The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[spin]

Is it not your position that the Pauline Corpus was composed after c 70 CE?

Certainly Galatians 1 suggests that that 'Paul' was dealing with an established church.

That's certainly wrong. But try your best to show that the people in Jerusalem were anything other than Jewish messianists, such as John the Baptist's folloers were. There is absolutely no sign of an organized Jesus centered religion prior to Paul's ministry.

Where do you think the 'Pauline corpus' came from?

The existence of a Pauline corpus attests to the prior existence of knowledge concerning a proselytizer referred to as Paul. Unlike the gospels which are anonymous works that purport to deal with Jesus and don't necessarily build on any prior knowledge, the Pauline corpus says that the protagonist is the writer. Naturally, that doesn't mean all the material is genuine, as pseudepigraphs were well known in the era. But pseudepigraha exist because of the existence of prior traditions concerning the figure that stimulated the pseudepigraphic work. The Pauline corpus suggests a body of work by Paul, enhanced by various later writers..

Does it, and other references to other groups, such as Gallileans suggest a conflation of various initially disparate groups?

Coob-bee.

[Peter Kirby]

'... existence of prior traditions ... suggests a body of work by Paul ...'

It would be better to say that it merely suggests the existence of prior traditions regarding Paul. The idea of Paul as a writer may have originated with the publication of his writings, just as the idea of Hitler who journaled in diaries in WW2 originated with the publication of his diaries. These Pauline writings and Hitlerific diaries may be spurious even while they contribute the idea that their subject composed them to the 'traditions' regarding their figure.

[MrMacSon]

Certainly Galatians 1 suggests that that 'Paul' was dealing with an established church.

That's certainly wrong. But try your best to show that the people in Jerusalem were anything other than Jewish messianists, such as John the Baptist's folloers were. There is absolutely no sign of an organized Jesus centered religion prior to Paul's ministry.

This

Galatians 1 (NIV)

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel ...

and this

17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

[spin]

Certainly Galatians 1 suggests that that 'Paul' was dealing with an established church.

That's certainly wrong. But try your best to show that the people in Jerusalem were anything other than Jewish messianists, such as John the Baptist's folloers were. There is absolutely no sign of an organized Jesus centered religion prior to Paul's ministry.

This

Galatians 1 (NIV)

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel ...

There is no point made here. You might add your commentary.

and this

17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Poor assumptions made on retrojecting ideas into Paul's text that are inappropriate. The word tendentiously translated as "churches" here, simply means "assemblies"/"congregations" and does not imply a christian religious group ("christian" in the sense of a religion focusing on Jesus). The phrase means messianic groups, and could include followers of John the Baptist. Think about it: if Paul started christianity, what did he mean by "assemblies"? He cannot mean what you want the word to, so you have to go further and find evidence. You need to show signs of people believing not only in messianism but also in Jesus before Paul started proselytizing. What we see are Jews following torah praxis, not christians.

[MrMacSon]

I was not thinking church as in a fully structured entity as we know churches today, or even in recent centuries.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel ..."

suggests a previous acceptance of this christ presumably by indoctrination (presumably by several assemblies of preaching/exhortation) and now a degree shunning.

[spin]

I was not thinking church as in a fully structured entity as we know churches today, or even in recent centuries.

Nor specifically meetings of christians.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel ..."

suggests a previous acceptance of this christ presumably by indoctrination (presumably by several assemblies of preaching/exhortation) and now a degree shunning.

Actually, they are Paul's proselytes being swayed apparently by agents from Jerusalem. But again, I hope you aren't loading "gospel" with a purely christian meaning. It just means good news or glad tidings of some religious significance until the expression got wholly taken possession of by christianity. Paul is browbeating his proselytes for worrying about what the agents were telling them regarding their need to observe the law. That's apparently the different gospel.

[Taws]

Dewitness,

First, I did not read all the other posts; only the first; so I would not be distracted from the original idea.

You stated, " The earliest Gospel, the earliest Good News, gMark's Good News, had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation by sacrifice or the abolishment of the Laws of the Jews for sacrifice.

gMark's Good News predated the Pauline Gospels."

I have observed that ya'll like to examine each tree seedling and determine what the forest should look like. I believe that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Paul, according to the "bible"; became a self-appointed apostle after the assumed death of Jesus. He (Saul) was a Pharisee, according to his own statement; who's purpose was to destroy this new messianic movement. I think you miss the point when you see Saul's objective as arresting and/or killing individuals. He had no such intention. His purpose was to destroy the movement; and he succeeded.

Saul (will no longer use his pseudonym) was an educated man who could not only read and write in Greek no less, but also a Pharisee well versed in the Hebrew teachings; as opposed to the apostles who were uneducated, illiterate peasants. They didn't have a prayer (pun intended); just as I don't have the ability to quote all of the bible scholars and deciferers that ya'll seem to enjoy quoting.

The apostles saw the "good news" as the teachings of Jesus; not his becoming a human or deity sacrifice for our sins. Their records were either destroyed or amended to agree with Saul's new "good news"; that is that the Torah's laws were impossible to follow and keeping them not only impossible; but, had nothing to do with salvation and entry into the wonderful afterlife of "Christ" (Jesus' new last name).

Saul made the teachings of Jesus moot or irrelevant. Works is dead; you don't have to do anything but have faith and that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was your ticket into heaven. Given the choices of acting on the teachings of Jesus and/or assuming all the bad things you did and will do are forgiven; to an illeterate audience, the choice is easy.

Saul's gospel is that Jesus; now God; was sacrificed on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins and all you have to do is believe it and you will not only be forgiven; but also have an eternal life of bliss.

Saul turned Jesus into a God (which James, Peter and the original apostles knew first-hand was false). Jesus was a human being (perhaps blessed by God with the ability to see and understand what most of us cannot).

Given the choice of acting on the teachings of Jesus; forgiving others, not harming anyone for any reason, helping those less fortunate, giving up "things" and being a benevolent human being; or having to do nothing but believe Jesus died for all your imoral behavior and allowing you to even kill others; the majority, then and today chose to follow Saul, er Paul.

James, Peter and the rest of the apostles lost; and Paul's sacrificial lamb CHRIST (Jesus); won the day and the future hands down.

Saul's letters were written before the "four gospels" and the gospels were modified to reflect "Paul's" gospel.

Taws

[Bernard Muller]

Taws, where did you get these observations?
It is what my website is all about.
Only one comment: the Didache (without the Christian additions) and James' epistle (without "Christ" and "Lord" Jesus) are fairly representative of the early church of Jerusalem, in my views.
Cordially, Bernard

[dewitness]

post duplicated

[dewitness]

Saul's letters were written before the "four gospels" and the gospels were modified to reflect "Paul's" gospel.

Taws

Your post shows that you have an extreme limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity. Please get familiar with the writings of antiquity before you attempt to make statements about the Pauline Corpus.

It was the Johanine and Pauline writers who MODIFIED the Jesus story and made Jesus EQUAL to God and God Creator.

In the early stories of Jesus, he was NOT EQUAL to God and was NOT the Creator. See gMark

1. No Christian writer of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus claimed it was composed before the Gospels.

2. The Pauline Corpus is always placed AFTER the Gospels in all early Codices.

3. The Pauline Corpus only makes sense AFTER the Gospels.

4. Paul persecuted people who believed the Jesus story so it is virtually impossible for the Jesus story to have been initiated by Paul.

5. Saul/Paul was involved or had knowledge of the killing of Stephan in Acts. Stephan preached Christ crucified and was stoned to death.

6. Peter preached that the resurrected Jesus was killed by the Jews BEFORE Saul preached Christ crucified and resurrected.

7. Paul claimed that there were SCRIPTURES already composed that Jesus died four OUR sins, was buried and resurrected on the third day.. ONLY New Testament Scripture state Jesus died for OUR sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day. See 1 Corinthians 15.

8. Paul claimed that Peter was commissioned to preach the Gospel. The disciples were commissioned to preach the Gospel ONLY in the story of Jesus in the Gospels and BEFORE Paul. See Galatians 2

9. Paul knew of stories found ONLY in the Gospels. Paul claimed that Jesus was DELIVERED UP in the night after the Last Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11

10. Up to the late 3rd century, there were Christians writers who knew NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius.

11. The author of Acts mentioned Saul/Paul over 130 TIMES and wrote about Saul/Paul almost exclusively from Acts 16-28 and never once claimed Paul wrote any Epistles to Churches.

12. The author of gMark knew NOTHING of the Pauline Gospel that there was NO remission of sins unless Jesus was resurrected.

13. The author of gMark did NOT know the Pauline Jesus who was equal to God.

14. The author of gMark did NOT know the Pauline Jesus who was a Savior of all mankind.

15. The author of gMark claimed Jesus preached the Gospel that the Kingdom of God was at hand---Not salvation by the resurrection.