Duvduv

The Son of Man was a different theological concept than the Son of God divine being. The Son of Man would presumably be the Jewish messiah, although this is not explicit in GMark. But in any case there is no "received evidence" that the epistles came AFTER GMark and eliminated the concept. It's your inference which could just as easily be argued differently.

aa5874

Well, if the Son of man was a Jewish concept, then it predates the Pauline Revealed Son of God concept.

The Son of man concept is found in the book of Daniel in Hebrew Scripture.

And further, The Pauline writer persecuted those who believed, preached and taught stories of Jesus.

Apologetic sources as late as the mid 2nd century called Jesus the Son of Man but did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline writings.

This suggests gMark's Son of man concept predates the Pauline Revealed Son of God concept based on the Preponderance of evidence.

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings are the earliest source because they contain almost nothing about the Life of Jesus is wholly flawed and not logical at all.

The Pauline writer claimed he Persecuted the Church of God. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15.


1 Corinthians 15:9 KJV--- I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13 KJV---I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.

What is the meaning of 'PERSECUTION' in English??

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, caste system and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms.

The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution.


Essentially the Pauline writer Admitted or implied that he was systematically Harrassing, inflicting pain, imprisonment and Ill-treating people for their Religious Beliefs.

This is most significant.

The Pauline writer KNEW the BELIEFS of those he persecuted.

The Pauline writer should be able to IDENTIFY those whom he will Harrass.


There are two fundamental ways that Paul could have known of the Jesus story.

1. Paul could have been a personal witness of Jesus.

2. Paul could have heard stories of Jesus either orally and/or in writing.

Whatever the means Paul should KNOW the story of Jesus in order to Harrass and inflict pain and suffering on the Jesus cult.

The Pauline writer did NOT claim he was a personal witness of Jesus before the resurrection.

Effectively, the Jesus story Must PREDATE the Pauline Persecutions whether not Jesus did exist.

Paul claimed:

1. Jesus was God's own Son.

2. Jesus was made of a woman.

3. Jesus was delivered up in the Night after he supped.

4. Jesus told his disciples to carry out the ritual of the Eucharist.

5. Jesus was crucified.

6. Jesus died for our sins and resurrected on the Third day.

7. The resurrected Jesus Visited the disciples, the Apostles, Cephas, James and over 500 people.

8. Jesus Loved us by Giving up his life and shedding his blood as a Sacrifice.

The Pauline writer knows a Jesus story that is after the short gMark.

The gMark story contains:

1. No post resurrection visits by Jesus of the Apostles and disciple

2. No claim that Jesus died for Remission of Sins.

3. No command to carry out the Ritual of the Eucharist.

The crucifixion in the short gMark is NOT a love story of Sacrifice as claimed by the Pauline writings and the Later gJohn.

Galatians 2:20 KJVJohn 3:16 KJV The Pauline writer must or should have known the Beliefs of those he Persecuted and based on the very Pauline writings he knew a story of Jesus that was LATER than the Canonised short gMark.

Duvduv

Doesn't the very fact that neither the author of Galatians nor the author Acts could disclose anything about what Paul knew of what the persecuted Christians actually believed tell you something? Why do those authors leave it to the reader's imagination, especially since Paul was to have such unique and special knowledge about the christ?
Of course the same authors never even bother to explain the detailed contents of the unique teachings either, and leave that also to the reader's imagination.

Duvduv

For that matter, it could be argued that differences between Galatians and Acts could be accounted for if the Galatians version relied on a version of the Paul story different from that of Acts. And what if both the epistles and Acts preceded any of the gospels, relying on unwritten stories that later got integrated into gospels?

Thus the reason the author of Galatians didn't mention the Saul story or other elements found in Acts was because the author DIDN'T KNOW about them in his version of Paul. And of course the author of Acts didn't know about any epistles according to his version of the Paul story.

Different original unwritten sources would obviously also account for the fact that the epistles integrated certain elements of the gospels and not others.

This would also explain why the neither the epistles nor Acts could describe the nature of the Christian beliefs among the predecessors of Paul. After all, no knowledge of the Christ, even those who ostensibly knew him in the flesh could compete with the greatness of Paul's revelation, so what was the point of associating with them or even giving them legitimacy - unless there were different versions of the Paul stories that developed and even got mixed up.

Duvduv

Similarly, the authors of the synoptics and of the epistles did not know of the notion of the Logos/Word idea in relation to the Christ or at least did not accept it as found among the apologists.

Isn't it even interesting that the Nicaean Creed describes Christ as "light from light" but not "Word/Logos"? Only creeds making reference to GJohn introduce that.

Sheshbazzar

Is the Pauline writer known to be a credible and trustworthy source?

Why should we believe anything the Pauline writers invented?

When you introduce "could have's", other 'could haves' must also be allowed for;

3. 'Paul' could have been an earlier Jewish writer [whose writings were redacted and expanded.]
Something that is virtually assured did happen to these writings. There are entire books of 'Pauline writings' that no 1st century 'Paul' ever saw or wrote a single line of.
(bracketing supplied to indicate that the writings referred to, even if not originating with a real 1st century 'Paul', were nonetheless heavily redacted and expanded on through latter church forgeries)

4. The original short 'Pauline' wholly theological epistles (no flesh and blood 'historical' Jesus story, only a 'cosmic Christ' figure) could have been written and distributed in the early 2nd century CE.
soon followed up by the production of the 'Gospel' myth, the 'Pauline' writings then being heavily redacted to incorporate and to appear to support an invented 'gospel' 'Church history' and a 'flesh and blood' earth dwelling 'historical' Jesus.

And for the emerging catholic Church -MOST IMPORTANTLY-, the inclusion of the all important 'historical Apostolic witnesses' needed to establish its claims to being that 'historic' church founded on earth by 'Christ' and his 'Apostles'.
These absolutely HAD to become 'historical' figures of 'history' to give support to the Church's claims to exclusive authority.

In this 'could have' scenario, the Jewish promised 'Messiah' story meets up with the Greek philosophical cosmic Logos 'Christ' story, gets married, and soon gives birth to the baby Jesus story, the Apostles, a Church 'history' and The 'Historic' and Catholic Church with all of its bogus and outlandish claims.

aa5874

Your statements are absurd. The very book called Acts of the Apostles described the Beliefs of the supposed early Jesus cult on the Day of Pentecost, the day the alleged Jesus cult began.

See Acts 2.14-41--About 3000 people were converted AFTER the supposed very First Public Sermon by Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

1. In Acts 2.38 it is claimed the people Must Repent and be BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus for REMISSION of Sins.

Acts 2:38 KJV Acts 2:41 KJV2. Also, in Acts there are details of the Persecution of Saul/Paul. He was involved or had approved the Killing of Stephen, the supposed First Martyr of the Jesus cult and created Havoc in the Church by a House to House campaign which led to imprisonment of men and women.

Saul/Paul wanted to SLAUGHTER the disciples of the Jesus cult.

Acts 7:57-58 KJV Acts 8:3 KJV Acts 9.1 KJV 3. Saul/Paul preached Salvation through Baptism in the name of Jesus in Acts with details of his Beliefs in chapter 13.17-41, 17.22-32 and 19.2-6

Acts 19 KJV Now, in Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul did NOT write any Epistles to Churches up to the time of Festus, c 59-62 CE, the procurator of Judea.

Based on Acts, the Jesus story was already known by Saul/Paul when he was a Persecutor and Saul/Paul could Identify those who preached, taught and believed the stories of Jesus since he personally had them imprisonned and even Killed.

The Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline letters based on the preponderance of evidence.

Sheshbazzar

When you buy the church's invented 'history'.

That is what they want the gullible to believe.

There was no 'Jesus Christ' nor any apostles, or any 'apostolic church' in the 1st century or before 70 CE, or likely before 130 CE.

Paul didn't know of any baby Jebus, never even heard of any baby Jebus.
Baby Jebus only got born after the Jewish Messiah and the Logos of Paul met, tangled, got married and gave birth to baby Jebus.

Duvduv

AA, do you have anything else besides a couple of one-liners from Acts?
The fact is that in neither Galatians nor Acts do we even see a detailed description of what the unprivileged or underprivileged (because they weren't as lucky as "Paul") Christians who were said to have known the so-called HJ even believed about the whole Christ business.........