The Historical Jesus II

[Brainache]

You have just had a detailed answer to all of the above (several times).

Paul does not say that anyone before him preached Jesus as the messiah. Does he? If you think he does, then please quote it!

And none of those before him (c.50-60AD) in this "Church in Christ", ever wrote to claim they had preached Jesus before Paul. Did they? If you say they did, then please quote it.

I am arguing from the "fact" of what actually IS written in Paul's letters. That is "evidence".

You, meanwhile, are indulging in pure speculation.



Incidentally - I thought you were just arguing that Paul did not even exist? If Paul did not exist then how can he tell you about what he thought a Church in Christ was once preaching?

Well, there is this:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1

Jude 1 New International Version (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a BROTHER of James,

To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
...
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the PEOPLE WHO divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life...

If you think of Paul as one of these "Scoffers" who is telling people to ignore the laws of Moses, it's easy to see how some people connect him with the "Scoffer" in the Dead Sea Scrolls...
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

...
The period in question was that whereof it is written, like a stubborn heifer, Israel was stubborn' [Hos. 4.16J. It was the time when a certain scoffer arose to distil upon Israel the waters deceptive and to lead them astray in a trackless waste, bringing low whatsoever had once been high, diverting them from the proper paths and removing the landmarks which their forbears had set up, to the end that through his efforts those curses cleaved to them which had been prescribed when the Covenant was concluded, and they were delivered to the sword...

 

[dejudge]

And where do Mark or Matthew say that? You believe the words of Origen saying things that are not in the Gospels? Where in the early sources are we told Joseph had a FORMER WIFE? That was invented by bigots to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

I am merely exposing your fiction story that "Origen obviously never examined Mark 6 or Matthew 13".

Your fiction has been exposed.

A Commentary on Matthew attributed to Origen did examine Matthew 13.55-56 and it was concluded that Jesus NEVER had any Brethren called James.

James was the son of Joseph and a FORMER WIFE BEFORE Mary in Origen's examination of Matthew 13, the Gospel of Peter and the Book of JAMES.

Based on statements attributed to Papias, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius and Chrysostom James the Apostle was NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus.

You write fiction and your Paul had delusions or Auditory hallucinations.

Who told you Paul had AUDITORY Hallucinations?

You just made up the story!!

Paul was a LIAR.

I didn't make that up.

Skeptics of antiquity said so over 1000 years ago.

So now you believe in Ghost Jesus born of a virgin because Origen's copyists tell us so? When the Gospels tell us he was a carpenter with a mother and brothers and sisters. You believe Church rubbish invented to protect the Ghost Story from the refutation it receives as soon as it is exposed to the early sources!

Why do you insist on writing fiction?

Jesus of Nazareth was NEVER described as a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church.

There is NO description of Jesus as a carpenter in the ENTIRE CANON.

Why do you believe there is history for an HJ in RUBBISH the Church invented to PROTECT the FAKE authors called Paul who you claimed had Auditory hallucinations?

You believe the Pauline Corpus is history but still admit that stories of Jesus were "invented by bigots to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

Your Paul was ONE of those BIGOTS.

Your Paul claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead and that he had an IMMEDIATE CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and Blood so that Jesus was revealed to him.

If you argue that Paul was the first to write then you imply Paul was the FIRST BIGOT to justify the Fiction called the Resurrection of Jesus.


In addition, your Paul could have ONLY MET James the Apostle the Lord's brother if he was LYING or Hallucinating.

I am afraid Jesus the Lord from heaven did NOT exist and James the Apostle was the son of Zebedee or Alphaeus.

Your Paul was either mad, a Liar or a Bigot or a combination of all three.

You must admit that if Jesus was a known mere man then the Pauline Corpus would have been KNOWN Fiction and would be historically useless.

 

[maximara]

It's in Acts 5. "Peter and the other apostles" are apprehended and brought in front of the Sanhedrin.

But "Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction" (Carrier 2014) and "Clearly the author of Acts was not writing actual history but revisionist history."

"maybe there was some authentic source material behind some of what appears in Acts, somewhere" [sic] But how can we ind it? From beginning to end Acts looks like a literary creation, not a real history." (Carrier 2014 pg262)

In essence Carrier is saying Acts is the ancient equivalent of a penny-dreadful or dime novel starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

This means using Acts as evidence of actual history is full of pitfalls; there is nothing to say we should trust any of it.

 

[dejudge]

You have just had a detailed answer to all of the above (several times).

Paul does not say that anyone before him preached Jesus as the messiah. Does he? If you think he does, then please quote it!

Again, you present a most logically fallacious argument.

You have NO evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was written BEFORE gLuke or gJohn.

The EXISTING manuscripts of gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus are dated around the same time period c 175-225 CE.

Papyri 4, Papyri 66 and Papyri 75 are dated within the same period as Papyri 46 [c 75-225 CE] yet you continue to put out the propaganda based speculation of mostly Christians Scholars that the Pauline Corpus were written since c 50-60 CE


You have ALWAYS fallaciously PRESUMED that the Pauline Corpus was written before gLuke and the Gospels WHEN it is known that Christian writers of antiquity claimed Paul KNEW gLuke.

Pauline writers ADMITTED there were Scriptures about the Resurrection of Christ, that they persecuted the FAITH and that Peter was committed to preaching the GOSPEL of Christ to the JEWS.

Galatians 2

7 But contrariwise, when 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.

In the Pauline Corpus the Gospel of Christ was FIRST preached to the JEWS by PETER BEFORE Paul.

And none of those before him (c.50-60AD) in this "Church in Christ", ever wrote to claim they had preached Jesus before Paul. Did they? If you say they did, then please quote it.

Again, NONE of the letters under the name of Paul are dated to 50-60 CE. Where did you get those dates from?

You invent your own early dates for the Pauline Corpus and then present a most circular argument.

I am arguing from the "fact" of what actually IS written in Paul's letters. That is "evidence".

You are NOT arguing facts. You are speculating that Pauline letters were composed since c 50-60 CE.

You are really using manuscripts and Codices dated to the end of the 2nd century or later and speculating that they were copied from texts 125 years earlier

You, meanwhile, are indulging in pure speculation.

Now, you write PURE FICTION.

You have ALWAYS put forward the speculation of mostly Christian Scholars that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE.

I have ALWAYS OPPOSED your speculative propaganda.

I have argued that the Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.


I have shown that many Christian and even non-apologetic writers in the 2nd century or later knew the stories of Jesus but NONE of the Pauline stories.

When will you stop promoting the PURE speculation that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE?

It is already known that there is ZERO evidence to support such a notion.

According to Christian writer the Pauline writers were ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed and the letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

Please, stop your speculation.

All stories of Paul place him AFTER Jesus was dead and AFTER Peter preached CHRIST Crucified.

Incidentally - I thought you were just arguing that Paul did not even exist? If Paul did not exist then how can he tell you about what he thought a Church in Christ was once preaching?

I find your statement quite bizarre. Have you never heard of forgeries, false attribution and fiction?

Was Josephus alive when the "TF" was fabricated?

Well, if Paul did not exist how did he write letters c 50-60 CE?

Was Paul alive when the Epistles to Timothy were fabricated under the name of Paul.



You question the historicity of Jesus due to lack of historical evidence yet refuse to question the historicity of Paul when the Pauline Corpus is riddled with FAKE authors, false attribution, fiction, discrepancies, contradictions, interpolations, and events that did NOT and could NOT have happened.

There is also ZERO corroboration for the Pauline post resurrection claims and the Pauline Corpus in the NT itself.

The Pauline Corpus was fabricated NO earlier than c 180 CE based on the abundance of evidence in the existing manuscripts and Codices.

Since at least the 4th century it was discovered that there was no contemporary historical data for Jesus and Paul from non-apologetic sources.

Jesus and Paul were always FICTION characters of Christian writers of antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

But "Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction" (Carrier 2014) and "Clearly the author of Acts was not writing actual history but revisionist history."

"maybe there was some authentic source material behind some of what appears in Acts, somewhere" [sic] But how can we ind it? From beginning to end Acts looks like a literary creation, not a real history." (Carrier 2014 pg262)

In essence Carrier is saying Acts is the ancient equivalent of a penny-dreadful or dime novel starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

This means using Acts as evidence of actual history is full of pitfalls; there is nothing to say we should trust any of it.

Have you heard of the "We-document"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke–Acts

Critical view - the "we" passages as fragments of earlier source[edit]
See also: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
In the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1– 28), the narrative is written in the first person plural — but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Some[who?] regard the "we" passages as fragments of a second DOCUMENT, part of some earlier ACCOUNT, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts.[citation needed] Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[16]
...

 

[Craig B]

But "Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction" (Carrier 2014) and "Clearly the author of Acts was not writing actual history but revisionist history."

"maybe there was some authentic source material behind some of what appears in Acts, somewhere" [sic] But how can we ind it? From beginning to end Acts looks like a literary creation, not a real history." (Carrier 2014 pg262)

In essence Carrier is saying Acts is the ancient equivalent of a penny-dreadful or dime novel starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

This means using Acts as evidence of actual history is full of pitfalls; there is nothing to say we should trust any of it.

But in essence the fact that Carrier says something doesn't necessarily mean that thing is accurate. If Carrier is saying Acts is simply intentional penny fiction like stories about Wild Bill Hickock, I don't agree. Please understand that I no more accept the Doctrine of the Infallibility of Richard Carrier than I accept the same doctrine about the Pope.

ETA I'm starting to find Carrier's pretensions and self-aggrandisement very tiresome. This is from his own blog.

Richard Carrier is the renowned author of several books including Sense and Goodness without God and Proving History, as well as numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University ... etc, etc.

A guru looking for "avid" followers. (Please try not to be one.) http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794
And the transcript of the debate video on the same page is in fact quite disgusting. Anyone capable of putting out stuff like that is not to be taken seriously as a scholar. "Calls ********"; "explains why it's stupid" indeed. Yuk!

 

[Craig B]

Jesus of Nazareth was NEVER described as a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church.

There is NO description of Jesus as a carpenter in the ENTIRE CANON.

Just out of interest ... what about this, then? Is Mark 6 not in the Canon?

3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

I'm not asking you if that is true or not: I'm asking you if it is in the Canon or not.

Now once the miracle virgin birth stories came along (after Mark wrote) Christians couldn't accept that Jesus was really a carpenter (or tekton) with a family back home, so they invented stories, which really aren't in the Canon, about Joseph having a previous wife. That is NEVER stated in the Canon. You see, not only did Jesus have an ordinary family; at first they thought he was doolally.

Mark 3:20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” ... 31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Does it say, your mum and step siblings have come to worship you because you are God? No it says your mum has brought your brothers with her to take you away because you have gone nuts. And Jesus asks a naughty question, who are my mother and my brothers? It's not nice to say that when your family is concerned about you! And that's a rhetorical question, dejudge. It doesn't mean he really didn't know who they were. It doesn't call for a literal answer.

Later Christians were embarrassed by this early stuff, so they made up more exalted things to say about Jesus. But the mad carpenter is still there, large as life, in the early canon. I don't think later Christians entirely made that person up. Why should they? If they were going to make someone up completely, why not someone who suited their dogmas better? I think we may be seeing some reality poking through here. At least it's not as absurd to suggest that as it is to day, as you do tirelessly, not even responding to objections, let alone striving to refute them, for page upon page, relentlessly: that texts cannot be dated earlier than the palaeographic date of the earliest manuscript that happens to survive.

I don't accept that, dejudge. So there's no point in using that argument. It's a waste of your precious time.

 

[IanS]

Again, you present a most logically fallacious argument.

You have NO evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was written BEFORE gLuke or gJohn.

.
.
< snipped, because all of that has been very clearly answered just on the last page alone >
.
.

Jesus and Paul were always FICTION characters of Christian writers of antiquity.

If Paul did not exist, as you just directly claimed to be a fact, then how could he know that others had preached Jesus before him?

You were also asked to quote - (1)where any of the Pauline letters say that a Church in Christ had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did. And (2) where anyone in a “Church in Christ” wrote to say they had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did .


... can you provide those quotes please.

 

[Craig B]

... The EXISTING manuscripts of gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Corpus are dated around the same time period c 175-225 CE.

Papyri 4, Papyri 66 and Papyri 75 are dated within the same period as Papyri 46 [c 75-225 CE] yet you continue to put out the propaganda based speculation of mostly Christians Scholars that the Pauline Corpus were written since c 50-60 CE

You have ALWAYS fallaciously PRESUMED that the Pauline Corpus was written before gLuke and the Gospels WHEN it is known that Christian writers of antiquity claimed Paul KNEW gLuke.

Pauline writers ADMITTED there were Scriptures about the Resurrection of Christ, that they persecuted the FAITH and that Peter was committed to preaching the GOSPEL of Christ to the JEWS.

Galatians 2

7 But contrariwise, when 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.

In the Pauline Corpus the Gospel of Christ was FIRST preached to the JEWS by PETER BEFORE Paul.

Ah, I see what you're doing here, dejudge, although it is so dimwitted that I find it almost impossible to believe my own eyes that anybody could write down such infernal balderdash.

This word has been the source of some confusion to date, particularly from Paul's use of it in Galatians 1:6-8 ( ... ) Jesus here is not talking about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These had not been written at the time of Galatians. He is condemning gospels which are not of Jesus Christ. If it is about Jesus Christ and how he is the savior, he's not condemning it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gospel
Also, look at Matthew 4:23 dejudge.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Jesus preaching the Gospel?!? Does that mean that Jesus came after Mark, and we have to date Mark to after 200 AD because of the manuscript -- so Jesus lived in the days of the mad teenage emperor Elagabalus, inventor of the whoopee cushion?

No, it doesn't mean that. It is because when we find the word "gospel" in Paul, and in the (written) Gospels, and in Acts, it is being used to mean simply "good news"; a message of good news. That's why Galatians tells us about "the Gospel of the circumcision". It doesn't mean there's a written Gospel called by that strange name. It means that Peter was telling the "good news" about Jesus to the Jews ("The circumcision" here just means "the Jews".)

Here is the etymology of the word "gospel" from wiki.

The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". The word comes from the Greek euangelion, or "good news". The gospel was considered the "good news" of the coming Kingdom of Messiah, and of redemption through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, the central Christian message.

Gospel is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message")

So when we read that Paul or Jesus preached a "gospel", we don't need to imagine that a written story about Jesus was circulating even before Jesus started preaching, and Jesus was reading from it. That is a silly idea, based on a failure to understand the very meaning of the word.

ETA Here's the angel announcing the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:10

But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people ... "

Now here is the Greek word in that verse meaning "I bring good news"

euangelizomai : εὐαγγελίζομαι, I bring good news

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/2-10.htm. Does that mean the angel was carting the four written gospels under its wing? Does it mean the angel was zooming about in around 200 AD? No, it doesn't mean that. It means the angel was telling the shepherds good news.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus and Paul were always FICTION characters of Christian writers of antiquity.

If Paul did not exist, as you just directly claimed to be a fact, then how could he know that others had preached Jesus before him?

You do not understand the difference between a Fact and an argument.

How could Romulus be the founder of Rome if he did NOT exist?

How could Romulus have a brother called Remus if he did NOT exist?

How could Plutarch write about Romulus if he [Romulus] did NOT exist?

How could the Serpent talk to Eve if Eve did NOT exist?

How could Cain kill Abel if Cain did NOT exist?

How could Satan the Devil tempt Jesus at the Jewish Temple if Satan did NOT exist?

How could the Angel Gabriel talk to Mary if the Angel Gabriel did NOT exist?

How could Paul and over 500 persons see the resurrected Jesus the Christ if Jesus did NOT exist?

Now, your question is extremely easy to answer.

The character called Paul in the Bible was a fabricated fiction character invented by ANONYMOUS authors like the invented fiction characters called Jesus the Christ, Romulus, Remus, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, the Angel Gabriel and Satan the Devil.

The statements which are in the Pauline Corpus are really the claims of the ANONYMOUS 2nd century or later authors posing as "Paul".

You were also asked to quote - (1)where any of the Pauline letters say that a Church in Christ had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did. And (2) where anyone in a “Church in Christ” wrote to say they had named Jesus as the messiah before Paul did .

You must first show the evidence from antiquity that letters under the name of Paul were written since 50-60 CE.

You cannot do so.

You must first show the evidence from antiquity that there were Pauline Churches of the Messiah called Jesus since c 50-60 CE.

You cannot do so.

You must first show the evidence from antiquity that Paul was a figure of history c 50-60 CE.

You cannot do so.

You cannot show where the Pauline writer claimed he was the first to call Jesus the Messiah.

I can show where a Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to be seen of THE CHRIST and AFTER OVER 500 persons.

See 1 Corinthians 15.8

I can show you where a Pauline writer claimed there were Apostles of Jesus Christ BEFORE him.

See Galatians 1.17

I can show you where a Pauline claimed there were people in CHRIST Before him.

See Romans 16.7

I can show you where a Pauline writer claimed he persecuted the FAITH that he NOW preached.

See Galatians 1.23

I can you show that a Pauline writer claimed there were SCRIPTURES that the Jesus the Christ died for our sins, and was resurrected on the THIRD day.

See 1 Corinthians 15.3-4

I can show that the earliest existing manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are dated to 175-225 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

Your speculation that Paul was the first to call Jesus the Messiah is completely baseless and WITHOUT a shred of evidence in the NT CANON itself.

It is documented in the NT CANON that the Apostle Peter PREACHED about Jesus the Christ BEFORE Saul/Paul.

See Acts of the Apostles 2

It is documented in the NT CANON that STEPHEN was stoned to death because he preached about Jesus the Christ before Saul/Paul.

See Acts of the Apostles 7


1. You cannot show any story of Paul where he was the First to preach the Gospel of Christ.

2. You cannot show that letters under the name of Paul were composed c 50-60 CE.

Your speculation about early Pauline letters has ALWAYS been baseless [without evidence] from the very start.

 

[dejudge]

Just out of interest ... what about this, then? Is Mark 6 not in the Canon? I'm not asking you if that is true or not: I'm asking you if it is in the Canon or not.

I have already exposed your fiction.

There is ONE question in gMark about Jesus being a carpenter and it was NEVER answered.

Origen a CHRISTIAN writer has admitted in "Against Celsus" 6 that Jesus was NEVER described as a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Churches.

Origen has also admitted Jesus had NO brother called James in "Commentary on Matthew"

The fragments of Papias show that the Apostle James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

In De Viris Illustribus, it is claimed the Apostle James in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of Jesus.

In Church History, it is claimed James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

In Commetary on Galatians, it is claimed James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was NOT the brother of Jesus of Nazareth based on CHRISTIAN writers.

Jesus had NO actual brothers in Christian writings of antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

There is ONE question in gMark about Jesus being a carpenter and it was NEVER answered.

That's because it is a rhetorical question, like when someone says to you "Do you know who I am?" Or "Does my bum look big in this?" God help you if you answer such questions literally!!

The fragments of Papias show that the Apostle James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

Yes, we have NO surviving texts of Papias; and Eusebius tells us that Papias was known for the "imbecility of his intellect". Some sources you use!

Jesus had NO actual brothers in Christian writings of antiquity.

He's got plenty brothers in the Synoptic Gospels. Are you telling us these Gospels aren't Christian writings, but we've to believe the fragments of Papias instead when even our source for him calls him imbecilic in his intellect? Dear me, dejudge.

 

[waters]

Does that mean the angel was carting the four written gospels under its wing? Does it mean the angel was zooming about in around 200 AD? No, it doesn't mean that. It means the angel was telling the shepherds good news.

In my opinion, part of the confusion here, concerns the distinction between what the Greek authors had expressed, and our contemporary interpretation of that expression.

For us, today, the word "gospel", and the word "scripture", are nearly synonymous. "Good news" is still good news, but, the idea that MML&J represent "God's word", implying communication with at least the approval of YHWH, would have been heretical in the minds of Jews, two millenia ago. Today, Christians would be offended, if one suggested that the old testament was indeed still scripture, but the gospels, contrarily, were merely, old news items. How did these new documents, these new specifications, these new historical tomes, acquire the same legitimacy as the Torah, in the eyes of YHWH?

Part of the idea behind the idea of searching through the old manuscripts of Origen and others, is to comprehend how that transition had been accomplished. How did followers of the new religion explain the equation of gospels with scripture?

My argument claiming that "Paul" followed Mark, is based on just that inquiry, for both authors use essentially the same language to describe the last supper, but "Paul" 'improves' Mark's version, by introducing the word, "new" to describe the covenant. This introduction, in my opinion, is required to make the association of "gospels" with "scripture". As scripture describes the "old" covenant, so too, do the gospels elaborate the "new" covenant. Without the gospels, there can be no "new" covenant. In fact, without the gospels, there would be no need for "Paul" to offer any modification of the existing contract.

Since Mark and Matthew had failed to identify the new covenant, as being "new", in their gospels, "Paul" corrected their error, in 1 Corinthians. If Mark and Matthew had not already existed, would "Paul" have felt obliged to change their text? If Paul's version had preceded those of Mark and Matthew, how could they possibly have been so completely obtuse, as to have overlooked a marketing stratagem of such brilliance, as they composed their own versions of the same event--the last supper? "New" covenant is to scripture, as heat is to fried eggs. no heat, eggs not cooked. No "new" covenant, and the gospels remain just "good news", not "scripture".

 

[Craig B]

Since Mark and Matthew had failed to identify the new covenant, as being "new", in their gospels, "Paul" corrected their error, in 1 Corinthians. If Mark and Matthew had not already existed, would "Paul" have felt obliged to change their text?

So the evidence that Paul drew upon these earlier sources, in your understanding, is that Paul's text is NOT the same as theirs. Mmm. Let me think about that.

 

[IanS]

You do not understand ....

.
.
< cut out again as materail allready filly answered in eralier posts>
.
.

I can show you where a Pauline writer claimed there were Apostles of Jesus Christ BEFORE him.

See Galatians 1.17

Then by all means quote what you claim to be said in Galatians 1:17.

This is what Bible Gateway gives for Galatians 1:17 -


Galatians 1:17English Standard Version (ESV)

17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.


No mention there of Jesus. And yet you just claimed the passage to “show you where a Pauline writer claimed there were Apostles of Jesus Christ BEFORE him” .... but that passage most definitely does not say what you just directly claimed, does it!

The passage does not even mention Jesus at all !


OK, so lets look at the entire enclosing passage from Galatians 1:10 through to 1:24, perhaps something there will support your claim that Paul can be quoted saying others before him had believed in Jesus as the messiah .... here is the entire passage-


Galatians 1:10-24English Standard Version (ESV)

10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant[a] of Christ.

Paul Called by God
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born,[c] and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to[d] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;[e] 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

Footnotes:

Galatians 1:10 Or slave; Greek bondservant
Galatians 1:11 Greek not according to man
Galatians 1:15 Greek set me apart from my mother's womb
Galatians 1:16 Greek in
Galatians 1:16 Greek with flesh and blood


Again, no mention of Jesus being preached by any earlier “apostles”, or by any earlier “Church in Christ”, or indeed any mention of anyone at all preaching Jesus before Paul himself did.

In fact, on the contrary, the passage has Paul very directly, insistently, and repeatedly stressing that the gospel he now preached was quote “not man's gospel.” .... “For I did not receive it from any man" .... “nor was I taught it“ ... and yet for years he had been “violently persecuting” what these earlier preachers in this “Church of God” had been preaching ... so he knew what they were preaching, he knew it very well, and he opposed it so strongly that he was “violently persecuting” them ... but as he says “Jesus” as the “Christ” was revealed to him by God, where before that vision he insists “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" ... he is absolutely insistent in that passage, that he did not learn that Jesus was the Christ from any Man, so he did not get that idea from "any Man” in this Church of God that he had been persecuting ... he was "not taught it”, so it was not something he knew from the teaching of any Man in the Church of God ... instead he is very clear that it was God who was “pleased to reveal his Son to me” ... and that Son was “Jesus” as the promised “Christ”. That’s what the words of his letters actually say ... at least in the above translation ... and at least as nearly as possibly can be analysed in modern English.

 

[Craig B]

... In fact, on the contrary, the passage has Paul very directly, insistently, and repeatedly stressing that the gospel he now preached was quote “not man's gospel.” .... “For I did not receive it from any man" .... “nor was I taught it“ ... and yet for years he had been “violently persecuting” what these earlier preachers in this “Church of God” had been preaching ... so he knew what they were preaching, he knew it very well, and he opposed it so strongly that he was “violently persecuting” them ... but as he says “Jesus” as the “Christ” was revealed to him by God, where before that vision he insists “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" ... he is absolutely insistent in that passage, that he did not learn that Jesus was the Christ from any Man, so he did not get that idea from "any Man” in this Church of God that he had been persecuting ... he was "not taught it”, so it was not something he knew from the teaching of any Man in the Church of God ... instead he is very clear that it was God who was “pleased to reveal his Son to me” ... and that Son was “Jesus” as the promised “Christ”. That’s what the words of his letters actually say ... at least in the above translation ... and at least as nearly as possibly can be analysed in modern English.

And of course you believe this.

 

[dejudge]

There is ONE question in gMark about Jesus being a carpenter and it was NEVER answered.

That's because it is a rhetorical question, like when someone says to you "Do you know who I am?" Or "Does my bum look big in this?" God help you if you answer such questions literally!!

Again, you write fiction.

"Against Celsus" attributed to Origen has destroyed your fallacy.

In NONE of the gospels current in the Churches was Jesus EVER described as a carpenter.

"Commentary on Matthew" attributed has destroyed your fiction.

Jesus of Nazareth had NO brother called James.

Yes, we have NO surviving texts of Papias; and Eusebius tells us that Papias was known for the "imbecility of his intellect". Some sources you use!

You use the words of your Paul who had AUDITORY hallucinations and may have been a NUT in reality.

Your Paul had CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and blood and claimed he met a man in Christ but could NOT recall if it was IN or OUT the body.

Didn't your Paul have conference WITHOUT Flesh and blood?

He's got plenty brothers in the Synoptic Gospels. Are you telling us these Gospels aren't Christian writings, but we've to believe the fragments of Papias instead when even our source for him calls him imbecilic in his intellect? Dear me, dejudge.

You forget that you claimed that events in the Gospels were invented by BIGOTS to justify their story about Ghost Jesus.

Why do you use the Gospels of the same BIGOTS as history?

In any event, you invent fiction. In NONE of the Gospels of Your BIGOTS is Jesus described as a carpenter or had actual brothers according to Origen.

You forget your BIGOTS described Jesus as God, God Incarnate, the Son of a Ghost or a Transfiguring Sea water walker.

Jesus of the NT is an INVENTED product of YOUR BIGOTS.

 

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Craig B

when someone says to you "Does my bum look big in this?" God help you if you answer such questions literally!!

Again, you write fiction.

"Against Celsus" attributed to Origen has destroyed your fallacy.

You mean: yes honey, it looks gigantic; but don't blame me. Origen made me say it.

 

[dejudge]

...Again, no mention of Jesus being preached by any earlier “apostles”, or by any earlier “Church in Christ”, or indeed any mention of anyone at all preaching Jesus before Paul himself did.

Again, you present a most logically fallcious argument.

There is no mention that the earlier apostles did not preach about Jesus the Christ.

There is mention that there were apostles of Christ BEFORE the Pauline writer.

There is mention that the Pauline writer PERSECUTED THE FAITH he NOW Preached.

There is mention that the Gospel of Christ was FIRST preached to the Jews.

In fact, on the contrary, the passage has Paul very directly, insistently, and repeatedly stressing that the gospel he now preached was quote “not man's gospel.” .... “For I did not receive it from any man" .... “nor was I taught it“ ... and yet for years he had been “violently persecuting” what these earlier preachers in this “Church of God” had been preaching ... so he knew what they were preaching, he knew it very well, and he opposed it so strongly that he was “violently persecuting” them ... but as he says “Jesus” as the “Christ” was revealed to him by God, where before that vision he insists “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" ... he is absolutely insistent in that passage, that he did not learn that Jesus was the Christ from any Man, so he did not get that idea from "any Man” in this Church of God that he had been persecuting ... he was "not taught it”, so it was not something he knew from the teaching of any Man in the Church of God ... instead he is very clear that it was God who was “pleased to reveal his Son to me” ... and that Son was “Jesus” as the promised “Christ”. That’s what the words of his letters actually say ... at least in the above translation ... and at least as nearly as possibly can be analysed in modern English.

You seem to have no idea that repeated Lies cannot ever become the truth.

The Pauline writer MUST have been lying when it is claimed that he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and Blood so that Jesus the Son of God could be revealed to him.

The Pauline writer MUST have been lying when it is claimed he was a WITNESS that God raised the Son of God from the dead.

The Pauline writer MUST have been Lying when he claimed he received information from the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of Lies about the fictitious resurrection.

1. If Jesus did NOT EXIST it would be impossible for the Pauline writer to have heard from him.

2. If Jesus did exist it would still be impossible for the Pauline writer to have received his Gospel from a dead and buried Jesus.

Logically the Pauline Corpus stories about the Resurrection are a pack of Lies whether or not Jesus existed.

 

[dejudge]

......My argument claiming that "Paul" followed Mark, is based on just that inquiry, for both authors use essentially the same language to describe the last supper, but "Paul" 'improves' Mark's version, by introducing the word, "new" to describe the covenant. This introduction, in my opinion, is required to make the association of "gospels" with "scripture". As scripture describes the "old" covenant, so too, do the gospels elaborate the "new" covenant. Without the gospels, there can be no "new" covenant. In fact, without the gospels, there would be no need for "Paul" to offer any modification of the existing contract.

When one examines the versions of the Last Supper in the SHORT gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and the Pauline Corpus of the SINAITICUS CODEX it will be immediately realized the the Pauline version is later than gMark.

The Pauline version of the Last Supper MATCHES the version in gLuke.

The words "the NEW covenant" and "this do in remembrance of me" are LATER additions.


Sinaticus gMark [the short gMark 14

22 And as they ate, having taken bread and blessed, he broke and gave to them and said: Take: this is my body.

23 And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave to them; and they all drank of it.

24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Sinaiticus gMatthew 26

26 But as they were eating, Jesus took bread and having blessed he broke, and giving to the disciples he said: Take, eat: This is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and having given thanks he gave to them, saying: Drink of it, all of you;

28 for this is my blood of the New Covenant, that is shed for many for remission of sins.

Sinaiticus gLuke 22

17 And having taken a cup and given thanks, he said: Take this and divide it among yourselves;

18 for I say to you that I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine till the kingdom of God shall have corner

19 And having taken bread and given thanks, he broke and gave to them, saying: This is my body, that is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 And the cup in like manner, after he had supped, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, that is poured out for you.

Sinaticus 1st Corinthians 11

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,

24 and after giving thanks he broke and said: This is my body which is for you; this do in remembrance of me.

25 In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

The Pauline Corpus version of the Last Supper was composed AFTER the short gMark's version.