The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
It is completely illogical to expect that a person who "met" the supposed Jesus after he was dead and while he [Saul/Paul] was blind to write anything at all about his life.
You are referring to a passage in Acts. So I'll use Acts also and I see:
9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
Then
9:9 And he was three days without sight,
Then
9:18 [in Damascus] And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized;

So according to Acts, Paul does not stay blind for a long time.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:16 amThe whole basis of the idea that the NT works came before Marcion's is all based on the conjecture of the early apologists. But we can easily see that it isn't really the case. The NT is a reaction to Marcion's New Testament. It appropriates Marcion's, builds on top of it, and inserts humanizing elements in order to make Jesus, "a part of the Creation."
Interesting, but I think it still runs into the problem that most historicist and mythicist theories have: the absence in NT letters of details of an earthly Jesus (if an earthly Jesus -- either real or imagined -- came first), or absence of details of interactions with a celestial Jesus (if visions of Jesus came first).

If Marcion had a Gospel about a docetic Jesus that came to earth, said and did things, and the non-Pauline letters were written afterwards, why no details about the things that Jesus said or did in the other NT letters? This is not a 'historicist' vs 'mythicist' argument, since even if mythicism wins the academic consensus, these kinds of questions would still be asked.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by GakuseiDon »

hakeem wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:42 amThere are over a hundred Epistles and all of them contain almost nothing about the life of NT Jesus.

What does the Epistle of James contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1 and 2 Peter contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1,2and 3 John contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does the Epistle of Jude contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.

It is extremely clear that all Epistles have virtually nothing about the life of Jesus regardless of the time they were written.
That's true. Even when they do, it is vague statements like 2 Peter 1:16 "we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".

There are few details about the Risen Jesus, nothing about where he appeared, what he did, etc. In fact, there are few details relating to history about anything.
hakeem wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:42 amAs expected, the supposed Paul, must have or most likely used the Gospels to write about Jesus but falsely claimed to have gotten revelations from him after he was dead and resurrected.
If Paul knew and used the Gospel, why didn't Paul include details about what an earthly Jesus said and did then, in your opinion?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by Bernard Muller »

"" ... so far as we can tell, no letters sent to [Paul] ever asked or tasked him with discussing or mentioning such things. No event in Jesus’ life, no details of Jesus’ life, ever had any relevance to any of the occasional issues he addressed, and no one ever used such events or details in any argument Paul ever had to confront. No one was even curious about such things ...
If the earliest Christians already knew about human Jesus (through apostles prior to Paul's preaching, Peter's testimony in Corinth, etc.), that would explain the lack of discussion and mention.

And details of Jesus' life appear in Paul's letters such as Jesus' death, crucified as Christ (anointed), poor, servant/minister of the Jews, having brothers, and, according to Galatians, one of those called James that Paul met. These are presented as givens, already known by the early Christians of Corinth and used by Paul as bases for his argumentation.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote: There are over a hundred Epistles and all of them contain almost nothing about the life of NT Jesus.

What does the Epistle of James contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1 and 2 Peter contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does 1,2and 3 John contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.
What does the Epistle of Jude contain about the life of NT Jesus? Nothing.

It is extremely clear that all Epistles have virtually nothing about the life of Jesus regardless of the time they were written.
GakuseiDon wrote:That's true. Even when they do, it is vague statements like 2 Peter 1:16 "we were eyewitnesses of his majesty".

There are few details about the Risen Jesus, nothing about where he appeared, what he did, etc. In fact, there are few details relating to history about anything.
Thanks. The myth that Pauline Epistles were written early because they have little or nothing about the life of NT Jesus has been blown out the water.

The life of the supposed Jesus are almost exclusively found in writings called Gospels.
hakeem wrote:As expected, the supposed Paul, must have or most likely used the Gospels to write about Jesus but falsely claimed to have gotten revelations from him after he was dead and resurrected.
GakuseiDon wrote:If Paul knew and used the Gospel, why didn't Paul include details about what an earthly Jesus said and did then, in your opinion?
That is like asking me "if Peter, James and John were apostles of Jesus why didn't they write about his life in their Epistles?

In any event, the Pauline writers could not admit they were using written sources of the Gospels when they had already falsely stated that they did not get their Gospel from man but from revelations of Jesus who was raised from the dead.

Galatians 1.11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Incidentally, that is a similar ploy employed by the author of Revelation who claimed he had revelations from Jesus but was really using information found in the books of the prophets like Daniel.

Revelation 17:12
And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Daniel 7.24
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The Pauline writers followed their predecessor of the Apocalypse and falsely claimed they had revelations from Jesus when they were reading directly from an earlier written source.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by cora »

I would say that the gospels were written as a reaction to Marcion's gospel. Marcion had the gospel of the Lord and the 10 letters of Paul. From his visit to the church of rome (of which the year is unclear, Irenaeus says 144, at another moment 160) I guess 125 or 130, there can be observed a few things: 1.there is no bishop as yet. 2.the church of rome has no gospels. 3.the church has only its own scripture, WHICH IS THE OT. We can all talk long about it but IMO this means that the church is not Christian at all. The OT points to jewish, which it was. They also let others in because they did not keep the law. This can be found also on internet. Furthermore Marcion is recognised as being the first with his own canon, the first NT. When Marcion became very successful with his own church, then the church of rome reacted with writing their own gospels, against Marcion. And his other god than Jahweh. These gospels are invented, but using Marcion's gospel, which therewith disappeared in the synoptics. And was never seen again, only in the churches of Marcion, which were later persecuted and disappeared also.

For the same reason Paul's 10 letters were taken (Paul belonged to Marcion) and made ready for the church of rome. Which means they were forged not a little bit, Romans seems to be the worst, followed by Galatians. If you find out who Paul is en what he is exactly preaching, you can start picking out forgeries by the dozen. Alas nobody seems to have found that out. Because, as some said, you always relate Paul to the gospels. Which were not there yet. And the catholic church has taken over important things from Paul also. I am not going to tell what I know because I am unwanted at this forum by people. I am called a troll by someone I don't know, and people are laughing about me and being verbally aggressive. So the fun is gone.

I just want to confirm that Paul was talking about a god from the universe. His name was not Jesus Christ, that is one of the catholic forgeries. He was not talking about the son of Jahweh/the Lord at all (who has no son, also not predicted by the prophets). Paul was preaching "life after death". It was he who invented this religion. Before that there was no religion about "Jesus Christ", as also R. Price says. Paul did his work probably between 90 and 120. He was the direct teacher of Marcion. Where the catholic church places him is forgery, as well as the Acts are a complete forgery. The church took Paul and Marcion as far apart as possible. This can all be found if you read enough.

The shortest and best definition of Christianity so far comes from a renaissance pope in the 16th century. He told the Spanish ambassador to the Vatican the following: Jesus is just an avatar of Mithra, and personally I don't think he existed. Blunt, but brilliant.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by MrMacSon »

cora wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:30 am I would say that the gospels were written as a reaction to Marcion's gospel. Marcion had the gospel of the Lord and the 10 letters of Paul.
R Joseph Hoffman was saying that nearly 40 yrs ago

.
Three decades on [from 1984; so ~2014 or so], I have not altered my view that Marcion of Pontus was, in a significant way, the creator of the New Testament canon; that orthodox Christianity including early patristic theories concerning episcopal succession, authority and theological formulations of Christology and grace, owe an unsigned debt to the challenges he represented. It is almost certain, it seems to me, that Marcion was a collector of Paul’s letters and arguably an editor of some of them, including Galatians, and that some of the deutero-Pauline literature is a direct reflection of literary activity. The gospel Marcion possessed was not the canonical version of Luke but a pre-version of the Third Gospel. The canonical Luke, with its historical, “apostolic,” and pro-Roman bias, and the history provided in the Acts of the Apostles, Christianity’s Aeneid, is an incomplete work targeting Marcion’s church and followers.

https://www.academia.edu/29038347/A_New ... on_Studies

More excerpts here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7775
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Evidence of the Pauline Epistles

Post by rakovsky »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:00 pm
rakovsky wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:46 pmPaul's miracles show up in Acts.
Yes, Acts of the Apostles have a few things. But outside that, no visions of Jesus are recorded AFAIK. If there was "an age of revelations" where the Risen Jesus is popping up to teach the early church, it didn't make it into the extant texts. I would have thought that there would have been plenty, since they are easy enough to make up, considering 1 Corinthians 15:

5 and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.…


And especially if the above is an interpolation, since it indicates that there were early Christians who wanted to show that others also saw the Risen Jesus. It's a mystery to me regardless of whether there was a historical Jesus or a celestial Jesus.
Well, here you are talking about two different things. You were asking about miracles by Paul like healings and exorcisms and glossalia and whether they showed up in early writings. Acts was one that came to mind, but now that I think of it, there are also other apocryphal/non canonical reports, like the various 2nd century Pauline and apostolic "Acts" like Paul and Thecla, and Acts of Peter.

Now you are bringing up the issue of whether early writings talk about the post-resurrection Jesus teaching the apostles for a while, and also here there are some early writings. First, Matthew talks about Jesus showing up on some mountain in Galilee. I am guessing it could be Mt Tabor or Mt Hermon. He is talking about the Great Commission. But it doesn't give more details, like was this an event of 500 brethren standing around on Mt. Tabor, or was this a few weeks after the Resurrection? John 20-21 have other appearances over a week later. Luke 24 congests the immediate post resurrection appearance with the Ascension appearance in a way that I find a little confusing in terms of literary narration.

There are also apocryphal early writings narrating appearances by Jesus past the 3rd day appearance, like Acts of Peter, Acts of Thomas, and one of the Gnostic James writings (eg. an Apocyphon of James from Nag Hammadi). In the latter, the 40 days were changed to past 40 days due to some Gnostic numerology.
Post Reply