spin

Your response is just hopeless reading.

You are still saying irrelevances because you just don't understand the discussion. We are not evaluating the consensus. We are noting that it is a fact. This fact, Shesh has asserted is not a fact, but cannot show that it is not a fact. Your whinging about the quality of that consensus is a non sequitur in the context.

I see no sign in understanding the discussion in your comment. Your views on the consensus are irrelevant to Shesh's claim. I understand that you don't agree with the consensus, but really who gives a fuck at the moment? You're just wasting your time by showing everyone a lack of comprehension.

aa5874

What absurdity!! We are evaluating the consensus that is precisely what the discussion is about. You don't understand that the supposed consensus has been evaluated and found to be worthless.

As of right now, anyone who claims the Pauline writings are early will do so knowing that it is baseless, without a shred of corroboration, and known to be based on presumptrions and guessing.

spin

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were trolling. Your inability to identify the topic is astounding.

Whoopee-doo! It has nothing to do with Shesh's inability to see that there is such a consensus. And that's the discussion.

Anyone who claims that they are late will do so knowing that it is baseless, without a shred of corroboration, and known to be based on presumptrions and guessing.

aa5874

You are the one who is trolling. You have not addressed the OP.
What is your position on the Pauline letters? What is your position on the so-called consensus?

Your posts are filled with ridicule which has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.


You are trolling. You are merely posting to ridicule other posters. You have not presented any evidence from antiquity to support your claim which is in violation of the rules.

Please, provide the evidence from antiquity to support what you wrote if what you claim is not baseless.

I have already pointed out that in the Canon itself the author of Acts did not mention at all that Saul/Paul wrote any Pastoral and letters to Seven Churches up to c 58-62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.

I have already pointed out in Against Heresies 2.22 it is argued that Jesus was crucified about c 48-50 CE [20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius] which renders the Pauline Corpus as a pack of Fiction.

I have already pointed out that in the Muratorian Canon that it was claimed the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

I have already pointed out that the Pauline Corpus contains details that match the later Gospels like gLuke and gJohn.

The claim that the Pauline writings are early is without a shred of corroboration.

Toto

Please stick to the arguments.

Toto

And I have already pointed out that this is a non sequitur. There is other evidence that the author of Acts know about the Pauline letters, and there is no reason that he would have mentioned them explicitly in any case.

The common interpretation of Irenaeus' claim is that it is based on a theological notion of recapitulation. From here as a convenient source,

Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyons simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization of human life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old.

But Paul does not say anything about Jesus' age, so it's not clear why this particular point turns Paul into a pack of lies.

The Muratorian Canon

The "Muratorian Canon," is a strange, badly written Latin list with brief comments on the books read in the church (cf. M 191-201, 305-7). It cannot be adequately dated, and arguments have ranged from late 2nd century to the 4th century. The earlier date is more likely, hence I am placing it here in my chronological account, although the manuscript tradition is clearly too poor to exclude alterations made over time. We don't know who wrote it, when, why, or whether it has been compromised over time, nor is it complete, and it is so badly written its meaning is unclear, as is the competence of its author and copyists. Most importantly, this text is never referred to by anyone, and would have remained thoroughly unknown if it had not been recovered in fairly recent times.

I can't locate that argument.

And the claim that they are especially late, or later that the gospels, also has no evidence.

Please stop repeating these points without responding to the criticisms.

aa5874

It can be easily seen that gMark has priority to the Pauline Corpus.

The Jesus in gMark was NOT a universal Savior and claimed he deliberately spoke in parables so that the outsiders would NOT be converted.

In fact, in gMark not even the disciples understood the parables unless Jesus explained them in Private.

The Pauline Jesus was a Universal Savior to the Jews First and to the Gentiles.

The claim that Jesus died for the Sins of all mankind is a Late invention in the Canon--No such thing is in the early version of the Jesus story.

gMark is NOT about Salvation but about the Betrayal, Abandonment, Denial and Rejection of the Son of God by the Jews and the disciples of Jesus.

gMark was written as propaganda to explain that it was because of the Evil Jews the Temple Fell and Jerusalem was made desolate.

The story in gMark was late changed to Universal Salvation by Sacrifice and then by the resurrection in the Pauline letters.

Toto

Why does this make gMark earlier?

Why does this make gMark earlier?

How do you know what is early?

What method can you use to show what is earlier?

aa5874

No, No, No, Toto!!! You have not shown the other evidence. You merely assert that there is other evidence while simultaneously admitted that early Pauline writings are based on presumptions and guessing because of a lack of evidence.

Toto, your posts are recorded.

You did not make reference to any part of Acts with evidence to show that author knew of the Pauline Corpus.

It is you who produce non-sequiturs--you have not followed up your assertions with any evidence.

What other evidence are you talking about after you have admitted there is lack of evidence???

Toto, why don't you read what is written in "Against Heresies" 2.22 because Wiki does not have the 2000 word argument?

Plus, you have already admitted you do not agree with the conventional dating of the Pauline writings.

Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius c 48-50 CE and that John and the other Apostles also told the Elders of Asia the same thing.

This is extremely significant--it is claimed John the the disciple lived until 98-117 CE and taught in Asia Jesus was crucified c 48-50 CE.

Why are you trying to trivialize a very serious problem?

If Jesus was crucified c 48-50 CE then it must be obvious that Paul did NOT preach Christ crucified since 37-41 during the time of King Aretas.

Again, this is extremely basic. Once Jesus was crucified c 48-50 CE then the Pauline Corpus is NOT credible and this also includes Acts of the Apostles.

The Muratorian Canon in its present form does not help to date the Pauline letters before c 60 CE and even if it was unknown or not referred to cannot help in the argument for early Pauline letters.

The Muratorian Canon support the writings of Justin who mentioned the Apocalypse of John but not the Pauline Corpus.

Well, examine these passages in gJohn and Galatians. Nowhere in gMark does it state that God loved us and gave his Son for our sins. That God loved us is a later invention in the Gospels--the Pauline teachings about God's love is compatible with gJohn.

John 3:16 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJV
Your assertion is completely erroneous. I am right now showing the evidence and you still say there is none.

Why can't you produce the "other evidence" in Acts that show the Pauline writers were aware of the Pastorals and the letters to the Seven Churches.

I have Acts in front of me and there is NO such evidence.

When are you going to stop repeating that there is other evidence to show that the author of Acts was aware of the Pauline corpus?

We can go through Acts word for word and you will see that your reptitive assertion is a fallacy. There is no other evidence for early Pauline writings--NOT even in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

There is abundance of evidence from antiquity that clearly show that the Pauline writings were composed extremely late--well after the 1st century.

There are stories of Jesus without Paul but there is no story of Paul without mention of Jesus and this applies even up to the late third century.

spin

Point of clarity: this thread has no o.p. It was started as a split from another thread, so the claim of not addressing the o.p. has no sense.