jgreen44

Or it's the other way around and the gospel writers referenced ideas found in the Epistles to write their Jesus bios.

The authors of the later Gospels of gMatthew 1 and gLuke 1 elaborated upon this and gave Jesus an earth mother.

Then perhaps, on this subject, Luke and Matthew are influenced by the epistles and Mark is not.

And a quickening spirit is not a flesh and blood human being.

10 For the sake of David your servant, do not reject your anointed one. 11 The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne-- (Psalm 132:10)

So, following your logic here, Psalm 132:10 was not written until after the gospels of John, Matthew and Luke.

Or gJohn is more influenced by the Epistles than gMark is influenced by the Epistles.
??? Perhaps you should re-read Mark 14:12-26.
Galatians 2:6 tells us that Paul either never heard of the Great Commission or largely disregarded it.

"As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message."

Really? The spiritual authority of the men who supposedly traveled with Jesus for three years, heard first hand the secrets of the Kingdom and were hand-picked by Jesus to go into "all the world" and preach the gospel (not just to the Jews, as Paul tells it) added nothing to Paul's message? And whatever they were made no difference to Paul?

Consider Paul's words in light of Jesus's words:

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28)

Apparently, Paul did not believe Jesus was with them any more. OR maybe Paul believed the age had ended. Or maybe Paul had never heard of the Great Commission.

There is barely even a resurrection in gMark. Again, all this means is that the Jesus biography was under development for awhile.

And re: these "post resurrection visits": the only thing that appeared before Paul was a talking light on the highway and Paul makes no distinction between the nature of the appearance he experienced and the nature of the appearances experienced by the others. Based on the evidence from Paul all of the "appearances" were visions of an ethereal spirit not palpable visitations from a flesh and blood human being.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Mark 8:31
[ Jesus Predicts His Death ] He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31
because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”

Mark 10:34
who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”

Mark 14:58
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

Where in the Gospel of Luke did someone speak in tongues?
Or gJohn is more influenced by the Epistles than gMark is influenced by the Epistles.

aa5874

Your response has betrayed you. Initially you claimed the Pauline authors rarely allude to events and teachings in the Gospels so it is not logical that suddenly the Gospels writers alluded to the Pauline writings.

You have contradicted yourself.

Examine your initial claim.

Now, look at your contradictory response to my post.

The stories of Jesus in the Gospels could not have come from the Pauline writers if they rarely wrote about the events and teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels.

Your entire response contradicts your initial statement and instead shows the Pauline writers knew of the Jesus story.

May I remind you that all the additional details about the resurrection in the Pauline corpus were not used by the Pauline writers which must mean that the Gospel resurrection stories were earlier than that of the Pauline writers.

The Pauline writer claimed over 500 persons saw the resurrected Jesus but up to the mid 2nd century the Pauline "over 500" post resurrection story was still unknown by Jesus cult Christians.

ApostateAbe

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that myths matter less than historical people. "Jesus was merely myth" is more specific than saying "Jesus was myth." We all believe Jesus was and is myth, but I think that myth started with a human being of the same rough profile.

ApostateAbe

I am happy to review those arguments, too, but the passage in question is Galatians 4:4.

jgreen44

No. It is perfectly logical of me to claim that the gospel writers alluded to the Pauline Epistles. What would not be logical (given my argument) would be for me to claim that the Pauline writings allude to the gospels.

Now, look at your contradictory response to my post.

AKA: The authors of the epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in those gospels.

Wait a minute. I am not claiming that Paul single-handedly invented Christianity and every motif and teaching found in the the Jesus biographies. So, yes, stories, or more specifically story ideas, found in the Gospels could have come from the Pauline writers.
If all of the additional details about the resurrection in the Pauline corpus were not used by the Pauline writers then who put them in the Pauline corpus? I don't understand your statement.

Or Paul was alluding to Pentecost. Hey, a tongue of flame is as good as a talking light.

jgreen44

"Born of Woman?

The first Pauline passage Ehrman spotlights is one of those cases. Galatians 4:4 allegedly contained the phrase “born of woman, born under the Law.” While it is possible to interpret this in a mythicist context (see below and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, chapter 15, which discusses both the authentic and inauthentic options), I now believe interpolation to be the preferable choice. Ironically, Ehrman himself has given us some grounds to consider this.

In his (far superior) book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he points out that in the manuscript record this phrase was a favorite for doctoring by later scribes, who changed the operative participle to supposedly better reflect a fully human Jesus in opposition to Gnostics who were claiming that Christ was docetic.

Taken with the fact that Tertullian seems to indicate that the phrase was lacking in Marcion’s version of Galatians, we are justified in suggesting that the phrase could earlier have been inserted in its entirety for the same purpose. It can also be demonstrated that the idea in the phrase itself serves no practical purpose in the passage. And it has been asked why Paul would have needed to make the obvious statement that an historical Jesus had been “born of woman.”

“Ginomai” vs. “Gennaō”

On the authenticity side of the coin, for the word translated as “born” in regard to Jesus (including in Romans 1:3) Paul uses a different verb (ginomai) than that used for every other reference to anyone being born in the New Testament, including by Paul himself only a few paragraphs later, and for Jesus’ birth in the Gospels (gennaō and occasionally tiktō). What distinction requiring a different verb (one generally meaning “come/become” or “arise”) would Paul have had in mind for Jesus? Possibly a mythical ‘birth’ such as we see in Revelation 12, where the Messiah is born in the heavens to a woman “clothed with the sun”?

It is certainly true that he never tells us the name of this “woman.” Was he simply giving voice to the ‘prophecy’ in Isaiah 7:14 about a young woman about to bear a son, just as he seems to have done in calling Jesus “of David’s seed” on the basis of predictions in the prophets (Romans 1:2-3)? Did he have to understand any of it on a rational basis as long as it was to be found in scripture?

Either way, there is much reason to doubt the reliability of this phrase in Galatians 4:4 as a reference to an historical Jesus, and it hardly deserves to be characterized as simple mythicist interpolation mania."

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/06/...thicism-pt-18/

aa5874

Again, you are not making much sense.

These are the facts.

The earliest story of gMark CONTRADICT the Pauline Corpus and the post resurrection details in the Pauline Corpus were unknown to Canonised Gospels.

Even Acts of the Apostles written after c 70 CE did not acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

You have no supporting evidence of early Pauline writings and is just repeating your presumptions.

Not even the Pauline Corpus state that any letter was composed before the Jesus story was known so your position is completely hopeless.

No Pauline Texts have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE which compounds your hopelessness.

Apologetic sources of the Jesus cult in the 2nd century did not acknowledge the Pauline Corpus.

Please, your position is the weakest of weak positions and wholly unsubstantiated in or out the Canon.

jgreen44

The NT is full of contradictions.

Pentecost (the appearance before the 500) is not recorded in any of the gospels. So, apparently, Acts was unknown to Luke.The Pauline Epistles do not acknowledge that Luke wrote Acts. Who acknowledged what is a moot point.

The Pauline corpus also does not acknowledge that the Jesus story was known.

So the scholarly consensus that dates the genuine epistles to the 50's and 60's is just wishful thinking.

There was also no acknowledgement of the 4 gospels until the 2nd century.

Chili

The comedy is to sacrifice the ego in effort to set free the man.

It is just presented as drama to get bleeders on side to whom PhD's are rewarded to get ranks in file while none of them really understand a word that they read in relation to this as an end in itself.

And so they now claim that the secret to knowledge is in knowing the original language while they cannot see for looking with those PhD's blocking thier view.

aa5874

Again, please refer to your intial claim. You are constantly contradicting yourself every time you post.

Your statement is Now moot. Based on your own words, It is irrelevant whether or not the authors of the Epistles rarely allude to events and teachings written in the Gospels.


I have already shown that the Pauline writings contradict you and do show far more knowledge of the Jesus story than any other author of the Canonised Non-Pauline Epistles.
Again, your statement is erroneous.The Pauline writer claimed the following.

1. Jesus was made of a womam.

2. Jesus made a Spirit.

3. Jesus gave himself for our sins.

4. Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the Third day.

5. Jesus was crucified.

6. Jesus was of the seed of David.

7. Jesus was the Son of God.

8. Jesus was equal to God.

9. Jesus was the Christ.

10. Jesus would come like a thief in the night in the second coming.

11. Jesus knew the Lord's brother called James.

12. Jesus commisioned Peter to preach the Gospel.

13. Jesus was the Creator.

14. Jesus had a LAST Supper and broke bread.

Instead of showing me the evidence from antiquity used by Scholars you produced a logical fallacy.

It is already known that early Pauline letters is merly a long held presumption which is utterly baseles.

That is precisely why it can be argued that the Jesus story was composed in the 2nd century.

1. There is acknowledgement of the Jesus story in the 2nd century.

2. There are NT manuscripts of the Jesus story that have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

3. 2nd century Non-Apologetic sources mention the Jesus story and cult.

4. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies"--The first to acknowledge the Four Gospels contradicts the time Jesus was crucified and render the Entire Canon as total fiction and chronologically bogus.

5. There is no mention of Paul in non-Apologetic sources that mention the Jesus story and cult in the 2nd century.

There is no credible supporting evidence for the four Gospels in the 1st century.