Possible the original Pauline letters never mentioned Jesus?

[lsayre]

Maff?

[Charles Wilson]

MAFF:

A sub-set of Mathematics taught to High School students by Snow Flake teachers who believe that teaching your students to raise their fists and clench their teeth while screaming against the Raci-Sexi-Homophobes is the Real Mathematics, where 2 +2 = 5 is acceptable because...well because...

Kant, Hegel are Marx are the 3 greatest Mathematicians (not a Baseball Infield) because their teachings do not harm the student's Self Esteem and allows the teacher to receive a paycheck every 2 weeks by Direct Deposit for exploring das Noumena (i.e., doing nothing) in their free time (i.e., All-The-Time).

[Charles Wilson]

If the Epistles of Paul were originally available in very small quantities and a scribe changed all the letters to include the name Jesus, then it is possible.
It implies that all other copies have disappeared or as I said, that they were available in very small quantities or even only in one copy and that the fraud took place from the beginning.

You are on to something very important!

How many copies of ANYTHING could be made by a copyist in those times (Not affiliated with the Roman Royal Court)?

For ex. we apparently do not have an extant copy of the last page of Mark implying that this last page was taken from the Original - and only Book of Mark.

The production of Documents has not been explored yet, the (easier) preference being the "Oral Transmission amongst the small early Christian Communities" or some such nonsense - anything to deflect examination of the Production Processes you question.

CW

[gmx]

Is it possible that the name Jesus has been insert into the Pauline letters? Is it possible that everywhere we now read "Lord Jesus", "Christ Jesus", "the Lord Jesus Christ", etc., originally just said "Lord", "Christ", etc., i.e. "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Christ."

Would this make sense? Are there passages in which this doesn't make sense? In cases where it doesn't make sense can those passages be explained as later revisions?

Is there any case to be made here at all?

Does the manuscript record provide any clues here ? Are there instances where the odd "Jesus" is missing in early manuscripts (because the scribe has forgotten to insert it), and then this "error" has eventually been rectified over time ?

[lsayre]

In Vedic and Avestan like circles 'Marya' means "man" or "man of war" (warrior). I see a potential link to Stephan Huller's line of reasoning here...

[andrewcriddle]

verses like 1 Corinthians 12:3

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

are hard to imagine as originally without the name Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[ABuddhist]

verses like 1 Corinthians 12:3

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

are hard to imagine as originally without the name Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

But they could have had another name there originally, possibly.

[rgprice]

verses like 1 Corinthians 12:3

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

are hard to imagine as originally without the name Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Very true. Either these would be later revisions to the text, or this proposal is wrong and Jesus was in from the beginning.

[Charles Wilson]

verses like 1 Corinthians 12:3

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

are hard to imagine as originally without the name Jesus.
Andrew Criddle

AC --

We may need a good Meta-Logician for this one.

On the one hand, the name of God should not be pronounced by the True Believers but the Meta Statement "Jesus is accursed" may not be spoken - or written? - by Members of the Set of those "Speaking in the Spirit of God".

So, is the writer of this a Member of the Set or not? If "Yes", then the writer/speaker cannot be a Member of the Set, for the statement "Jesus is accursed" has been written/spoken.
If not, then the statement has not been written or spoken in a "True Sense" and the writer/speaker is a Member of the Set. THAT, however leads to other Contradictions as well.

Further, this Construction is built around the "Holy Spirit and, although you may not believe that the "Holy Spirit" is built around the emperor Domitian - as I do - if it is a record of Domitian attempting to hold the pen last, we have a Pointer to the Controlling Interest of the Roman Court.

CW

[gmx]

If the Epistles of Paul were originally available in very small quantities and a scribe changed all the letters to include the name Jesus, then it is possible.
It implies that all other copies have disappeared or as I said, that they were available in very small quantities or even only in one copy and that the fraud took place from the beginning.

You are on to something very important!

How many copies of ANYTHING could be made by a copyist in those times (Not affiliated with the Roman Royal Court)?

For ex. we apparently do not have an extant copy of the last page of Mark implying that this last page was taken from the Original - and only Book of Mark.

The production of Documents has not been explored yet, the (easier) preference being the "Oral Transmission amongst the small early Christian Communities" or some such nonsense - anything to deflect examination of the Production Processes you question.

CW

CW, the mention of the ending of GMark is an interesting parallel.The "last page of Mark" either never existed (intentionally or otherwise) or has been lost (intentionally or otherwise), but 16:9-20 is known to be very early. So if you hold that 16:9-20 is a corruption of the "Original", yet is very early, it is significant that this corruption has not been able to be cleaned up by the "Production Processes" you refer to. The ending of Mark, as far as the manuscript record is concerned, is shambolic. The fact that we do not have this situation with the Paulina lends weight to the argument that the presence of "Jesus" in these documents is original.