aa5874

Wasn't it the letter writers called Paul that gave you that understanding that Peter and the Jerusalem crowd came before them?

Wasn't it the letter writers called Paul that gave the understanding that Peter was preaching the gospel to the Jews before them in Jerusalem?

Are you saying the letter writers called Paul deliberately provided erroneous and mis-leading information when they claim Peter was an apostle of Jesus and was already preaching the gospel of circumcision before them?

I think the letter writers claim of revelations are erroneous, they got their revelations, not from Jesus in heaven, but from written information on earth, which includes gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

gurugeorge

But the trouble with this idea is that in the eyes of the orthodox, some punk with merely visionary experience would hardly compare, in importance, with direct lineage disciples of the cult figure himself (in fact you can see a discussion of this in the reconstruction of a lost text, the name of which I can't remember, that's been extracted from the pseudo-Clementines - a discussion between "Peter" and "Paul", or was it "Simon"? ).

The fact that one's only connection was visionary wouldn't be something to advertise as anything great, and wouldn't be something that would put one in any sort of position of authority, if there were people around who could claim to have known someone, who knew someone, who knew the Joshua Messiah himself.

So this, again, together with the "lumpiness" of there being proto-Gnostic elements in "Paul"'s letters, suggests that these aspects (proto-Gnostic elements and visionary experience) were already in the "letters" (or whatever the texts originally were) and that those elements were already so well known (by the rank and file) that they couldn't be gotten rid of.

But that, again, points to my scenario: the original link to the Joshua Messiah, via "Paul" and the original Jerusalem crowd, was scriptural/visionary, there was no other link at that time. JM was "seen" in scripture and "seen" by the enthusiasts of the cult, of which Paul was a latecomer.

The orthodox direct lineage connection back to people who knew Joshua Messiah personally is the one that was made up (later, around 120-150 CE).

neilgodfrey

Would you find it difficult to believe there is an eight-armed demon or elephant type figure on "every corner" in a far more populous Asian city, with absolutely no evidence that such a demon/elephant ever lived/lives?


Neil

neilgodfrey

This surely re-defines the meaning of "consensus". I imagine it would be more accurate to say this is a more popular/widespread or majority opinion. Surely not a consensus -- well-known figures and publications placing GMark up to 30 years earlier, and others up to many decades later, appear to attract significant attention and respect among scholarly citations, as anyone reading widely will surely know.

Neil

neilgodfrey

1. Why would "a highly educated man" ever take to the "worship of a dead man" in the first place -- especially if he had to post facto take up a challenge to justify this to peers?

2. The so-called paradox or unlikely event of a religion centering on "a crucified convict" is a tired but false dillemma put out by believers and picked up without question by way too many others who ought to know better.

The notion of the unjustly and falsely accused and condemned and suffering righteous man is a trope with a deeply embedded history throughout many religions, not least among those of the middle-east, including Judaism. Witness the Psalms and Prophets for starters. Nor is it out of place even with non-religious ethical models. Witness Socrates.

Contrary to this tediously repeated claim that "no-one would worship a condemned criminal", it is far more consistent with fact to assert that Judaism (from which Christianity mutated) and other religions (including pagan Dionysius worship) and ethical models glorify the righteous one who is falsely accused and suffers unjustly.

Neil

LogicandReason

Some excellent points Neil!

So aa, I'm sure the apostles are the anchor for any HJ, We don't.know the first thing about what Peter, James and John were teaching. Maybe they were still pushing the "kingdom of heaven" and Jesus' sayings (Q)...I don't think they had an explanation for the death of Jesus beyond suffering savior myth. I still think the writers (Paul)created the "for our sins/salvation kerygma that develops later in the canonized gospels.

neilgodfrey

How can we be sure "the apostles" were such an anchor? How can/do we know anything about "the apostles"? In my reading "the apostles" are best explained as a late invention to rationalize a state of affairs needing, by that time, a rationalization/explanation.

Neil

LogicandReason

I glean from multiple sources that some figure from Galilee taught a "kingdom of heaven" message in the politically shaky north, tried to bring the message to Jerusalem, created some incident in the Temple and was summarily executed. The epistles, then the gospels and finally the bridging document of Acts were all written to create ties between the crucified teacher and a history. I notice that all apostles become the pattern of Jesus, miracles and martyrdom. All are designed to create a cohesive myth.

HJ becomes the living man throught the historical apostles. And yes, all were written to justify current situations of the time they were penned and not to report history.

Without Constantine perhaps none of this survives. How many extant documents does Diocletian destroy? It is all a stretch historically.

But back to my original posit, I don't think the Jerusalem bunch had the brainpower to create the surviving kerygma...that came from the hellenistic diaspora, the writers of Paul.

IMHO, Paul and Constantine are more responsible for todays church than is Jesus, whoever that might be.

LogicandReason

I glean from multiple sources that some figure from Galilee taught a "kingdom of heaven" message in the politically shaky north, tried to bring the message to Jerusalem, created some incident in the Temple and was summarily executed. The epistles, then the gospels and finally the bridging document of Acts were all written to create ties between the crucified teacher and a history. I notice that all apostles become the pattern of Jesus, miracles and martyrdom. All are designed to create a cohesive myth.

HJ becomes the living man throught the historical apostles. And yes, all were written to justify current situations of the time they were penned and not to report history.

Without Constantine perhaps none of this survives. How many extant documents does Diocletian destroy? It is all a stretch historically.

But back to my original posit, I don't think the Jerusalem bunch had the brainpower to create the surviving kerygma...that came from the hellenistic diaspora, the writers of Paul.

IMHO, Paul and Constantine are more responsible for todays church than is Jesus, whoever that might be.

aa5874

So are you saying that the letter writers called Paul are lying to themselves?

And it is not my theory, it is the letter writers called Paul who claimed that there were apostles before them and that Peter was preaching the gospel to the Jews.

This is not a theory, these are the statements provided by the letter writers called Paul.

Just look at Galations 1-2, Romans 16 and 1Corinthians 15, these are not theories at all, these are the statements of the letter writers.

It is your theory that contradicts the statement of the letter writers called Paul and early Church writers. They claimed, including the letter writers, Paul, that the apostles were before Paul, that there were churches in Judaea before Paul, Peter preached the gospel to the Jews before Paul and that Paul persecuted those who believed the gospels before Paul was converted. And Paul even claimed he was last to see Jesus.

Your theory has no internal support, even the letter writers themselves contradict you.