LegionOnomaMoi

Right. So Aristotle, the LXX, Aeschines, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, Josephus, Plato, etc. were all written by someone in the fifth century. After all, they all use the same word more than once.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
The sources I used are exposed in my website, and I got to that conclusion through critical analysis from many pieces of evidence. And what should we expect the "Church" to admit that openly?
And I do not think you show your sources when you make claims.
Where is 'Against Heresies 2.22' without the interpolations?
Where is 'Against Heresies' without the interpolations?
Show your sources if you can.

Duvduv

Excuse me, they were not operating with the CONTEXT we are talking about. We are talking about an all-encompassing a Christ community organized vertically and local branches "all over Judea" etc. which did not exist as a separate religious community of either Jews, non-Jews or both.

The concern and focus on such organizational structures would have meant absolutely nothing a mere few years after the crucifixion.

Duvduv

Bernard, you can keep going. After all, "churches" must have existed all over the world where Christ was known according to Romans. And when do you believe these epistles were written as we know them?

Bernard Muller

(Emphasis mine)
And from where did you get that?
It is commonly accepted Marcion (130) was the first one to do that.

According to my studies, between late 50 and early 58. Certainly before Jerusalem was destroyed.
But you must know that 'ekklesia' does not have to mean either a building or a strictly organized group of Christians. It is also used in the LXX for "assembly of Jews".
Revelations 1:4 has (seven) "churches", each one being city-based.

Solo

In all but the disputed 2 mentions of persecution (1 Cr 15:9, Gal 1:13) where the semantics denote an abstract entity, Paul refers to the "church of God" as gatherings specifically at Corinth.

Best,
Jiri

Bernard Muller

to Solo,
Disputed 1Cr 15:9? I like that. But who is disputing Gal 1:13? Gal 1&2 makes a lot of sense to me.

LegionOnomaMoi

Paul is not "operating within the CONTEXT" you are talking about. You are using English words to project semantic and syntactic content which isn't in Paul, and then proceeding to make conclusions about it.


And quite apart from Paul's use of ekklesia, he devotes and entire section to an "all-encompassing Christ Community." That's the whole point of 1 Cor. 12:12ff. If the soma/body metaphor, with the different "parts" were intended to refer to the individuals in Corinth, rather than individual assemblies from distinct places, then Paul would have no need to further distinguish parts when he turned back to specifically address the followers at Corinth. Yet he does.

1 Cor 12:27 Υμεις δέ εστε σωμα Χριστου καὶ μέλη εκ μέρους/humeis de este soma Christou kai mele ek merous.

Up until this point, Paul has talked about the parts of the body as a unity composed of parts (mele). In the above line, he directs his attention back to Corinth ("But you ..."). However, instead of simply saying mele again (which is all he needed if his metaphorical "one body of many parts" referred only to Corinth), he breaks these parts down even further: mele ek merous/pieces of pieces parts of parts.



On what do you base this? A few years after the crucifixion, Paul at least was going around establishing communities of followers of Jesus. In his own letters, he not only speaks of heirachical structure within such assemblies, but division and heirarchy superordinate to them (e.g., the authority of Peter and James). The whole notion of the 12, which exists even in Paul, is heirarchical and part of communal structure and organization. Based on what evidence do you assert that such concerns could not have existed at this point?

aa5874

Your Speculation is not critical analysis

Now, I did state that that there are two conditions to show that a passage was intrepolated.

1. Show that the author could NOT have written the supposed interpolated passage.

2. Show an un-interpolated passage.

You have failed to show that 1 Cor. 15 could NOT have been written by the Pauline writer and have failed to show the un-interpolated passage.

Again, I have shown that based on the information available in gJohn, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters that it cannot be expected that the author who claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old could have known those writings.

You have claimed Irenaeus wrote obvious lies. There would be no advantage or benefit for Irenaeus to have blatantly lied. "Against Heresies" was manipulated to give the false impression that Irenaeus was aware of four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters when he was NOT.

You make claims of interpolation of 1 Cor. 15 because passages are NOT compatible with what you have Speculated.

Please show that the Pauline writer could NOT have written 1 Cor.15 when he was persecutor of the Faith that he preached.

Duvduv

Based on the storyline in Galatians, what communities would be all over Judea called churches at the time he was in Jerusalem? And where are the churches established in the locations elsewhere? And doesn't the author tell us where Paul was persecuting at this early date? And I think you can assume that the author of Galatians didn't know of a historical Jesus.