The start of the Jesus story

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by John2 » Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:06 pm

hakeem wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:57 pm

I have not claimed the post-resurrection stories are historical accounts. I am dealing specifically with the chronology of NT writings. gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles post-resurrection stories are later than those in gMark, gMatthew and gJohn.

The authors of gMark, gMatthew and gJohn did not know the story that the disciples were commanded by the resurrected Jesus to stay in Jerusalem to get power from a Ghost in order to preach the Gospel in tongues.

In gLuke and Acts the apostles could never have been able to preach the Gospel, [they would be powerless] without first staying in Jerusalem to get filled with the Ghost to preach in tongues.

All NT tongue talking stories and being filled by a Ghost are very late and unknown by many Christian writers up to the late 2nd century.

This makes sense if you date Paul later than Mark and Matthew, but I date Paul to before 70 CE (I think he is mentioned by Josephus) so it doesn't work for me. And Paul says that some Christians were not into speaking in tongues and that it had no benefit to others unless the person doing it interpreted it for them. So the authors of Mark and Matthew may have been the kind of Christians who were not into it while the author(s) of Luke/Acts were. In other words, I think there was a variety of opinions regarding the value and nature of speaking in tongues, just like followers Rabbi Schneerson have a variety of opinions regarding whether or not he is still alive or was or will be the Messiah. And as Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:2-4:

For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit ... The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.



But the author of Acts 2:4-11 says that people were able to understand Christians speaking in tongues because for them speaking in tongues means speaking in other human languages rather than speaking something that only God can understand.

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. And when this sound rang out, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking his own language.

Astounded and amazed, they asked, “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? How is it then that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!

So if Paul is dependent on Luke/Acts (or vice versa), why aren't their views regarding the value and nature of speaking tongues more in line?

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:01 pm

hakeem wrote:
I have not claimed the post-resurrection stories are historical accounts. I am dealing specifically with the chronology of NT writings. gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles post-resurrection stories are later than those in gMark, gMatthew and gJohn.

The authors of gMark, gMatthew and gJohn did not know the story that the disciples were commanded by the resurrected Jesus to stay in Jerusalem to get power from a Ghost in order to preach the Gospel in tongues.

In gLuke and Acts the apostles could never have been able to preach the Gospel, [they would be powerless] without first staying in Jerusalem to get filled with the Ghost to preach in tongues.

All NT tongue talking stories and being filled by a Ghost are very late and unknown by many Christian writers up to the late 2nd century.
John2 wrote:This makes sense if you date Paul later than Mark and Matthew, but I date Paul to before 70 CE (I think he is mentioned by Josephus) so it doesn't work for me. And Paul says that some Christians were not into speaking in tongues and that it had no benefit to others unless the person doing it interpreted it for them. So the authors of Mark and Matthew may have been the kind of Christians who were not into it while the author(s) of Luke/Acts were.
The writings attributed to Josephus do not mention the apostle Paul so you have no historical evidence to date the apostle Paul before c 70 CE. Not even Acts of the Apostle claimed an apostle named Paul wrote Epistles up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time Festus was governor of Judea.
John2 wrote:So if Paul is dependent on Luke/Acts (or vice versa), why aren't their views regarding the value and nature of speaking tongues more in line?
The disagreement does not alter the fact that the story that the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost in Acts preceded the story that an apostle called Paul and people in Corinth spoke in tongues in a supposed letter to the Corinthians.

1. NT Jesus first preached the Gospel.

2.The NT apostles saw the resurrected Jesus before NT Paul.

3.The NT apostles were filled with the Ghost and preached the Gospel in tongues before NT Paul.

4.The NT apostles converted thousand before NT Paul.

NT Paul is last--after the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:23 am

to hakeem,
1. NT Jesus first preached the Gospel.
What gospel? Certainly not the gospel of the early Christian preachers.
2.The NT apostles saw the resurrected Jesus before NT Paul.
Based on 1 Co 15:3-11 which is an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
3.The NT apostles were filled with the Ghost and preached the Gospel in tongues before NT Paul.
Based on the Pentecost event in Acts which is complete fiction: http://historical-jesus.info/12.html
4.The NT apostles converted thousand before NT Paul.
Ditto

This is good propaganda against the Christians who believe in the complete truthfulness of the NT, but it is not the product of historical research.

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:24 am

hakeem wrote:1. NT Jesus first preached the Gospel.
Bernard Muller wrote:What gospel? Certainly not the gospel of the early Christian preachers.
According to Christian NT writings Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel after John was imprisoned and before he even had hand-picked his twelve apostles.

NT Jesus was the very first to preach the Gospel in NT writings.

Mark 1:14
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel

hakeem wrote:2.The NT apostles saw the resurrected Jesus before NT Paul.
Bernard Muller wrote: Based on 1 Co 15:3-11 which is an interpolation:
In NT writings, NT Jesus told his apostles to meet him in Galilee after his resurrection and he did meet them in a mountain in Galilee after he was raised from the dead.

Matthew 28.
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Even if you claim 1 Cor. 15. 3-11 is an interpolation the passage still states that Paul was last to see the resurrected Jesus after the apostles. You have nothing at all in the NT to show Saul/Paul was not last.
hakeem wrote:3.The NT apostles were filled with the Ghost and preached the Gospel in tongues before NT Paul.

Bernard Muller wrote:Based on the Pentecost event in Acts which is complete fiction:
You seem to have forgotten that Saul/Paul is the main character in the fiction called Acts of the Apostles yet still in Acts the author placed Saul/Paul after the apostles to get filled filled with the Ghost.

In Acts chapter 2, the apostles get filled with the Ghost on the day of Pentecost about 50 days after the crucifixion and Saul got filled with the Ghost in Acts chapter 9 after Saul was a persecutor.
hakeem wrote:4.The NT apostles converted thousand before NT Paul.
Bernard Muller wrote:Ditto

This is good propaganda against the Christians who believe in the complete truthfulness of the NT, but it is not the product of historical research.
Saul/Paul is the main character in the fiction called Acts of the Apostles yet the Ghost filled tongue talking apostles with Peter converted thousands before Saul/Paul. On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 the tongue talking apostles converted about three thousand Jews but Saul/Paul converted thousands in Acts 21.[ years after the apostles].

Although Acts of the Apostles is fiction the author made Paul one of the last fiction characters. Even the fiction character called Saul comes before Paul. The fictional Saul is introduced in Acts chapter 7 and the fictional Paul is introduced in Acts 13.

Saul/Paul is last in any story of the NT.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:06 am

to hakeem,

The gospel of Jesus in Mark has little to do with the one preached by Paul.

Even if the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus first, whom reappearances, soon after the crucifixion, I consider total fiction, Paul comes last, due to the fact Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus and him as a persecutor came after there were apostles before him (Gal 1:15-17).
So the fact Paul is last is non-sequitur relative to his epistles appearing "after the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John".

And I think rather bizarre that after you declare "the fiction called Acts of the Apostles", you use Acts as historically useful.

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:46 am

Bernard Muller wrote: The gospel of Jesus in Mark has little to do with the one preached by Paul.
In the so-called Pauline Epistles the writer claimed he was presently preaching the same faith that he once destroyed.

Galatians 1:23
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

The so-called Paul has admitted he was not the first to preach the faith.

And look at the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians the so-called Paul admits that there were apostles before him.

Romans 16:7
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

The so-called Paul is admittedly after the apostles and preached the same faith after the apostles.
Bernard Muller wrote:Even if the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus first, whom reappearances, soon after the crucifixion, I consider total fiction, Paul comes last, due to the fact Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus and him as a persecutor came after there were apostles before him (Gal 1:15-17).
So the fact Paul is last is non-sequitur relative to his epistles appearing "after the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John".

And I think rather bizarre that after you declare "the fiction called Acts of the Apostles", you use Acts as historically useful.

Cordially, Bernard
All NT stories of Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Saul/Paul are fiction.

This is the chronology of events In the NT fiction stories:

1. Jesus of Nazareth first preached the Gospel in Galilee.

2. The apostles saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee.

3. The apostles were first filled with a Ghost and talked in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

4, The Ghost filled tongue-talking apostles first converted thousands of Jews on the same day of Pentecost.

5. Later a character called Saul persecutes converts in Jerusalem

6. Sometime later Saul is blinded by a bright light and hears a voice of Jesus.

6. Afterwards Saul is filled by the Ghost.

7. Suddenly the name of Saul is changed to Paul.

8. Paul converts thousands of Jews.

The fiction stories of the NT place Paul last.

There are no other NT stories.

NT Paul is dead last.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:56 pm

to hakeem,
The so-called Paul has admitted he was not the first to preach the faith.
Faith is not all of what Paul's preached according to his epistles.
All NT stories of Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Saul/Paul are fiction.
Therefore, you should not use them as historical evidence to make your points.
What would you say if I use Superman stories to show that kryptonite exists as a mineral?
NT Paul is dead last
Of course he is dead last as compared to apostles preceding him.

But what does that have to do about his epistles created after Celsus' times and after "the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John"? Absolutely nothing.

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:31 pm

hakeem wrote:The so-called Paul has admitted he was not the first to preach the faith.
Bernard Muller wrote:Faith is not all of what Paul's preached according to his epistles.
You are implying that the so-called Paul is a liar. The supposed Pauline writer claimed he is now preaching the faith that he once destroyed so he could not be the first to preach the faith.
hakeem wrote:All NT stories of Jesus of Nazareth, the apostles and Saul/Paul are fiction.
Bernard Muller wrote:Therefore, you should not use them as historical evidence to make your points.
What would you say if I use Superman stories to show that kryptonite exists as a mineral?
I am happy you mention "historical evidence". It would appear the Pauline writers were using the fictional accounts in Acts of the Apostles to fabricate the Epistles.

The Pauline writers seem to have believed or wanted his audience to believe Saul did really live and persecuted converts and that the apostles did exist and were living in Jerusalem after the resurrection.

However, Acts of the Apostles is fiction and it's main character is the fictional Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul is really no different to Superman. In fact, Saul/Paul may have out-performed Superman.

Can you recall if Superman raised anyone from the dead, was filled with a Ghost or met anyone in the third heaven?

Saul/Paul did all those things in the NT.
NT Paul is dead last
Bernard Muller wrote:Of course he is dead last as compared to apostles preceding him.
NT Paul did not die last. He never lived in the first place.

John2
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by John2 » Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:48 pm

hakeem wrote:
Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:01 pm

The writings attributed to Josephus do not mention the apostle Paul so you have no historical evidence to date the apostle Paul before c 70 CE.

Josephus does mention someone named Saul who I think resembles Paul. Both are said to have lived during the same time and were related to the Herodians ("Saulus ... of the royal family"; cf. Rom. 16:11: "Greet my kinsman Herodion") and had one sister (Cypros in the case of Saul and unnamed in the case of Paul) who had a son (either Antipas or Archelaus in the case of Saul and unnamed in the case of Paul in Acts 23:16: "the son of Paul’s sister") and were violent towards "those that were weaker than themselves."


Ant. 20.9.4:

Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.



Cf. Acts 8:3 and 9:1 and Gal. 1:13:

But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison ... Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord.
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

Both men were also associated with Nero. Saul had conferred with him (in Corinth) and Paul says in Philippians 4:22, "All the saints send you greetings, especially those from the household of Caesar." And a member of the Antioch church who is mentioned with Saul in Acts 13:1 is said to have grown up in the household of Herod the tetrarch ("Now in the church at Antioch there were ... Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul").


Not even Acts of the Apostle claimed an apostle named Paul wrote Epistles up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time Festus was governor of Judea.

While Acts doesn't mention any NT letters (does it have to?), it does say that Christians wrote letters, including Paul.


Acts 15:20-23:

... we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood ... They chose Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, two leaders among the brothers, and sent them with this letter.

Acts 18:27:

When Apollos resolved to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him.

Acts 20:17:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.

John2 wrote:
So if Paul is dependent on Luke/Acts (or vice versa), why aren't their views regarding the value and nature of speaking tongues more in line?

The disagreement does not alter the fact that the story that the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost in Acts preceded the story that an apostle called Paul and people in Corinth spoke in tongues in a supposed letter to the Corinthians.

But Paul doesn't say that the twelve apostles spoke in tongues, only that random Christians did and also that it didn't "build up the church." So perhaps this is why Mark and Matthew didn't say that the twelve apostles spoke in tongues and preferred to write "coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" because tongues are "a sign not for believers" like Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:12-19.

Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, strive to excel in gifts that build up the church ... if you speak a blessing in spirit, how can someone who is uninstructed say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other one is not edified.

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church, I would rather speak five coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue ... Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers. Prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.

I think Luke/Acts added Paul's detail of speaking in tongues to the preaching of the twelve apostles as a way of augmenting its "special effects."

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:44 pm

hakeem wrote: The writings attributed to Josephus do not mention the apostle Paul so you have no historical evidence to date the apostle Paul before c 70 CE.
John2 wrote:Josephus does mention someone named Saul who I think resembles Paul. Both are said to have lived during the same time and were related to the Herodians ("Saulus ... of the royal family"; cf. Rom. 16:11: "Greet my kinsman Herodion") and had one sister (Cypros in the case of Saul and unnamed in the case of Paul) who had a son (either Antipas or Archelaus in the case of Saul and unnamed in the case of Paul in Acts 23:16: "the son of Paul’s sister") and were violent towards "those that were weaker than themselves."
Josephus did not mention an apostle called Paul. The authors of the Pauline Epistles lived after Josephus was dead.

All you seem to have shown is that the author of Acts of the Apostles used the writings of Josephus which implies that Acts was written no earlier than the end of the 1st century or no earlier than c 95 CE.

By the way, Josephus went to Rome to argue for Jews imprisoned there and was shipwrecked around c 63 CE about the same time as Saul/Paul was sent as a prisoner to Rome in Acts.

Not even Acts of the Apostle claimed an apostle named Paul wrote Epistles up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time Festus was governor of Judea.
John2 wrote:While Acts doesn't mention any NT letters (does it have to?), it does say that Christians wrote letters, including Paul.
No person called Paul wrote a single letter in Acts of the Apostles.

Saul got letters from the High Priest to arrest Jews in Damascus and also got letters from the Jerusalem Church. The contents of the supposed letters from the Jerusalem Church are also documented in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles is not a witness for the so-called Pauline Epistles so you have no NT corroboration at all than an apostle called Paul wrote Epistles to Churches


John2 wrote:But Paul doesn't say that the twelve apostles spoke in tongues, only that random Christians did and also that it didn't "build up the church." So perhaps this is why Mark and Matthew don't say that the twelve apostles spoke in tongues and preferred to write instead "coherent words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue" because tongues are "a sign not for believers" like Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:12-19.
You seem to have forgotten that the author of the Epistles boasted that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. The Pauline writers just don't make any sense. If talking in tongues was incoherent and doesn't build up the Church why does he boast about himself talking incoherently. And if believers cannot understand talking in tongues why would unbelievers?

The resurrected Jesus commanded the apostles to wait in Jerusalem to get Power from the Ghost to preach in tongues and now Paul is telling followers of Christ not to speak in tongue while he does it more often than them!

What BS.

The Pauline writings are really total confusion but always fiction.

Post Reply