Tommy

Surely in that quote "visible and invisible" are qualities of "things created, that are in heaven, and...earth" rather than heaven and earth themselves. Is there an invisible Earth? What would an invisible sky really mean?

Diogenes the Cynic

You're taking this out of context. Let's zoom out a little bit.

Paul is saying IF there was no resurrection THEN it would make them false witnesses, make their faith in vain, etc. He was speaking rhetorically, basically the equivalent of saying, "if I'm lying I'm dying."

jdboy

Sure when you're making up a story it's invisible to our universe.
Think a parallel universe. A fiction

"A third concept of Heaven, also called shamayi h'shamayim (םשמיה שמי or "Heaven of Heavens") is mentioned in such passages as Genesis 28:12, Deuteronomy 10:14 and 1 Kings 8:27 as a distinctly spiritual realm containing (or being traveled by) angels and God.[4]
The ambiguity of the term shamayim in the Hebrew Bible, and the fact that it's a plural word, give "heavens" various interpretations regarding its nature, notably the ascension of the prophet Elijah.
In the Second Book of Enoch, Third Heaven is described as a location "between corruptibility and incorruptibility" containing the Tree of Life, "whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into paradise." (chapter 8) Two springs in the Third Heaven, one of milk and the other of honey, along with two others of wine and oil, flow down into the Garden of Eden. (verse 6) In contrast with the common concept of Paradise, the Second Book of Enoch also describes a Third Heaven, "a very terrible place" with "all manner of tortures" in which merciless angels torment "those who dishonour God, who on earth practice sin against nature," including sodomites, sorcerers, enchanters, witches, the proud, thieves, liars and those guilty of various other transgressions. (chapter 10)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Heaven

aa5874

The author of gMark claimed Jesus would first resurrect and then go to Galilee.

However in the short gMark, the disciples were not told that Jesus was resurrected--the visitors to the supposed Empty Tomb were afraid and told no-one Jesus was raised from the dead.

Mark 14:28 Matthew 26:32 Matthew 28[/u]1. In the short gMark There is no Commission by the resurrected Jesus.

2. In gMatthew, the resurrected Jesus commissioned the disciples in Galilee.

3. In gLuke the disciples were commissioned by the Resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem were asked to stay in the city until they received the promise of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 24
The author of gLuke fundamentally changed the post resurrection story in gMark and gMatthew.

RParvus

I prefer to call him Simon “of Samaria” because I think “Magus” (magician) was a slur that his enemies applied to him. Simon claimed to be “Megas” ( = great; “A man named Simon… claiming to be someone great” – Acts 8:9). Mocking the Megas as a Magus would have been a useful device for the proto-orthodox when they created a sanitized version of him that they called “Paul” ( = small). It would have served to put more distance between their new creation and the original. Their reworking of a Simonian letter collection and their composition of the fictitious account of early Christianity (Acts of the Apostles) put the necessary distance between the new Small One, Paul, and the original Great One, Simon.

RParvus

A few observations:

1. The example you provide (Mk. 10) actually strengthens my case. The Jesus figure speaks of commandments, not the Law. I don’t think the two were necessarily equivalent for Simon/Paul (and his Jesus figure stand-in). He apparently made some distinctions. There were of course many things in the Law he didn’t like, but there were others he was ok with. And this may be why the riddle figure in Mk. 10 doesn’t simply tell the man: “Keep the Law of Moses .” Instead he, like the figure he is based on, lists a few acceptable commandments. And there is nothing in that list that could not be mirroring Simon/Paul’s teaching. You quote, for instance, Galatians 2, but if you had just gone a few chapters further you would have found this: “Immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21). 1 Cor. 6:9-10 has a similar list of things that will exclude one from the kingdom of God.

2. Your reference to “the Paulines” treats them as if they were a consistent collection of letters. But many mainstream scholars have recognized that the Pastoral letters and Hebrews are outliers. And even within the remaining Paulines there is a noticeable lack of theological consistency. There appears to be at least two Pauls in them. The work of untangling the two has been attempted by scholars like Weisse, Volter, Steck, and Spitta (see Schweitzer’s summary in his “Paul and his Interpreters,” pp. 141-150), Joseph Turmel, and —most recently—by Robert M. Price, in his “The Amazing Colossal Apostle.” My view is that that if we take as our guide what the early proto-orthodox heresy hunters tell us about the teaching of Simon and his followers, the original elements of the Simonian letter collection should be able to be sifted out from the doctored version (the Paulines) that the proto-orthodox produced.

3. I think the Markan riddle uses the word “parables” to throw off the unwary. If you actually look at how the Jesus figure interprets them, they would appear to be allegories. Simon of Samaria was infamous among the proto-orthodox for his supposedly blasphemous allegories. And, I hold, some of Simon’s daring allegories have survived in the Paulines. Think, for example, how offensive to some is the Hagar and Sarah allegory in Galatians.

Yes, the Jesus figure deliberately hides his meaning. But, again, this mirrors quite well what the heresy hunters said about Simon and his followers. And it would tie in with the accusation that Paul was guilty of preaching a hidden gospel (2 Cor. 4:3).

Adam

See my thread

Gospel Eyewitnesses especially for the series up through #170 that develops the thesis that seven eyewitness authors wrote about Jesus. Or you may prefer #526 through #561 where I trim this down to three for FRDB purposes for the three that are mostly free of supernaturalism. See #630 for my proposed Passion Narrative, the core around to which the others were later attached.

Adam

That's off-topic to discuss here, but see my OP in my thread
Resurrection @ Casey
and also the degree of harmonization that is possible even assuming (as I don't) Biblical inerrancy in my thread

Dan Barker's Easter Challenge
in which I answer that challenge if Mark 16:9-20 can be considered permissible to omit.

aa5874

You statement cannot be shown to be true or reasonable.
Paul said no such thing. You have blatantly invented your own words and now attribute them to Paul.

Paul stated that ......"WE HAVE TESTIFIED OF GOD THAT HE RAISED UP CHRIST.

1 Corinthians 15:15 And in addition, Writers of antiquity who mentioned the Pauline writings claimed Jesus actually resurrected.

Writers of antiquity made references to the Pauline writings when they argued that Jesus was physically resurrected.

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus all the Pauline letters to the Seven Churches were mentioned and the author claimed Jesus physically resurrected.

In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian all the Pauline letters to the Seven Churches were mentioned and the author claimed Jesus resurrected.

It is claimed by Apologetics of antiquity that the Pauline letters were used to argue against the Marcionites and those who claimed the Son of God had no Flesh.

Sheshbazzar

Right there you have your answer and explanation. 'St Paul insists that all of his knowledge of Christ Jesus came through 'revelation' ...and not from men.

With that claim he cannot admit to, nor betray having ever received any knowledge of the content of the written Gospels.
As any admission of possession of such knowledge puts his claim that his knowledge was attained exclusively via means of direct revelation from 'Jesus', to be a lie.

He (or rather whatever writers were masquerading under the name 'Paul') knew alright.
He (they) just deliberately attempted to conceal the fact that he (they) had been privy to the Gospel stories.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are all forgeries, and are all latter than the Gospels.