LogicandReason

Though many Christian apologist want to paint the picture that Paul knew of HJ, he clearly, unambiguously states that he is not teaching any Gospel that is of 'man'...but a revelation of Jesus (a vision). He quickly (verse 18) reveals his meetings with Peter, James and John. He never explains why he is not teaching what these men learned directly from a living Jesus.

If any of the above three were followers of HJ, Paul never reveals it in his writing. He admits they came first (were teaching Christianity before him) but insinuates his message (Gospel) is directly revealed to him by the spirit of the risen Jesus (trumping what he may or may not have learned in Jerusalem). This infers that theirs is not. He even challenges Peter directly in 2:11. I posit that Paul only went to Jerusalem to buy a franchise from some of the founders (he is told to help take care of the poor in Jerusalem...in other words, send them their cut).

If people of that time thought that Peter, James and John were actually followers of HJ, how could Paul's statement in Gal 1:11-12 be taken seriously?

I posit all Christians of Paul's period thought of Jesus as a revealed Redeemer and not a recently executed man. Would the Romans or Jewish authority have allowed a following of an executed rebel to even exist in Jerusalem (read Josephus to determine the answer)? The Gospel writers, borrowing from Paul, insert Peter, James and John into their story about the oral history of Jesus...that simple.

aa5874

But, you cannot ignore other passages that clearly show that the letter writer claimed Jesus was on earth. You must take all information available not only Galations 1.11-12.

For example 1Corinthians 15 clearly shows that the letter writer wrote that Jesus was on earth. And, if Peter was also preaching about Jesus, for Paul knew Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days, was Peter preaching about a physical Jesus while Paul was preaching about a heavenly Jesus?

But, in any event, the skeptics and pagans of antiquity would have known that Jesus did not exist, too, not only Paul.

And for the Gospels writers to claim or fabricate stories that Jesus existed when Paul had started churches with a Spiritual Jesus would have made matters far worse, these story writers would have been immediately recognised as liars and frauds by people of antiquity.

The simple solution is that there was no historical Paul in the first century before the death of Nero, as depicted in the NT.

This simply solution solves all your problems.

LogicandReason

Other references such as Gal 4:4 (born of woman) and Rom 3:1 (descended from David) are all ambiguous to the WHEN and WHERE HJ lived and died. Christians often espouse the syllogism that since Paul says Jesus is born of woman that Jesus must be a historical figure. Really? Hercules was also born of woman (in the myth...the result of his cheating dad Zeus). In fact, all humans are born of woman. Paul never writes a single line that ties HJ to a Gospel story (because the latter written Gospels were constructed from an oral tradition that included kerygma from Paul and not the inverse).

This passage creates more questions than answers. First, un-Pauline phraseology has caused more than one scholar to question if he is simply reciting a known hymn or Christology. If 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus, how does that story not make the Gospels? And that Jesus was risen, not HJ. There are other historical errors which clearly show that Paul does not know about the death of Judas (or who Judas is for that matter). He refers to Peter as being separate from 'The Twelve.' So while Paul clearly preaches a story about a Redeemer who was once on earth, there is zero to tie this Redeemer to a recently crucified man in Jerusalem.

I'm not suggesting that anyone of that time period 'knew' Jesus did not exist...it is hard to say how critical people thought about such claims with the level of superstition, ignorance, and illiteracy.

Again, Paul was preaching a Savior who had come to earth as part of an existing oral tradition. Paul's frequent admonishments against rival sophist (itinerants) suggest that there were many versions of the story. When communities, such as the Markan community, finally attempted to record these oral traditions the author framed the history into the time of Herod, John the Baptizer, and Pilate (all very well known). The variance between the Synoptics and further 'John' well demonstrate how each community had different oral traditions.

That is certainly possible. So who created Paul? Why not have Paul parrot the Gospels (as the author of Luke attempts in Acts)?

aa5874

So, wherever people of antiquity are claimed to be born of a woman then it is likely that there were born like Hercules? The church writers have already clarified the matter, Jesus is the offspring of a virgin and the Holy Ghost.

Now, what was Peter preaching when the letter writer met him in Jerusalem and stayed with him for fifteen days?

There is Zero information available to support your theory that the gospel stories were derived from the letter writer called Paul, when the canonised Acts of the Apostles clearly place Saul/Paul after the stoning of Stephen and the church writer claimed it was said that the letter writer was familiar with the gospel of Luke.

What source of antiquity supports your theory?



The 500 people that saw Jesus would be consistent with the Gospels that claim Jesus really did resurrect.

The once dead Jesus can reveal things to the letter writer that no other person would have known, and further some of the 500 were still alive when the letter writer wrote.

There must have been some level of critical thinking.

The letter writer claimed his gospel was referred to as stupidity by the Greeks.

Again, what version or variance of the gospel was Peter preaching when the letter writer suposedly met him in Jeusalem?

And did the letter writer changed his version when he was in Jerusalem?

Look at 1Corinthians 9.20
Those who claimed that ALL the Pauline Epistles were genuine, including Hebrews, know the letter writers.

It would appear that that there was a massive gap, a blackhole after the supposed ascension of Jesus and the fall of the Temple, and it would seem Acts of the Apostles and Saul/Paul was created to fill that blackhole.

The letter writer's revelations from the once dead Jesus are fundamentally doctrinal.

LogicandReason

I stated that the claim of the early church that Jesus was born of woman was no more verifiable than the myth of Hercule's birth. The syllogism that claims being born by a woman is a historical proof is nonsense.

And Mr Ed the horse can speak English.

Lacking complete lack of historical evidence of a man named Peter (outside the NY) and further lacking any sermons of this supposed man, an answer to that question is mere speculation. Show me any historical evidence linking the Peter to teachings about a recently executed man named Jesus. The Peter epistles have the same cosmic Jesus descriptions as the letter writers.

I suggested that the Gospel writers probably knew of Paul through oral tradition...or the oral tradition attributed to a letter writer identified as Paul. There is no extant evidence of anyone from the time period of 50 - 70 CE writing about a man recently crucified.

Another way to state this historically would be, 'When the polemical book called 'Act of the Apostles' was created to harmonize competing factions of the 2nd century Christians, it's author writes a story about one non-historically documented man named Paul as an antagonist at a non-historically documented event which describes the stoning of a non-historic martyr whom the author called Stephen.' This story only appears in the NT and is speculation...evidence of nothing.

The utter lack of any extant references to HJ before the Gospels.

What part of resurrection stories are not myths?

Or the letter writer is trying to sell himself as a real sophist...not just another fake.

He says this in reference to both the Jews and Greeks rejecting the crucifixion/resurrection. I posit the critical thinkers of the 1st and 2nd centuries were not busy contemplating the validity claims of just another sectarian cult. If they did they chose not to publish on the matter.

We can't even prove Peter existed...though I would put my money on the fact that a 'Peter' was just another sophist who was part of a group in Jerusalem.

[QUOTE=aa5874;5718754] And did the letter writer changed his version when he was in Jerusalem?

Look at 1Corinthians 9.20Far be it that a sophist would do or say anything in pursuit of his deception.

I agree that is a very strong possibility.

And lack any knowledge of HJ.

show_no_mercy

There was a massive war from 66 - 72 in Jerusalem; the gospels were written either during or after this war. Which means that the people in antiquity would more than likely be dead.

spin

What makes you think they were written during that war and not the Bar Kochba revolt?


spin

show_no_mercy

Either way, anyone who could have been a witness to a physical Jesus was conveniently dead by the time the gospels were written.

LogicandReason

And of course the larger question here is why, after a full generation had passed since the reported death/resurrection of HJ did anyone decide to write the oral traditions into a history? I posit that rival communities, arguing points of theology, penned the Gospels to support the beliefs of the various communities...thus the many contradictions.

A case in point, the two totally different Genealogies of Matthew and Luke...what do you want to bet the the people cited in each represent people connected historically to the community of each Gospel?

LogicandReason

I wanted to revisit this comment...this is the same Acts of the Apostles that tells us a chapter later (9) that Paul goes to the Jewish High Priest to gain permission to go to Damascus to arrest Christians...since when does a Jewish High Priest have the authority to send people into Syria to arrest people? Thus we further evaluate the historical value of 'Acts.' Acts also wants us to believe that 'Paul' was Jerusalem centered and Galatians tells a story of 'Paul' (post-conversion) who was everywhere but Jerusalem. Now if Paul were working for the High Priest in Jerusalem, converted on the way to Damascus, and did not visit Jerusalem again for 3 years...then 14 years later...don't you think someone from the High Priest's office would have noticed him missing? Paul never mentions this in his own letters...he only states that he persecuted Christians. There is nothing in Paul's own writings to infer he was working at one time out of Jerusalem.

Secondly, where does Paul quote 'Luke?' Who is the 'church writer?' The Marcion heresy seems to suggest that 'Paul' was a community that was antisemitic (Marcion certainly was). We never see the Gospels in 'Paul's' writings. The Gospels are a further level of development of the Jesus cult designed to settle disputes by placing dogmatic statements into Jesus' mouth.