gurugeorge

I think I know what they mean in "Paul"'s letters, and I think I know what they mean to later orthodoxy, and I think they meant something different originally from what they later came to mean in the orthodox interpretation.

All you are doing is simply taking for granted the orthodox interpretation of what those terms mean and working your theory around that. That's certainly a viable option.

But (unless you have a reason why the traditional, orthodox interpretation of those terms must be accepted at face value) it's also a viable option to go behind that traditional interpretation and question whether the story makes sense under different interpretations of those terms and concepts.

aa5874

What is the early or late traditional, orthodox interpretation of the words "before" and "last".

Galations 1.17 1 Corinthians 15.8-9

gurugeorge

Who were "before"; and Paul was "last" in relation to whom?

That these "apostles" were people who eyeballed a human Jesus is one (i.e. the orthodox) way of looking at what "Paul" says. But it's not the only way.

LogicandReason

Again you trot out some great points and over this exchange I am forced to reexamine my bias. I did some research over the weekend and about the only place I can tie "Paul" to history is II Corinthians 11:32 and the tie to King Aretas who died in 40 C.E. But that reference could be written any time in history after the fact.

Above, someone posited that Marcion or his followers created Paul. Likely? That seems unlikely because Ignatius claims to be a "Follower of blessed Paul" in his letter to the Ephesians. Some of Ignatius' writings even closely resemble letters of the original letter writer.

I suppose that the myth grew larger and wider from location to location and redactors wrote or added to other writings that morphed into the NT. Do you think these people were openly creating deception? I'm not sure a "believer" can try to deceive. What does your imaginary time line look like?

dog-on

Iggy is a later forgery...

show_no_mercy

Marcion could have forged some of the epistles - I mean there are around 10 in his version of the NT and I'm not sure which ones out of those ten were known before Marcion's NT and which ones weren't. From what I've read, most scholars say that there are two distinct groups of letters that look like they were written by two different people. Maybe one was "Paul" and the other was Marcion.

And then there's the existence of the "Pastoral Epistles" 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus that are regarded as pseudepigraphical. Who knows who wrote those.

And then there's 3 Corinthians...

aa5874

2 Corinthians 11.32 does not really tie "Paul" to history, it is just a claim that may be false. That claim must now be examined externally of the letter writers.

But, there is no external credible source that wrote about the letter writers during the time of Aretas.


But, the letter writers called Paul are supposed to have written their letters of the churches about 100 years before Marcion. And the letters of Ignatius are suspect. The conditions under which they were written appear to be completely implasusible.

It is claimed that Ignatius was condemned to die for being a christian and was a sent as a prisoner under guard to Rome, yet Ignatius, possibly with hands and feet bound, was supplied with paper, ink and pen and was able to write and distribute letters propagating the very same CRIME for which he was condemned to die.

Who bought or brought the ink, paper and pen?

Well, there is a model for how religions can be started. There is Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

It would appear that all a religion needs to get started are just believers. A person makes some claim about some unknown entity God and people believe. Voila, a new religion.

I think someone made some claim about some previously unknown character called Jesus as the son of the God of the Jews, possibly after the writings of Josephus, and people started to believe the stories.

There is just no historical support for Jesus or the letter writers called Paul in the 1st century from any credible non-apologetic source. No churches, no followers, no influence, no sightings, no writings, of Jesus or the letter writers called Paul.

LogicandReason

As crazy as that sounds, with a church on every corner here in TX, that might be all that happened. In your opinion, where did the rumor start and who started it? I personally think that making Judaism universal and accessible to non-Jews, as the Jews had a very systematic and historical epic with synagogues (and the support they contained) was the primary reason for Christianity's success. But it's original appeal may also have been the apocalyptic language in the ears of the oppressed. Shermer said that the same reasons helped for the "Ghost Dance" of the American Indians and the "Cargo Cults" of the Pacific.

aa5874

The success of Jesus believers had nothing primarily to do with Judaism, it was Constantine. Jesus believers were regarded as cannibals and atheists. They were persecuted and prosecuted just for their belief in Jesus. It was Constantine that saved them.

Neither Jesus or the revelations of Paul had any real POWER, Constantine had the REAL power and authority to save people from their SINS (breaking the law).

LogicandReason

I would argue much the same.

In conclusion, it doesn't really matter when the NT was written, redacted, interpolated or created - Constantine bares the most responsibility for its survival and power kept Christianity in the driver's seat until the reformation and the Enlightenment.