jakejonesiv

Right! The history itself is indeed dubious. The differing portrayals of Paul are the proxy of the battles between second century sects.

jakejonesiv

Bernard,

You believe Paul is lying here, but you trust Paul there, you believe Acts is factual in one place, but not the other, etc.

The only constant in your approach is to save at all costs the history of an alleged first century apostle.

Why not take another approach and focus on how the figure of Paul was manipulated by later writers for the advantage of their respective sects?

You know that there were at least three versions of Paul floating in the second century.

For the Marcionites and some Gnostics, Paul had the exclusive truth by revelation.
For the Judaized Christians, Paul was a liar and a traitor.
For the proto-catholics, there was a sanitized version that attempted to portray a false picture of harmonious origins. (Catholic means universal )

BTW, I know you are mining this thread to bolster your historical view point on your blog. I hope you are not attempting to "vaccinate" your readers from critical thinking!

If you can get Paul (or Jesus) to get under the historical Limbo bar (no matter how low), then he can swell back up to full supernatural size on the other side!

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

MrMacSon

Sure, and some of could have been edited again later - hence the reference to [established] churches in Galatians 1:2-3.

aa5874

Once that is your view of history then automatically your assertions about Paul and Marcion are indeed dubious.

aa5874

We don't know that there were at least three versions of Paul floating around in the 2nd century.

1. No Marcionite/Gnostic version of the Pauline letters has ever been found or dated to the 2nd century.

2. No manuscript from your so-called Judaized Christians has ever been recovered and dated to the 2nd century.

3. The letters under the name of Paul show the least amount of variations per page in an analysis of Greek New Testaments. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

4. Up to the third century an Apologetic source showed no awareness or influence by the Pauline letters. See Arnobius "Against the Heathen".

aa5874

P 45 is dated earlier than the Sinaiticus Codex but that does not mean the version of gMark in P45 was not a similar short ending of gMark in the Sinaiticus.

Mark chapter 16 is missing from P-45.

Again, the earliest complete versions of gMark are in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices dated to the 4th century and they both have the short ending of gMark [Mark 16.1-8]

This finding implies that gMark was originally known without the additional 12 verses.

aa5874

The earliest dated complete version of gMark in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices is the short version [Mark 16.1-8]

My argument is based on those Facts.

I deal with the actual evidence that have been recovered and compatible sources--not what is imagined.

RParvus

Bernard,

I think you’re getting very close to figuring out what GMark is all about. But it’s that fourth revelation that holds the key. I’m going to help you by divulging what the words were that Paul heard “that cannot be told, which man may not utter” (2 Cor. 12:4)

But first prepare yourself. The words in question must have been mind-blowing, because Paul is not one to hold anything back. Think about how he loves to go on and on about his glorious ministry which even puts that of Moses into the shadows. Yes, for someone with Paul’s inflated sense of self-importance, it would take a very special combination of words to puff him up excessively and make people think more of him than they should (2 Cor. 12:6). The abundance of the revelation was potentially so dangerous that an “angel of Satan” (2 Cor. 12:7) was given to him to harass him. Three times Paul had to beg the Lord about this, “that it should leave me.”

So, without further ado: the fourth revelation you are looking for is in Mk. 1:11. And the unutterable words he heard were:

“You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased.”

But for the struggles with the angel of Satan that these words occasioned for “Paul”/Simon of Samaria, you need to go to the parallel accounts in GMatthew and GLuke.

Bernard Muller

Jake,
From your above observation, I do not see how you can conclude:
Did you expect me to say the Pauline epistles and/or 'Acts' is/are all truth? or all lies?
I do not accept generalities and rather work on a case to case basis.

Paul was used by different groups in many ways. But the same is true for Jesus, James, Peter, Thomas, etc ... I do not see here how this affects their existence or not.
Yes, 'Acts' offers a proto-catholic sanitarized version of Paul, but it does also of Peter. However, it (with also the Pauline epistles) conflicts with the prevalent (too good to be true, but unrealistic) view in the 2nd century that, after the resurrection/ascension, Jesus' own disciples went all over the known world to make converts among Jews and Gentiles.
That's one reason to conclude there were proto-catholic Christians before the 2nd century, who could not lie too much on how Christianity propagated outside Palestine.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

How can anyone know what was not told and could not be uttered?

We can only deal with what is found written in ancient texts. We can analyse data not blank sheets of paper or imagination.

There were NO Pauline letters in the 1st century before c 62 CE or before the time of Festus procurator of Judea.

We have Acts of the Apostles with the ONLY Canonised story of Saul/Paul.

The Saul/Paul story in Acts does not include Pauline letters to Churches and Saul/Paul was NOT even dead at the end of Acts.

All supposed early sources that claimed Paul wrote letters do NOT indicate when the Epistles were composed and those very supposed early sources are in a far worse condition than the Pauline letters.

No manuscript of 2nd Peter, 1st Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireaneus, Tertullian have been recovered and dated to the time of the authors.

Essentially, all the supposed early sources that claimed Paul wrote letters themselves are of unknown or assumed time of authorship.

There is simply zero credible or dated evidence to place the Pauline letters in the 1st century.