DCHindley

I was reacting to JP2's statement that "'slavery' is a common Pauline epithet denoting bondage to the Law. The Hagar / Sarah story was plainly an allegory (in Paul's own words) for the distinction between the unbelieving Jews (who remain bound to the law) and those who had accepted Christ's sacrifice as a means of escaping that bondage."

Per Nanos (who is himself Jewish):

As I read the evidence, Paul did not teach a so-called "Torah-free Gospel," or the end of Torah. But he upheld that Christ-believing non-Jews were not to become Jews, and thus that they will never be under Torah in the same way that Jews, such as Paul himself, were, and remained. Paul observed Torah as a matter of faith, as incumbent upon himself as a faithful Jewish believer in Christ. He also affirmed Torah unambiguously, proclaiming that the good news in Christ "established" it (Rom 3:31); he went so far as to declare the Torah "spiritual" (7:14). At issue in his rhetoric, written to non-Jews, was how they were to become members of Judaism, of the communal life of the people of God, without becoming members of Israel, without becoming Jews. They thus remained without the "advantages" Torah offered (3:1-2; 9:4-5), but also without the responsibility to "fully" observe Torah in the same ways that he, and other Christ-believing Jews, retained (1 Cor 7:17-24; Gal 5:3).

I never meant to suggest that he endorses or proposes a solution such as mine for the 2 women allegory in Gal 4. Nanos approaches Christian scripture as a "respectful guest" and has adopted a socio-rhetorical approach to understanding what is contained in them. For Nanos, switching between different argumentative approaches reflects Paul's rhetorical technique. To me, this represents a plurality of authorship.

DCH

aa5874

The Pauline writing are anachronistic

When one examines the Canon it is extremely clear that the authors of the Synoptic show that they were not aware of the Pauline writings.

The following can be easily found to be true.

So, if we apply a similar analysis to the "Synoptic Problem" with respect to the Pauline writings, it can be easily demonstrated that the Synoptics contain virtually ZERO percentage of the Pauline writings.

It can be said that gMatthew and gLuke contains virtually of all or a very high percent of gMark but it cannot be said that any of the Synoptic writer contain any material of substance that must be or is very likely to be from the Pauline writer.

The abundance of evidence therefore suggests that the Synoptic authors were unaware of the Pauline writer.

Now, the Pauline writer used the word Jesus hundreds of time as the name of the entity that was raised from the dead, and he claimed Jesus told him about events that happened on the night he was betrayed.

But where did Paul get the name Jesus from?

Paul's audience must have known about Jesus because the Pauline writings tell us very very little and the Pauline writer seemed not interested in the earthly life of Jesus.

Surely if Paul had converts they would like to know about Jesus.

The Pauline writings can hardly answer any of those basic questions but The Synoptics can answer rather easily.

But the Pauline writer DOES NOT NEED to answer any questions about Jesus because the Synoptics were already written. The Pauline writer just had to concentrate on or write about his so-called revelations from his Jesus from heaven.

If the Pauline audience wanted to know what Jesus did on earth before he ascended through the clouds, they would simply consult the Synoptics.

If the Pauline audience wanted to know what happened after ascension they would read the Pauline writings.

The Church writer Eusebius claimed Paul was aware of gLuke and there is a passage ONLY found in gLuke that is found in the Pauline writings.

So, again if there were no Synoptics when Paul wrote about Jesus his writings would not be able to answer any basic question about the actual life of Jesus.

Some source must have pre-dated the Pauline writings.

Paul claimed he received information from Jesus but the Jesus stories were written after the Fall of the Temple. The Church claimed Paul died before the Fall of the Temple.

Paul was aware of the Jesus story.

Paul's audience must have been aware of the Jesus to understand the Pauline writings.

Paul was alive after the Fall of the Temple.

Paul got the name Jesus after the Fall of the Temple.

The entire Romans is anachronistic.

Ro 1:1 - The entire of 1&2 Corinthians are anachronistic.
1Co 1:1 - The entire of Galatians is anachronistic.

Ga 1:1 - The entire of Ephesians is anachronistic.

Eph 1:1 - The entire of Philippians is anachronistic.

Php 1:1 - The entire of Colossians is anachronistic.

Col 1:1 - The entire of Thessalonians is anachronistic.

1Th 1:1 - The Jesus character was developed after the Fall of the Temple and the Church writers claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

All the Pauline writings are anachronistic since he used the name Jesus Christ, a post 70 CE entity fabricated after he was supposed to be dead.

avi

Thanks for your candor.

I believe there is a problem on this forum.

The ideas of some contributors, particularly those of aa5874, tend to be ignored, or discounted, not because of their intellectual content, but because of the method of expression.

aa5874 is clearly not a native speaker of English, yet, his command of the language is superb, in my humble opinion. Nevertheless, some native speakers are put off, on encountering spelling errors, {plagiarism!!}, or "excessive" amount of bold text, capital letters, etc. As a result, some of aa5874's contributions are overlooked, when his message is often very instructive, and filled with insightful examples and appropriate commentary.

Perhaps it will be easier, for all participants, in such a setting, to construct a chart, rather than elaborate various points in English.

Here's an idea for a skeleton outline of a chart for this particular thread. Note please, that the numbers, listed in the column labeled "significance", could be of any quantity. At the end of the chart, these numbers could then be elaborated, to indicate, by way of example, that Marcion's text no longer exists, but is described by several critics, notably Tertullian, and Irenaeus. Another example, could be, to elaborate the idea that Marcion plagiarized Empedocles.

factor/event..............author.......ostensible date of origin........significance

epistles of Paul...........?...............mid second century..............(1,2,3)

Luke.........................?...............early second century............(4,5)

Apostolikon................Marcion......mid second century...............(6,7,8)

Anti-Heresies.............Hippolytus...early third century................(9,10)

Adv. Marcionem..........Tertullian....early third century................(11,12)

Anti-Marcion.............Justin Martyr..mid second century.............(13,14,15)

Notes/Significance:
1...
2...

etc...

The goal of such a chart would be to offer evidence in support of the conclusions offered by aa5874, including, but not limited to, his opinion that the writings attributed to "Paul" originate from the mid second century, after the third conflict of the Jews with Rome.

It is always difficult to explain novel ideas, particularly when those concepts contradict prevailing notions.

Most folks on this forum, including Toto, I suppose, and most scholars, agree, that Paul's writings date from the first century. To me, the single most important contribution of aa5874's writing on this thread is to offer evidence in support of his conclusion, that the original date of Paul's letters, that is, the date when they first appeared as ink on a sheet of papyrus, was second century, not first.

avi

aa5874

Toto understands exactly what I post. It is because of Toto why I repeat and bold my post to avoid any claims of mis-understanding.

Actually it is the other way. People appear to be terrified to discuss my ideas because they appear to be solidly supported with evidence and cannot be easily contradicted.

That is why I make myself absolutely clear by using repetition, and bold text so that no-one can claim they do not understand my position.

Clearly you understand what I post. It must be that everyone else does.

I have proven on numerous occasions that my posts are perfectly understood because when it is believed I have made some error people who claim not to understand me suddenly begin to post trying, unsuccessfully, to counter my supposed error.

Now, the Pauline writings are anachronistic.

This is extremely clear.

The authors of gMark and gMatthew did not appear to acquire one single detail about Jesus and the disciples from the Pauline writings.

We can go through gMark and Pauline Epistles chapter by chapter, verse by verse, line by line and theme by theme and we will come up virtually empty-handed.

It is clear that gMark's Jesus did not know about the Pauline Jesus.

The Jesus in gMark came to SPECIFICALLY warn the Jews about the destruction of Jerusalem, the Fall of the Temple, and that the world as it was known then would SHORTLY be coming to an END.

The Jesus is gMark has an extremely simply message. "Believe in me, Repent, and you will be saved when I come back. People will soon see me coming in the clouds".

The author of gMark is simply proposing that the world as it was known is finished.

The author of gMark placed his Jesus long before the Fall of the Temple and warning his disciples that certain tribulations will soon occur.

This verse in gMark clearly shows that the Markan Jesus came to warn the Jews about some SEVERE destruction of non-believing Jews. This is what Jesus told his disciples.

Mr 6:11 - Now, the Pauline writer claimed in Romans 11 that "Severity fell on the Jews". The abundance of evidence isCLEARLY showing that the entire theme of the Pauline writings of Universal SALVATION through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus post-date the simply theme of gMark to ONLY the Jews of REPENT or be DESTROYED.

The Pauline theme of UNIVERSAL SALVATION is compatible with the later gJohn where these words can be found but nowhere in the Synoptics.

Joh 3:16 - And now the Pauline writer

Ga 2:20 - And the Markan author.

Mr 8:38 - It would appear that the Markan Jesus died for no-one but that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, that is, Destruction of the Jews because of rejection.

Universal Salvation is a late theme in the Canon and the Pauline writer wrote almost exclusively about "UNIVERSAL salvation".


The Pauline writings are anachronistic since virtually every single marker for an early Paul is completely missing.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

There are those who propagate that the Pauline writings are the earliest and that the author of gMark used the Pauline writings yet cannot show that gMark used a single verse, passage or theme found in the Pauline writings.

Examine the Synoptics.

In gMark the author claimed Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would fall and that afterward this very Jesus would be coming back in the clouds.

It is extremely critical and very significant that the chronology of the events be taken into account.

The Temple would first fall and then the SECOND coming.

All the Synoptics maintain that chronology of the predicted events.

The author of gMark dedicated an entire chapter [ch 13] for the precise chronology---Fall of the Temple>>>>Second Coming.

See Mark 13.26

The author of gMatthew devoted two chapters [ch. 24-25] for the same order--- Fall of the Temple>>>>Second coming.

See Matthew 24.30.

The author of gLuke used a whole chapter [ch 21] to confirm the chronology again--
Fall of the Temple >>>>Second coming.

See Luke 21.27

Now examine the writings under the name Paul.

There is a startling revelation.

It was NOT revealed to the Pauline writers that the Jewish Temple would fall.

There is Not a single revelation from Jesus, NOT a single verse, nay even a word about the Fall of the Jewish Temple in the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer appears to have ALREADY passed the first stage of the prediction, the Fall of the Temple, and now Jesus from heaven would reveal to the Pauline writer ONLY the Second Coming.

There is NOT single verse in all the Pauline writings where the writer WARNED a single Jew or REVEALED to a single Gentile that the Temple would Fall.

ONLY the SECOND COMING was revealed to the Pauline writer and the authors of the Synoptics did not even use the information REVEALED to Paul from Jesus about the Second Coming.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 - 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 - Jesus from heaven did not REVEAL to the Pauline writers about the the Fall of the Temple probably the most significant disastrous calamity in Jewish history in the first century where hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and some eventually starved to death.

ONLY the Second Coming.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Jesus in heaven spoke to the Pauline writer very long after phase one, the Fall of the Jewish Temple, had passed.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

In the NT, the Pauline writer wrote about the Second coming of his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This writer claimed that the dead in Christ shall rise first and shall meet the Lord in the sky.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 But, Paul's description of the Second Coming is not like what is found in [B]REVELATION by John.

Some writer called John had revelations from some entity called Jesus, and this is found in Revelation 22.1-4

So Jesus spoke to John and showed him the NEW Jerusalem with the NEW heaven and NEW earth and those who are saved will live with God, NOT in the AIR as Paul claimed, but in the New Jerusalem in the New heaven and earth which will come DOWN from heaven.

The Pauline writer has it in reverse.

He claimed the dead in Christ and those alive will meet Jesus in the AIR and be with Jesus in the AIR forever.

Again, we have major contradictions even among apologetic sources.

John claims those who are saved wil live on the new earth in the New Jerusalem and the Pauline writer claims those who [b] saved will always be in the AIR with the Lord.

John's Revelation about the New Jerusalem and the New earth is directly related to the failed prophecy in the Synoptics about the Seond coming which should have occurred very shortly after the Fall of the Temple.

The Pauline version of the Second Coming of Jesus is after the NEW Jerusalem and the New heaven and earth failed to materialise.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

The Paulinwe writings are anachronistic.

Once the Pauline writings are examined with the NT and Curch writings it will be easily recognised that they did not pre-date the Synoptics or even Revelation by John, they are all late writings compatible with Acts of the Apostles.

Apologetic sources place Saul/Paul after the resurrection, ascension and the day of Pentecost when the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost and talked in tongues.

These events are all fiction or fundamentally implausible, yet Paul's history is directly dependent upon fictional events.

The conversion of Paul as found in the Acts of the Apostles is fiction, yet Paul's conversion is directly dependent of this blinding bright light event. No other apostle in the Canon was converted by a blinding bright light.

No author of the Synoptic used any revelation from the Pauline writer.

The Pauline Jesus revealed that the dead in Christ and those alive would meet Jesus in the AIR, but it was the other way from Jesus in John, it was the New Jerusalem that would come DOWN to the new heaven and earth.

No author of the Synoptics used any peculiar details from the Pauline revelations.

The Synoptics have clearly demonstrated that the earliest material available were compatible or very similar to first Gospels and that the Pauline writings, doctrine, and churches were unknown when gMark, and gMatthew were written.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

In Romans 13 these words are found:

Romans 13:1-3 - But Origen in "Against Celsus" contradicted the Pauline writer. The laws of the power must be resisted when they are are contrary to the beliefs of Christians. And there are powers that are of the DEVIL

"Against Celsus" 1.1 So based on Origen,in the 3rd century, the Roman Power or government was making laws of the Devil which they had to oppose or contravene, however there came a time when the Roman Power or government was supposedly "ordained of God" and that was the 4th century under Constantine.

Romans 13. 1-3 makes a lot of sense or is compatible to the 4th century Roman Power under Constantine with their new GOD Jesus, and Origen's "Against Celsus"1.1 is applicable to the Roman Power before Constantine when the Roman Power was believed to be controlled by the Devil or non-Jesus Gods.

In the 1st century there is no historical source that can show that the Roman Power was controlled by the God of the Jews or his SON JESUS CHRIST as Romans 13.1-3 implied. The Roman Power was under the control of the GODS of ROME, the Emperors themselves and their Mythical Gods.

The MYTHICAL GODS ordained the ROMAN Power up to the 4th century.

Romans 1.1-3 is ANACHRONISTIC, the Magi disobeyed the ROMAN POWER so that the baby Jesus could live according to the author of gMatthew. The Roman Power was not of the GOD of the baby JESUS.

The Jews, in Josephus and Philo's writings, disobeyed the Roman Power and did not worship the Emperors as Gods because the Roman Power was not of the GOD of the JEWS, not of the GOD OF PAUL.

During the 1st century, the Roman Power was NOT ordained by the God of the Jews,[B]NOT ORDAINED by the God of Paul, and NOT ORDAINED by JESUS CHRIST.

IT was in the 4th century that the Roman Power was ORDAINED by GOD, Jesus Christ and the GOD of PAUL.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Deus Ex

When do you propose that the Pauline letters were written?

Did not Marcion have a collection of Paul's letters in the second century?

aa5874

After examining the PAULINE writings as found in the KJV it would appear to me that the Pauline writings were written wholly or in part after the writings of Justin Martyr and that all the Pauline writings were written after the Jesus story as found in the Synoptics based on the evidence I have seen so far.

Now, based on the information provided by Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies",and Origen in "Against Celsus", it would appear to me that Marcion did not manipulate any Pauline writings.

The most fundamental indicator that an author is aware of another's writings is the use of similar phrases or word-for-word copying.

It can be easily seen that the authors of the Pauline writings and the Synoptics were aware of Hebrew scripture or the Septuagint since we have similar phrases or word-for-word copying.

But, this most fundamental indicator that the Synoptic authors were aware of the Pauline writings is missing. The Synoptic Jesus was constructed without any details found ONLY in the Pauline writings.