aa5874

Actually, Doherty's statement is not logical.

We do not know with any certainty that Paul got those words from the Lord himself real or imagined.

Doherty himself argues that Epistles under the name of Paul were corrupted.

It is most astonishing that Doherty would imply that the origin of those words found in the Pauline writings are certain WITHOUT a shred of corroboration.

Examine gLuke.
Luke 22:19 Examine 1 Cor. 11. The Pauline writer could have used gLuke.

1 Corinthians 11:24 Apologetic writers claimed the Pauline writer knew of gLuke. See Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Eusebius' "Church History".

It is not certain at all that words about the Lord's Supper in the Pauline writings was from the resurrected Jesus real or imagined.

EarlDoherty

Give it up, Toto. Shesh has got some kind of mental block that neither I nor you can penetrate.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Early Pauline writings are indeed extremely problematic.

Doherty asserts that early Christians did believe that their Crucified Jesus was never on earth if the Pauline letters were early.

Such assertion by Doherty is extremely problematic for the Entire History of the Church, for all Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters and Scholars.

Now, what is even more problematic is that Doherty compounds his problem by relying on an anonymous writing called Epistle to the Hebrews.

How in the world can an Anonymous writing corroborate writings under the name of Paul when there was a tradition in the very Church that PAUL wrote the Epistle Hebrews?

Origen's De Prinicipiis[/u] Early Pauline writings are indeed excessively problematic. One of the Pauline fraudsters may have composed the Epistle to the Hebrews.

aa5874

The Pauline Corpus does not belong in the Jesus cult Canon.

It does not represent the teachings of the Jesus cult for any century in antiquity.

Let us go through each book of the Jesus cult Canon excluding the Pauline Corpus and it will be seen that no writer was aware that there would be No Salvation without the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV In the Synoptics Jesus forgave SINS before he was dead amd told no-one, not even his disciples, that without the resurrection there would be no Salvation.

Mark 2:5 KJV Luke 7:48 KJVAgain, examine gMark, Jesus asked others to follow the commandments of Moses.

Mark 1:44 KJV Now, in the Pauline letters, after Jesus supposedly resurrected, it is claimed there is no justification by the works of the law.

The Pauline writers contradict the very teachings of the Synoptic Jesus.

Galatians 2:16 KJV The Pauline letters are fundamentally unattested in the very Canon.

The earliest writing of the Jesus story is attested in the Canon--Not the Pauline letters.

1. The anonymous author of the long version of gMark added the post-resurrection visit to the disciples, the great commission and the ascension.

2. The anonymous author of gMatthew added the birth narrative and the sermon on the mount with much more "details".

For example, the fictitious temptation consumed only 2 verses in gMark but 11 verses in gMatthew.

3. The anonymous author of gLuke re-worked the Jesus story in gMark and gMatthew.

4. The anonymous author of gJohn did almost a complete overhaul of the Jesus character in the Synoptics and made him the Logos, God the Creator and equal to God.

5. The Pauline writers went even beyond the anonymous authors of Gospels and claimed they personally was seen by the resurrected Jesus and that the Son of God was revealed to them.

1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV The Pauline writers attempted to "historicise" the resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writers attempted to "historicise" fiction.

The Pauline writers could not have attempted to "historicise" the resurrection before the Jesus story was known by those whom he persecuted.

The Jesus story with visits from the resurrected Jesus were composed AFTER c 70 CE and AFTER the short gMark.

spin

So far so good. You state you position and now...

An assertion.

I gather you don't mean what people normally mean by "ghost writers". It would be another assertion. Let's see it as a pun for effect and we can overlook it.

This just might be true, but it is simply another (complex) assertion.

The parenthetical flow of consciousness takes you into another assertion.

Big assertion that simply says that you don't believe him and you will sink to the usual level of denial that most hobby horsers ride around on.

One of those lovely unfalsifiable assertions that are not worth the paper they are written on.

So you assert.

So you believe.

Not on account of anything you've said here. In fact, you haven't said anything that needs a second thought, as it contains not a smell of evidence or argumentation. It seems to be on a par with the amount of usable information in Adam's musings.

aa5874

Your response to Sheeshbazzar is of little value. You addressed nothing.

The Pauline letters have been already shown to be composed no earlier than c 180 CE and were not used in the development of the Jesus cult in writings attributed to 2nd century Apologetic writers.

In the Canon, it is clearly seen that it was the Jesus story in the short version of gMark that was believed and influenced the other authors.

The Pauline letters to Seven Churches and the Pastorals are completely unknown by all authors of the Canon including the author of Acts.

Even if it is claimed that Acts of the Apostles is fiction we still have at least 10 more authors of the Canon who were not influernced at all by the character called Paul--never quoted a sentence from Paul and the Pauline letters.

1. The author of short Mark.

2. The author of long Mark

3. The author of gMatthew.

4. The author of gJohn.

5. The author of gLuke

6. The author of Epistle 1st Peter.

7. The author of Epistle Jude.

8. The author of Epistle John.

9. The author of Epistle James.

10. The author of Revelation.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, I do.
More sensible than those who pick and choose, and assert from among what they admit are a selection of forgeries and a pack of lies.

Yes I do. And snideness and heckling insults are not going to change that belief.


Perhaps not, but then as I have already told Earl, it is not going to be me or my opinions on this Forum that will eventually bring him down and relegate his theory and his books to the dumpster.

spin

There is nothing sensible about argument by assertion.

No-one here particularly cares what you believe. It's what you can show and you showed nothing in the post I responded to but a propensity to assert nonsense.

It seems then that the effort of yours I'm responding to was just a knowing waste of time.

Sheshbazzar

Hanging it out, and you are welcome to proclaim it nonsense, but as you will see, Time will bear it out.

spin

I already understand that you believe your unsupported assertions.