aa5874

It is completely erroneous to claim that I have assumed that every single thing we know comes from something that we have read.

No such statement or assumptions are in my post anywhere at all.

Now, it is my view that Jesus of the NT did not exist in the 1st century.

The writer Paul it is claimed wrote about Jesus in the 1st century and even claimed over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state who was betrayed, crucified, and ascended to heaven sometime around the time of Pilate.

The writer Paul claimed he was alive or in a basket somewhere in Damascus during the time of Aretas and lived for 14-17 years afterwards.

Now it is also claimed by church writers that the writer Paul died under Nero and that he was aware of the gospel of Luke, but Luke was deduced to have been written after Paul was supposed to be dead.

Now, after having read the evidence about Paul from the internal sources, it would appear to that the writer Paul was writing, not in the 1st century, but in some other time zone, perhaps the 2nd, 3rd or 4th, when the memoirs of the apostles, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles may have already been written.

[quote=show_no_mercy]Or maybe there actually are things that we know and learn about from sources other than writing.

You probably did not notice that I wrote "some other source", and not "some other writing.".

[/QUOTE=aa5874]]"Paul's letters" cannot answer the fundamental questions about Jesus Christ unless some other source is used.

aa5874

Do you realise that Acts of the Apostles is canonised?

The information provided by the author of Acts of the Apostles must be of great significance with respect to Paul.

According to Irenaeus, the author of Acts of the Apostles, Luke, was inseparable from Paul.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" 3.24.1 If Irenaeus was wrong about Luke, he could have also been wrong about Paul.

It is extremely unrealisctic and virtually impossible for every church writer to have made massive errors in chronology and veracity with respect to Jesus, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John and not make any mistakes at all with respect to Paul with respect to chronology or truthfulness.

It is extremely naive and illogical to think that only the author of Acts or other writers could have written false or mis-leading information about Paul or that the writer Paul did not supply false or erroneous information in the letters with the name Paul.

The church writers claimed that Luke wrote Acts. This appears to be in error.

The church writers also claimed all the letters with the name Paul were written by "Paul". This also appears to be erroneous.

The church writers appear to have provided erroneous information about the writers called Luke and Paul.

The authors called Luke and Paul, logically, may have been from some other century than the 1st.

Loomis

There is no character called Joshua in Zechariah 3 LXX. The character is called Jesus (Strong’s G2424).

See for yourself. Double-check my work. Maybe I’m overlooking something.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex...h/48.Zech.mlxx

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible....Perform+Search

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible....Perform+Search
Right. But the Jesus character in Zechariah 3 LXX was already in heaven. He was called a high priest; Satan tempted him, and God made him sinless. Imho that matches the description of the Jesus character in Hebrews 4:14, and I don’t think I’m being unreasonable.
Right. But I don’t think Jesus ever actually existed. And maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think that you do either. So that raises an interesting question: Where did the name Jesus come from? And you asked it first.
Some New Testament authors may have thought ‘Jesus’ was a title – and not a proper name. There is a hint of this in Matthew 1:21-23 where ‘Jesus’ and ‘Emmanuel’ are treated similarly. See also Ephesians 1:21, Philippians 2:6-11, and 1 Corinthians 6:11.
That’s an interesting issue. My point is that the author of Hebrews 4:14 (whoever he or she was) was either drawing directly from Zechariah 3 LXX, or else drawing from an earlier tradition (based on Zechariah 3 LXX) that was already in place.
Read Ephesians 1:21, Philippians 2:6-11, and 1 Corinthians 6:11. It looks like the authors of those specific verses may have thought ‘Jesus the man’ had a different name before God gave him the title ‘Jesus’.
There is no indication that any New Testament author had exposure to the name Yahweh. There is no mention of Yahweh anywhere in the New Testament or the LXX. The LXX is like the King James translation; it says “the Lord” instead of Yahweh.

In Romans 10:13 Paul cites Joel 2:32 as a proof text for Jesus’ divinity. And he does it in such a way so as to show that his bible only read ‘the Lord.’ I’m talking about the expression, “Who ever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” There is a similar blunder in Romans 14:8 where Paul cites Isaiah 45:23 LXX. In both cases, kurios occurs in the LXX where Yahweh occurs in the Hebrew originals.

It looks to me like Paul (or lets just say the author of Romans) was creating his god-man around the idea that the character called ‘the Lord’ in the LXX was not the same divinity as God/ Theos/ the Father. That doesn’t seem far-fetched to me. You just have to remember that it's a different slant compared to the theology of Hebrews 4:14.
Again, go tell that to the author of this old poem embedded in Philippians 2:6-11:

Though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a servent,
by coming in the likeness of men,
and by sharing in human nature.
He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
– even death on a cross!
As a result God exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
– in heaven and on earth and under the earth –
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.

Can you spot the allusions to Joel 2:32 and Isaiah 45:23?

Clivedurdle

Loomis!


:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

Earl, hope you are reading this thread!

aa5874

You forgot the word "CHRIST".

THe name JESUS CHRIST is not in Zechariah 3.

Paul called his Jesus, our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST who was betrayed, crucified, rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven.

Based on Josephus, it appears that JESUS was a common name in Judaea.

In post #74, this is what I wrote.



Now, if the Joshua in Zechariah 3 means Jesus, then immediately we can say that Paul was not the first to write about characters called Jesus. And every passage of the LXX with the word Joshua would have been known by perhaps thousands or even millions of people before Paul was even born.

But, I am asking specifically, where did Paul get his Jesus from, that is, his Lord and Saviour Jesus CHRIST, not just Jesus, his story of Jesus CHRIST?

Who told Paul when Jesus CHRIST had his Last Supper before he was betrayed?

How did Paul know that Jesus CHRIST had his last supper in the night before he was betrayed?

The Last Supper in the night and his betrayal afterwards are not in Zechariah, Joel or Isaiah.

By the time Paul was talking about Jesus CHRIST, the man was already dead, buried and resurrected.

sugarhitman

Its funny that Peter who walked with Jesus mentions Paul's epistles and his work, that shows that Paul knew the Gospel.


Also Paul in his epistles mentions Christ coming in the flesh, his death, and ressurection and return...the core themes of the Gospel. And his epistles are letters to encourage the churches who had already been converted by him, not to be converted....and they were converted through the Gospel. Don't mistake Paul's encouraging letters as letters of the Gospel. They are letters to encourage to remain in the Gospel to people who already KNEW the Gospel.



The Gospel was written much earlier than people want to admit.

Deus Ex

You surely don't believe that the Greek epistles of Peter were written by an illiterate fisherman who spoke Aramaic?

arnoldo

The following passages from First Clement (circa 96 AD) mentions both the Apostle Paul's letters and a gospel passage which indicates an earlier rather than latter dating of the texts.

Toto

The dating of 1 Clement is by no means certain, but it's not clear how that supports you.

sugarhitman

Remember in Acts when the Apostles spoke Hebrew the non jewish believers heard it as their own language.


For the Holy Spirit is also Lord of Languages.