The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[Taws]

Dewitness,

You are absolutely correct; I am learning and my knowledge is limited. You have already reached the limits of your ability to learn from others; especially those who disagree with you. I hope I never reach that superior limit. I think most of our (including everyone) disagreements about any given subject are based on how we approach the subject. My approach is that I don't have all the answers; but, do have opinions based on my limited knowledge. I hope to learn much more from you.

Thanks,

Taws

[Duvduv]

Some people are apparently forgetting the fact that the NT canon was presented to the world AS A SET OF TEXTS, and were never separate books or different combinations thereof. Thus, despite the fact that Acts never mentions the epistles, and that there are discrepancies in the stories, the author(s) of the SET could feel totally comfortable with the idea that the texts are supposed to INFORM one another in many areas. For example we find explicitly stated in Galatians 1:13:
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;

Thus, there is the implication to the reader of the SET of texts that they inform or complement one another. The bottom line cannot be emphasized enough:

The NT texts were always presented as a SET.
The epistles themselves were always presented as a SET.
There is no evidence of the existence of single individual epistles or versions of Acts differing from the canonical version, or of a canon that had 20 epistles, 3 gospels and 3 books of "Acts."

[dewitness]

Dewitness,

You are absolutely correct; I am learning and my knowledge is limited. You have already reached the limits of your ability to learn from others; especially those who disagree with you. I hope I never reach that superior limit. I think most of our (including everyone) disagreements about any given subject are based on how we approach the subject. My approach is that I don't have all the answers; but, do have opinions based on my limited knowledge. I hope to learn much more from you.

Thanks,

Taws

Well, you knew in advance that you had limitations. You must overcome your limitations if you want to make statements about the Pauline Corpus.

It is imperative that you get familiar at least with the short-ending gMark and the Pauline Corpus.

The resurrected Jesus of the short-ending gMark NEVER authorized anyone, including Paul, to preach Christ, or Christ crucified or that Christ was raised from the dead for the salvation of mankind.

There is NO commission of the resurrected Jesus in the short-ending gMark.

1. The Commission of the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel by the disciples in the long ending gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and Acts was a LATE invention after short gMark.

2. The claim by Paul that he was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles is a Later invention fabricated AFTER the Gospels.

Galatians 2.

..... they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles...

It is evident that Galatians was composed AFTER the story of the Great Commission was invented.

[Peter Kirby]

Some people are apparently forgetting the fact that the NT canon was presented to the world AS A SET OF TEXTS, and were never separate books or different combinations thereof.

I wonder why. Oh, right. Your "fact" is not a fact.

[arnoldo]

2. The claim by Paul that he was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles is a Later invention fabricated AFTER the Gospels.

Galatians 2.

..... they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles...

It is evident that Galatians was composed AFTER the story of the Great Commission was invented.

Magnus Zetterholm writes that in Antioch there were various synagogues including a synagogue consisting of jewish and gentile believers in Jesus. It was from this synagogue that the Apostle Paul was sent out to Galatia IIRC. Sometime after Paul left the Galatians “judaizers” from Antioch spoke out against Paul's teachings which resulted to Paul writing his letter to the Galatians. These judaizers continued to be a “thorn in the side” of Paul and possibly also seeked to interfere with Paul's contacts in Corinth as well. The term “church,” “synagogue” and “community” appear to be used interchangeably at times in Paul's writings and also by the author of James. Zetterhom writes,

A comparison between two verses in James makes it clear that the author of the letter thought of his community as a synagogue, and that both words, and could be used as a designation of a community of Jesus-believers. James 2:2: For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in … James 5:14: Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.
Formation of Christianity in Antioch by Magnus Zetterholm

[arnoldo]

So far, MrMacSon, nobody in this thread but arnoldo has said that the reference is to the NT James and Jesus. The most significant disagreement has been whether it is an interpolation of 'the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ' (as spin has suggested?) or merely of the words 'the one called Christ' (as I've suggested). Nothing need have stood there to be overwritten; the text makes sense as it stands, minus a handful of spurious words that connect this James to the New Testament story.

No, I said that the reference to the NT James and Jesus may be an interpolation based on Matthew 13:55 which mentions James and his father and mother.

Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

[Peter Kirby]

Great, so we all seem to agree that the reference in Josephus in the 20th book of the Antiquities is useless as evidence regarding James & Jesus in the New Testament.

[dewitness]

In order to deduce the chronology of the Pauline Corpus and the Gospels it is imperative that the short gMark is examined.

The short gMark Jesus was NOT known as the Christ to the Populace.

The short gMark Jesus COMMANDED that his disciples tell NO-ONE that he was Christ.


Sinaiticus gMark 8.

27 And Jesus and his disciples went forth into the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, saying to them: Who do men say that I am?


8:28 They answered him, saying: John the Baptist, and others, Elijah, but others, One of the prophets.

29 And he asked them: But you, who say you that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them to tell no one concerning him.

The Gospel in the short gMark is not that Christ was crucified but that the Kingdom of God was at hand.

It can now be easily seen that the claim that Paul preached Christ crucified was invented AFTER the short gMark.

1 Corinthians 1:23 KJV

But we preach Christ crucified , unto the Jews a stumblingblock , and unto the Greeks foolishness.

Who authorized Paul to preach Christ crucified? It was NOT the Markan Jesus.

The Pauline invented Gospel was NOT Good News to the Greeks and the Jews.

This is the Gospel--this is the Good News--the coming of the New Jerusalem---NOT THE FOLISHNESS of Paul.

Isaiah 65

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered , nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create : for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying...

[Duvduv]

Well, so far no one has ever provided actual evidence of a "set" different that the canonical one, either in terms of the epistles or gospels or excluding Acts.
Thus there is no reason not to believe that the texts were intended to complement or inform one another. Plain and simple.

Some people are apparently forgetting the fact that the NT canon was presented to the world AS A SET OF TEXTS, and were never separate books or different combinations thereof.

I wonder why. Oh, right. Your "fact" is not a fact.

[Bernard Muller]

Great, so we all seem to agree that the reference in Josephus in the 20th book of the Antiquities is useless as evidence regarding James & Jesus in the New Testament.

Here is some of my arguments against Carrier's position on the matter:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p21.htm

About "Mark" knowing about some Pauline epistles:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p70.htm

One argument against a fabricated Paul:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p59.htm

Cordially, Bernard