outhouse

But tekton was used differently for different generations, and in this case its known to mean handworker.

http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecoll...s-a-carpenter/

Now, tekton could refer to a carpenter or a stonemason, but the word simply refers to “one who works with his hands.” If someone wants to describe a carpenter, the phrase they’d use would be “a tekton of wood;” if a mason, then “a tekton of stone.” The absence of either stone or wood as a modifier indicates that the gospel writers didn’t specify which occupation Jesus and his father were engaged in. Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55 simply say that they worked with their hands—they were laborers who performed physically demanding and socially shameful jobs.

Grog

??

Are you saying that was why the Church would make up the notion that Marcion had a collection of works?

I understand who Marcion is, have read a great deal about him and his influence on the development of Christianity. I especially feel indebted for my own developing ideas on J.B. Tyson's book, Marcion and the Acts of the Apostles.

I am trying to clarify what this argument is regarding Marcion. Maybe Marcion had no collection, I don't know or particularly care. What I want to get out there is why the Church would want to fabricate the charge that he did have a collection. I find it completely plausible that Marcion had a collection and later Christians accused him falsely of altering the documents contained therein. It is also plausible that Marcion had a collection that he did alter. I also can accept that he forged documents. I can accept all of the above in some combinations. I do not find it plausible that the Church would fabricate a charge that Marcion had a collection that he did not have or promulgate. I haven't found the sense in that.

Grog

This doesn't say anything other than what I am saying. Whether a stonemason, carpenter or other person who worked with their hands, that implies "artisan" not "peasant."

Note: I am not making an argument that Jesus was an artisan. I don't think Jesus existed at all as a person in history.

Grog

I don't have any problem with your points here.

outhouse

theres no way he would not hate romans

there was a tax war in Galilee in which 3000 were killed and 6000 sent to slavery. This could have been jesus family and friends to his parents when he was a child.

They kept him in poverty


The extreme taxation would have been terrible to bear.



and shortly after his death there was another tax war and the fall of the temple.


the tension during that time between the two was not a good thing.

outhouse

Was there a average hard working jew that did not hate the roman occupation and extreme taxation????

outhouse

baptism unique to their sect

the coming kingdom of god [which its meaning is up for debate]

Grog

I don't think, in fact, that this is fair summary. The idea of any historical analysis is to try to make the best sense of the evidence at hand. What Earl says, I think, is that the evidence doesn't make as much sense if Paul didn't exist. I tend to agree with that, but admittedly, there are paradoxes that are difficult to explain.

We all do that anytime we try to make sense of difficult to handle material. And this material is difficult to handle. It is literally a quagmire. You can get bogged down into any number of paradoxes that seemingly sink any hypothesis. That is the result of the source material that one is forced to deal with when engaging in this topic.

Bingo the Clown-O

His leading argument is that if ‘Paul’ didn’t exist then he doesn’t know how to explain early Christianity.

We don’t have to know how to explain all of early Christianity in order to know that Paul is fiction.

But apparently he thinks we do.

aa5874

Paul is NOT at all difficult to explain once Scholars stop PRESUMING the writer's veracity.

It is WHOLLY inexcusable and unacceptable that so-called Scholars would PRESUME the Pauline writer ALONE is truthful when the very same so-called Experts have discredited the Pauline Pastorals, Discredited the Only Canonized sources with supposed details of Paul [Acts of the Apostles and 2 Peter].

Even the Church discredits 2nd Peter and claimed it did NOT belong to the Canon. See Church History 3.3.1

It is mind boggling that Scholars, Experts, so-called historians fail to admit that the Pauline writings are extremely problematic and may NOT have been written as early as claimed by the Church.

It must be PUBLISHED and made known throughout the whole world that the Pauline writer did NOT ever claim he wrote his letters before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Why do Scholars make the PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writer composed his letters before c 70 CE when the very writer did NOT ever say such a thing??

Why?? Why?? Why??

Scholars appear to be creating their OWN problems.

Even the Church cannot account for Paul. The very Church does NOT know when Paul lived and how long he lived.

The very Church claim that Paul died UNDER NERO before 68 CE and also claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke now deduced to be written most likely AFTER 94 CE.

See "Church History" 3.1.2, 3.4.8 and 6.25.

It is clear that the Pauline writer is a FRAUD. He was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written--he was ALIVE after c 94 CE--the Church has inadvertently CONFESSED.

It is inexcusable that Scholars continue to claim that Paul wrote letters before c 68 CE when the Pauline writer NEVER made such a claim.