Paul's shadow in the gospels

[Giuseppe]

Excuse me for a potential misquoting of your view.

I think simply that a "slightly disturbing view" for me is a pauline Mark who introduces "another Jesus" against the same prohibition of Paul.

In addition, I think that a sound point of Doherty's mythicism is the fact that no people, not even Mark, knew really what Paul (and the Pillars before him) was really saying about the his Jesus. In other terms, while in this forum we ask continually ourselves about the "enigma" Mark, really the true enigma, even for Mark, was Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Afterall, an ehumerizer is someone who "explains" what doesn't have an explanation (as a mythical thing).
Euhemerus didn't know to make explicit to himself the fact that the gods never existed. Mark did not even know that the Jesus of Paul never existed.

Mark was "explaining" what was the pauline Jesus in the absolute ignorance about the fact that that Jesus never existed.

[Giuseppe]

Hence my problem if Mark was a Pauline insider: to have to assume gratis a fraud by the insider Mark.

While if Mark was at most only a Pauline outsider (like me and you), then he was doing what we do again and again in this forum: to explain what was the Jesus of Paul with the our words.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Mark did not even know that the Jesus of Paul never existed.

Do you have evidence for your contention?

Common ground for Mark's Jesus & Paul's Jesus:
Jesus was a Jewish man, he ministered to Jews; he had brothers, one being James; he was poor; he was crucified in the heartland of the Jews (Zion).

Cordially, Bernard

[Jax]

Aside from the argued to death and shown over and over again to be inconclusive mention of the ethnarch of Aretas in Corinthians, what passages would you point to in his letters to show a 1st century origin for them.

Not trying to be argumentative, just really would like to know.

Lane

Nothing wrong with a good argument.

I'll try to indulge you some day.

Paul is not anti-Jewish, whereas most of the apostolic fathers are (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas...), along with the whole Christian world from the 2nd century onward. They all knew about the temple's destruction in 70 CE. Since Paul wrote Romans before that cataclysm, he did not consider that God might have rejected his people. He does say that they have stumbled, and even that some of the branches have been broken off, but only inasmuch as they have not accepted his preaching about Christ.

In Romans 9-11, Paul argues that God has not abandoned or rejected his fellow Jews. It is a lengthy argument, and the only event in Paul's mind that has any bearing on the question is the resurrection that he preaches and celebrates through baptism and the Lord's supper. Is it really conceivable that a 2nd century christian, knowing what happened in 70 CE, and pretending (I guess) to be a 1st century Paul, would make him argue at length that God has not rejected or abandoned his people? Why bother?

The author of Romans (and 1 and 2 Corinthians) is under great stress, because he affirms a new covenant through faith in Christ, not through the old Mosaic covenant; but he also holds out hope that his kinsmen will "through jealousy" of the gentiles turn to faith in Christ. Why all this backbreaking (and, to many, not persuasive) theology of hardening and stumbling--but not rejection!--of the Jews, if the author were writing after 70 CE? I can imagine someone arguing that it's all an elaborate ruse to make us think that Paul lived earlier....but to what end? Romans 9-11 is the hardest and maybe weakest argument Paul makes. He's obviously pulling out all the stops. To suppose that the author of that portion of Romans knew about the Temple's destruction is not credible. He even says "to [the Israelites] belongs the worship" (9:4), which is admittedly brief and vague, but does strongly suggest that he was referring to a still-functioning Temple system.

While I agree with you that Paul isn't writing in the 2nd century it must be admitted that there is nothing in his letters that can be used as proof that he is writing in the 1st century. Unless I am missing something.

If anyone can point out anything in the letters besides the (inconclusive) Aretas thing that shows that Paul is writing in the 1st century then show it now. Quite simply I contend that without Acts of the Apostles a 1st century Paul cannot be shown to be a given.

Prove me wrong.

[Jax]

to Giuseppe,

Mark did not even know that the Jesus of Paul never existed.

Do you have evidence for your contention?

Common ground for Mark's Jesus & Paul's Jesus:
Jesus was a Jewish man, he ministered to Jews; he had brothers, one being James; he was poor; he was crucified in the heartland of the Jews (Zion).

Cordially, Bernard

Where does Paul say any of the highlighted?

Where does Mark say that Jesus was poor?

[Bernard Muller]

to Jax,
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about a minimal Jesus (but also, for Paul, pre/post-existent as a heavenly deity) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT) (as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant/minister of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27 http://historical-jesus.info/djp1.html#skandalon).

"Mark" suggested Jesus was poor, as an workman, from a large family (Mk6:3), from a village, being hungry (Mk11:12), associating himself with poor fishermen (Mk2:23), living as a guest in a poor town (Capernaum), asking wealthies to be poor (Mk10:21-25).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

If anyone can point out anything in the letters besides the (inconclusive) Aretas thing that shows that Paul is writing in the 1st century then show it now. Quite simply I contend that without Acts of the Apostles a 1st century Paul cannot be shown to be a given.

According to Paul's epistles, Jerusalem was still existing and the pillars & their congregation were living in it.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

The bit about Heraclitus is what is called an analogy. I'm not "using information about him to historicize Paul." I'm rejecting the argument that, if we do not have external attestation of an ancient text's authorship in the generations immediately following the postulated author's death, we cannot reasonably date it to the time of that author.

It is logically fallacious to use an analogy to date the letters under the name of Paul. You have no historical evidence whatsoever that the character called Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin really lived, was really an apostle and actually wrote Epistles before c 70 CE.

You seem to think your fallacies are reasonable.

You have forgotten in your haste to postulate that even in the NT there is no mention of the death of any person called Paul.

In addition, Christian writings admit the so-called Pauline letters were written after the Revelation of John.

The Muratorian Canon

the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name

Even the supposed close companion of Paul [the author of gLuke] wrote nothing about the Epistles of Paul up to at least c 62-64 CE. .

You repeatedly state your conclusion, garnished with some abrasive rhetoric about "what I seem not to understand," but you never actually make a case for your position. You don't even cite these Scholars-with-a-capital-S who you assure us have argued--successfully! (by whose idea of success?)--that there was no historical Paul. But we've already had this conversation and it seems to go nowhere.

You may be going nowhere.

It is a fact that you have no historical corroborative evidence whatsoever that an actual character called Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin wrote Epistles before c 70 CE .

[hakeem]

to Giuseppe,

Mark did not even know that the Jesus of Paul never existed.

Do you have evidence for your contention?

Common ground for Mark's Jesus & Paul's Jesus:
Jesus was a Jewish man, he ministered to Jews; he had brothers, one being James; he was poor; he was crucified in the heartland of the Jews (Zion).

Cordially, Bernard

Paul said his Jesus was God's own Son.

Paul said his Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

Paul said his Jesus was not a man.

Paul said his Jesus was the firstborn of the dead.

Paul said his Jesus was the Creator.

Paul said his Jesus was in the image of God.

The author of gMark did not say those things about his Jesus.

The author of gMark had no knowledge of the Pauline Jesus.