

If Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist before c 70 CE then there would NOT be any credible evidence from antiquity of their existence and writings about them would NOT be found and DATED to before c 70 CE.

This is PRECISELY what has happened.

There is NO credible source of antiquity for Jesus the disciples and Paul and sources which mentioned them are DATED by Paleography and C 14 to sometime in the 2nd century and Later.

angelo

Could not these 2nd century and later writings not be copies of 1st century material which we no longer have ? The majority consensus seems to be that Paul wrote his first epistle sometime in the 50s, with gMark sometime in the 65-70s with the others following up to and could be more, around from late 1st century to mid 2nd century for gJohn. This is the majority view which doesn't mean it's correct any more than Coke is the best flavoured drink because it's the biggest selling.

Huon

Possible, but these copies could have been "improved" to meet the new beliefs of the 2nd (and the 3rd) century. As long as we have no copies of the end of the 1st century, we cannot say anything.

aa5874

Could NOT there be NO 1st century material at all??? Could NOT there be NO Jesus, No disciples and No Paul before c 70 CE???

Please, please, please, I am NOT here to promote "majority view". I am doing a serious investigation. Those with the 'majority view" have NO evidence from antiquity to support them. I deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity--NOT FLAWED imagination.

My theory is based on ACTUAL Manuscripts DATED by Paleography and C 14 and sources that are Compatible with those very DATED Manuscripts.

I no longer accept Imaginary evidence. The "majority view" are arguing from a BIG BLACK Hole with their Eyes closed.

A person convicted of a crime can always say there is evidence somewhere out there that will someday exonerate him. Such a person does not even realise that the more evidence that is collected the more his/her guilt will be confirmed.

The ACTUAL DATED manuscript support the theory that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were INVENTED 1st century characters so I will ONLY REVIEW my position with NEW DATA.

That is how history is done. The past is re-constructed with the PRESENT data and modifications are done when NEW Data surfaces.

History, the Reconstruction of the past, is NOT based on imagination and faith with the hope that evidence would be found sometime in the future.

A Verdict is based on the evidence PRESENTED and can be REVERSED when NEW evidence is found.

My VERDICT is in. My verdict is based on the Dated Manuscripts and sources that are Compatible with them.

Jesus, the Disciples and Paul were INVENTED 1st century characters--they NEVER had any existence.

The Galatians writer called Paul did NOT even state anywhere when he wrote his letters and the author of Acts did NOT even say Paul wrote letters to churches.

The history of the Pauline writer is ONLY supported by the Fiction in Acts and the Forgeries of the Paul/Seneca letters.

Even Apologetic sources do not really know when Paul lived, what he wrote and when he wrote them.