Duvduv

And interestingly enough, the vision of Peter doesn't necessarily void the restrictions of the Torah in terms of kosher food. Peter seems to be suggesting he only ate of meat that was sanctified through a sacrifice at the Temple, not ordinary meat slaughtered for non-sacrificial purposes.

What's even more interesting is the idea that no one got a vision confirming Paul's revelation or even a similar revelation from the Christ who revealed himself to Paul.

As far as the Great Commission is concerned, if it was added long after the original gospels were written, how did any gentile know whether their teachings of the messiah Christ of the gospel (whatever the teachings were) were supposed to be publicized to other gentiles? On the other hand I find it difficult to imagine that any single group of believers ever only had a single gospel story to rely on for their entire gentile belief in the Christ.

Besides, how did new additions become accepted once an existing version of the same gospel had existed without it for a long time and become widely disseminated and recopied? And who had the hierarchical authority to make the change, so that all recipients were told, "Oh, here is another major element that has been left out for a long time and we just found it"? Presumably there should be manuscripts of Matthew and Luke without the GC, and evidence that people knew of versions without it.

Toto

I don't think you have the same frame of mind as these people. Revelations only come to special people.

Christianity was originally spread by word of mouth. The new Christian convert would not read the gospel to find out what to do, but would be more likely to listen to a prophet or local leader.

You seem to be asking how the canonization process happened. Go back and read the article in the other thread.

Why do you keep replying to your own posts?

aa5874

But what century was Paul special??? What century did Special Paul receive his Special Revelation???

Paul appears to have been a SPECIAL LIAR sometime in the 2nd-3rd century based on the DATED Texts.

Duvduv

I am not replying to my own post. I am adding to it, especially if it helps someone see what I wrote previously.

Sheshbazzar

The "Great Commission" -seems to have been- added in a late edition...

But.. there is a 'the chicken or the egg' question inherent here, it being was the Gospel's general "Great Commission" ordering and authorizing all of the Apostles to evangelize all nations given first, -before 'Paul' received his exclusive vision and commission to evangelize the gentiles?
OR was the Gospel's "Great Commission" to all of the Apostles a latter redaction in reaction to late 'Pauline' claims of being authorized and commissioned in a vision to be exclusively 'the Apostle to the Gentiles', thereby essentially dismissing and defrocking all Apostles before him?

This inconsistency of when (within the texts) and whom first received commission and authority to evangelize the gentiles, reflects an unresolved internal rivalry between early church authority factions and their invented traditions.

The question of when (in actual history -as differentiated from received 'church history') and by whom these rival propaganda writings were first distributed, must be recognized and kept separated from any of their internal claims.

The NT books and Early Christian writings as we now have them, are not factual accounts of actual 1st through 3rd century religious events, or necessarily authored by the personages purported (often fictional as well) the but are the created, and much interpolated and redacted propaganda documents of the 4th century and latter Christian religion.
Almost none of them are authentic to the times they purport to have been written and nothing that is contained within any of these writings can be accepted at face value.

Which is not to say that they are of no value at all, because many in what elements they omit or are notably missing, indicate their age and their successive placement within the development of the Christian religious mythology.
aa5874 and Duvduv, although often apparently at odds over various details, have both been very astute at pointing these internal discrepancies, where the content latter documents give lie to information (propaganda) presented in supposedly earlier writings.
The Christian writings were over the centuries composed, fashioned, or refashioned, to fit the needs of latter church factions and their theological or authoritarian arguments. The ultimate production has little or nothing to do with any actual 1st century personages or acts.

The situations and speeches of the mythical Christian 1st century are all latter church propaganda contrivances to be fed to that latter Church dominated and gullible Christian populace.
If there were some who were not willing to be so dominated, or not submit to at least an appearance of being gullible, as by a ready acquiescence to reciting whatever 'creed' or religious drivel was currently required by their religious overlords, they were perforce unheard, or soon executed for heresy.

Duvduv

Shesh, doesn't this scenario require some kind of hierarchy or chain of authority to make the changes by any given group, something which is hard to see in existence even in the 4th century?
In other words, who would have the authority over an entire sect to make a rival claim even about the GC to the exclusion of any other authority within that group? At first glance it WOULD seem that the GC was placed in the synoptics as a way of pushing aside the one-man freelance operation of Paul rather than vice versa since it is very hard to foresee that a one-man operation would be created to set aside a directive of all believers in the gospels.
On the other hand, it would be expected that the author(s) of the GC additions acting on behalf of an actual chain of authority would also want to ELIMINATE such claims by Paul in Galatians and Acts 22 since they directly contradict each other.

Unless the GC in the gospels were added even before any Pauline texts were adopted, but this would still beg the question as to why the pauline texts would have such contradictory claims. And LOGICALLY a one-man operation makes absolutely no sense at all, since how could anyone expect that a single person is uniquely endowed with the ability to convert all the gentiles, something which is practically impossible unless he had access to a station like CNN or Al Jazeera. So what would be the point of such a private claim of Paul at all?

aa5874

There is NO chicken or egg question except in people's imagination.

People have no problem with the chronology of the Superman story. No one adds or removes any part of the story. It is the AUTHOR of the story that supply the chronology of the events in the Superman story and it is the VERY SAME in the Canon.

The Canon is a Compilation of Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED. They are NOT history. We just have Myth Fables about Jesus the disciples and Paul.

The chronology of the Myth Fables are REMARKABLY easy to follow.

Jesus the Son of God was in Galilee, he supposedly carried out miracles which no human being could have done, he was Rejected by his own people and crucified.

After the resurrection of the Son of God, the non-historical, non-existing Jesus commissioned his disciples to PREACH the Jesus story.

On the DAY of Pentecost, the HOLY GHOST gave the disciples the POWER to PREACH the Jesus stories WITHOUT a translator and Three Thosand people were converted.

Some character called Saul/Paul, AFTER Persecuting Converts in Jerusalem himself STARTED to Preach the Jesus story in the Roman Empire.

In the Pauline writings, Paul claimed he was the LAST, AFTER OVER 500 people to be visited by the Resurrected Jesus.

The Great Commission was given when Jesus VISITED his disciples in the Gospels.

The resurrected Jesus VISITED Paul AFTER the disciples in a Pauline letter. 1 Cor 15.

Again, we have people with IMAGINARY evidence who are claiming Paul was FIRST but there is NO such story and no such evidence in ALL ANTIQUITY.

We have the written statements and the stories in the Canon. They cannot be altered now.

Paul was the LAST to be visited by the resurrected Jesus in the Myth Fables of the Canon

That is THEIR story. There are NO other stories.

Sheshbazzar

The internal evidence of the texts indicate that 'Paul' himself did not expect to -personally- evangelize all of the nations.
'Paul', as figurehead represented a 'Gospel According to Paul' that the 'Pauline' no-Law faction held and taught, in opposition to the pro-Law 'Judaizing' 'Jerusalem' faction with whose views the propaganda speech of the Jebus of the actual Gospels is heavily loaded.
The Gospels being the foundation, and well established prior to the late 'Pauline' power grab, they and their well embedded pro-Law verses could not be removed.
Thus the 'Pauline' factions propaganda counter-measure was the creation of a latter 'revealed Gospel', which was exclusive and according to their 'Paul' puppet, one that would appeal to a broader range of people (gentiles) unfamiliar with these Laws and unaccustomed to 'Jewish' interpretations and practices.

As a result the Jebus of THE Gospel's comes out looking like a conflicted idiot with no idea of the kind of 'Gospel' 'Paul' would soon be preaching.
If he had planned on any 'Paul' to be his spokesperson, he certainly would not have given that Great Commission presented in the Gospels, but would have told them to wait for this soon coming spokesperson to tell them what he meant or what to do.
While the Jebus tale may be bogus, 'Paul's' tale is a hundred times more so.

Duvduv

Under ordinary circumstances one would expect that a separate competing Paulist gospel orientation to have wanted to write their very own gospel story of Jesus incorporating the ideas in the epistles, rather than in the form of letters.

But if no gospels existed, and letters were the fashion for sermonizing and preaching an orally based belief, then composites using other monotheistic writings and Christian references make sense before the emergence of the gospel stories.

The actual existence of a chain of authority of course makes no sense at all in context as for example Philippians 1, Romans 1, and 1 Timothy 8:8-12, which suggest just such a composite process.

Duvduv

Interesting that the "quality" of "forgery" in these examples isn't as good as it might otherwise have been. Someone easily slipped up and introduced the anachronistic idea of deacons and bishops from the 4th or 5th century into an environment of "friends of Paul" as a hierarchical structure that did not exist.