show_no_mercy

It's based on 2 Cor 11:23 when Aretas IV's governor tried to arrest Paul.

Though I admit it's a pretty weak indicator, since there's a lot of controversy about who this Aretas (III or IV) was.

dog-on

Thanks.

bacht

Would you say that Paul 1 wrote anything we have, or would you date the "authentic" material post-70?

GakuseiDon

Out of interest: why didn't the interpolator include more Gospel details into original-Paul's letters, in your opinion?

Kapyong

Yup,
a complete waste of time talking to aa5874.

He's been preaching the same nonsense for years, and never learns a thing.


K.

show_no_mercy

For the same reason that Ignatius doesn't (granted, Ignatius does include some, yet he's writing almost in the 2nd century). They either weren't written yet and the only thing that was circulating was "oral tradition", or they weren't considered holy scripture. The latter doesn't happen until the mid 2nd century.

I think the gospel(s) could have been written any time between 70 and 135. I think a hard and fast date of 70 CE is placing too much certainty in the muddled history of early Christianity.

aa5874

But, if the original writings of Paul were already in circulation 30 years in advance, and Paul was actually an evangelist or missionary traveling all over the Roman Empire how could his writings be so easily manipulated 30 years later.

The actual people, the converts, the brethren of the churches, his associates who heard Paul preach for 30 years and read his letters would immediately recognise the interpolations.

The forged source may then be traceable.

What does an unknown interpolator gain when his interpolations are likely to be discovered?

And for the interpolated document to spread rapidly, there must have been an army of copiers.

If I were to completely re-write, interpolate, any chapter in the Pauline Epistles, how long would it take for my single version of the Pauline Epistles to become an official KJV version of the Pauline Epistles, bearing in mind almost everyone would discover that my version was interpolated?

dog-on

Because Paul was never viewed as an "eye-witness" and there was no need to portray him as one.

aa5874

I won't allow you to post blantantly erroneous statements about me.

Please say exactly what thing I have not or never learnt?

I have made numerous posts on this thread, please point out exactly what is nonsense?

I eagerly await your response!

show_no_mercy

This is all speculation, so take it with a grain of salt.

All 13 letters are original to "Paul". After the war of 70 CE with the temple destroyed, these Paulinist communities (the strangers at the gate Jewish almost-converts) still have their Paulist idea of the promise of Abraham through faith. But there's no longer any hope of them being "real" Jews since the sacrificial system has been destroyed.

The Jerusalem Jesus movement comes in contact with one or a couple of these gentile Paul churches and hears about how a virtuous man had been executed unfairly. The Pharisee ideal of the resurrection mixed with the letter of the Hebrews gives an idea to add some heavenly redeemer idea to Paul's promise through faith idea, and seven (possibly 10) of Paul's letters are interpolated with some Jesus/Christ language. Maybe a member of the Paulist community actually had a vision of this resurrected Jesus that he overheard from the Jesus movement.

This creates the Christianized Paul, which evolves into Marcionism.

To combat Marcionism, the "Catholics" interpolate/Catholize the seven/ten Christianized Pauline letters of Marcionism. They also over Catholize the Pastorals.