Sheshbazzar

I believe my prediction. Or I wouldn't be here predicting it.

spin

Yes, and you believe that as well. A belief in a prediction about a belief. Who needs evidence?

Kent F

By this sort of logic, or rather complete lack of logic, one can assume anything to be true, as you do.

One huge difference between your wild theory and Doherty's is that the latter actually analyzed what Paul wrote and reached the conclusion, based on the textual evidence within the epistles, that Paul did not know the gospels and that Paul's Jesus was spiritual. Doherty takes the writings seriously and provides proof for his conclusions. You simply assume the very opposite with no proof whatsoever.

Paul could not have had a vision where he heard his Jesus speak to him because in your world, no one can hear such things. I'm an atheist myself but I have no problem whatsoever admitting that people who believe in God or Allah, Jesus or Mohammed, actually believe that their gods speak to them. Joseph Smith believed that an angel spoke to him and he created his Mormon church based upon such a vision. So why couldn't Paul have had a vision?

Even though the epistles are interpolated and manipulated, they still do not show that Paul believed in a Jesus walking this earth. Why? His epistles teaches another Jesus, another religion in many parts, but you and aa claim it's still forgeries by the Roman church. If so, they did a hell of a poor job. Why not make a reference to the Virgin Mary and/or to the empty tomb from which Jesus resurrected while there were at it? Why did they allow their Paul to keep quiet on such essential beliefs? Why?

Your theory that Paul did in fact believe in a Jesus walking this earth, that he knew the gospel story, makes him out to be a liar. What was the purpose? Did he try to get himself killed as a heretic? Why are there no evidence within them that Paul tried to answer all the questions he must have received as to why he didn't mention John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, Lazarus, Pilate, the trial, the resurrection on earth? His beliefs would have been met with total scepticism had they occured later than the gospels and as a result, they would not have been included in the NT Canon at all. The very fact that they are there, in the Canon, tells me that his beliefs has to be earlier, were known and has different roots than the catholic beliefs. It's simple logic.

To aa: please, you are like a broken record, stuck in the same groove. "Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius says so in his Church history, Paul knew of Luke because Eusebius....." But haven't you yourself said that Church history is a massive forgery? It has an invented list of bishops, it claims that Matthew was the first gospel written, it quotes the invented Testimonium, it says Abraham was a christian... it's obvious that Eusebius wrote with an agenda to incorporate everyone of note into his religion. As he said in chapter 4 of CH: "But although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of Christians has really but recently been known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favored men of old... If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth."

That's why the Bible of christians include both the Old and New Testament, although the OT belongs to a much older religion with different roots, why Paul became "a christian in fact", why his own older gospel was claimed to be that of Luke and why his writings were placed after the invented Acts.

stephan huller

In all fairness to Shesh - or perhaps better, the idea he is championing - the Marcionites did hold that the apostle was the true evangelist. They had to have held he knew the gospel narrative (this is never made explicit). So where does that leave us? The epistles either deliberately avoided mentioning the gospel or one or both the evangelikon and apostolikon are corrupt. You know what I think. It renders textual criticism of dubious or uncertain value.

aa5874

What about Doherty's broken record? Does he not argue that the Pauline writings are interpolated? Why does Doherty use admitted manipulated sources and anonymous writings of unknown date of authorship for his argument?

Please, you promote double standards. Why don't you tell Doherty that he relied on the very same manipulated Pauline Corpus for his never on earth crucified Jesus?

Now, I do not make stuff up.

I do not claim that Christians of antiquity believed that their crucified Jesus was never on earth without a shred of corroboration.

Who in antiquity presented evidence or made a statement that Jesus the crucified was never on earth??

Who?? When?? Where??

The crucified never on earth Jesus is an imagination based character unheard of in antiquity.

On the other hand, I deal with ACTUAL evidence--written statements from antiquity---NOT guesswork and presumptions.

This is just a partial list of the abundance of evidence to support my argument that the Pauline letters were extremely late.


1.Apologetics, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome, did place Paul AFTER gLuke which is EXACTLY what I needed.

2. An Apologetic, the Muratorian Canon, did admit the Pauline letters were composed after Revelation by John which EXACTLY what I needed.

3. Acts of the Apostles did NOT mention the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I needed.

4. An Apologetic, Irenaeus, argued that Jesus was crucified about c 48-50 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.

5. Scholars have deduced the Pauline Corpus is a product of Multiple authors which is EXACTLY what I needed.

6. 2nd century Apologetics, Aristides, Justin, Minucius Felix, wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I neeeded.

7. 2nd century Apologetics, Justin, Arnobius, show that the Jesus cult developed WITHOUT the Pauline Corpus which is EXACTLY what I needed.

8. A 2nd century Apologetic, Justin, admitted that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches which is EXACTLY what I needed.

9. An 3rd century Apologetic, Origen, admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul c160 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.

10. No Pauline letters have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE which is EXACTLY what I needed.



My argument is FAR SUPERIOR to Doherty's.

My argument is based directly on the DATA that is presently available

Data must FIRST be collected to develop a theory or make a proper argument.

There is ZERO data for the belief in a crucified never on earth Jesus in or out the Canon.

There is DATA that Paul wrote the Epistles AFTER Revelation by John his predecessor.

There is DATA that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches up c 150 CE.

The Pauline writings are very late writings and were unknown up to at least 180 CE.

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Kent, but you are badly mistaken in what you think it is that I believe, and about the details of what my theory actually is.
Others here have heard it often enough to know that you are misunderstanding my views.

Sheshbazzar

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire 'Pauline Epistles' that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Paul'.

The 'Pauline Epistles' are corrupt and untrustworthy sources composed of forgeries and fictions by multiple unknown authors at unknown dates.
All they prove is that corrupt and thoroughly dishonest men diddled with these texts.

As an account of 1st century Christianity, they have an evidentiary value on the par with that used toilet tissue you last flushed.

spin

We're getting deep here.

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire Mosaic corpus that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Moses'.

There is not so much as a sentence to be found within the entire 'Socratic' that can be demonstrated to have originated with any original 'Socrates'.

Had you left it there there is some reason.

Oh, what utter baloney. You flit from "corrupt texts" to "forgeries" and on to "dishonest men" like an overworked bee.

Along with the credibility of Shesh's diatribe.

Sheshbazzar

Thankfully, in the real world, credibility is not dictated by the sole opinion of 'spin', But is a matter of individual persuasions.
If you wish to believe a 1st century 'Paul' actully wrote the 'Pauline Epistles', and that they accurately reflect 1st century CE Christian beliefs that is your prerogative.
There are others who are persuaded otherwise, and they are not contesting.

spin

...where people don't go round capitalizing the "NAME" or doing other weird shit...

Most people know I don't hold to opinions. Shesh has somehow missed that fact.

One is certainly free to believe anything their little hearts constrain them to. As for me, I'll go with the evidence and argumentation.

So evidence and argumentation for a non-1st century Paul.......... anyone? Shesh obviously has none.

But they sure make a lotta noise about it.