The Historical Jesus II

[IanS]

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.



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.

OK, so you have absolutely no answer at all to those very simple questions. Even though you previously just asserted knowing all sorts of things as "fact".

I will ask you the same questions again, please try to find a truthful answer this time -

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.


Where does that say before Paul there were Apostles who alreday named Jesus as the messiah? Where does that passage say anything about "Jesus"?

The passage does not even mention Jesus at all, does it.

But here is what you just claimed about that Passage galations 1:17 -

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

See Galatians 1.17

The passage absolutely does not say a Pauline writer claimed "there were Apostles of Jesus Christ BEFORE him" , does it? No it most definitely does not. Yet you asserted that absolute fact.

You were completely and totally wrong, weren't you! The passage from Galatians 1:17 does not even mention "Jesus". Far less does it say there were apostles before Paul who had already named Jesus as the messiah!!

So you were complete and utterly wrong about that, weren’t you! You sated it as absolute fact, and even put it in capital letters ... and yet you are shown to be 100% totally wrong and with no legs left to stand on.

You, sir, cannot tell fact from fiction. And that has just been demonstrated for everyone here to see.

In fact, as shown above (and I'll repeat it below), the entire enclosing passage from Galatians 1:10 through to 1:24, does not ever say that any such earlier people had ever named Jesus before Paul did ! Here again 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


Perhaps somewhere else in one of Paul's "genuine" letters it might say that others named Jesus before Paul. I do not know if it does. If it does I have not seen it ... which is perfectly possible since I don't make a habit of remembering every word ever supposedly written by Paul. But it certainly does not say any such thing in that passage where you claimed it to be in Galatians.


But I asked you twice before, two very simple general questions about this -

Q1. Can you quote where Paul does actually say that others before him had already named Jesus before he did?

Q2. can you quote anyone from this earlier "Church of God" writing to claim they had named Jesus before Paul did?

I don't believe you actually ever produced any such quotes of anyone saying they had named Jesus before Paul did? Perhaps such quotes do exist (genuine quotes only please);- ....because as I already said above, I don't know if any such claims exists or not (though I have not seen them). But it is certainly not in the above quote from Galatians 1:17, as you claimed that it certainly was. And in fact it certainly is not anywhere in that entire section of Galatians from G-10 through to G-1:24.

And just to be clear for the sake of others here, not for dejudge because he is clearly incapable of understanding anyone else except himself trying to start a fight in an empty room - I myself am not saying Paul was definitely the first to name Jesus as the messiah. I don’t know if he was or not (I don’t even know if Paul existed, or what date his letters were written). However, bible scholars and HJ posters here have all been arguing that Paul’s letters pre-date the gospels, and that they were written circa. 50-60AD, and what I am saying is if they are correct about that, then Paul appears to be the first person we know of to name Jesus as the messiah.

 

[dejudge]

OK, so you have absolutely no answer at all to those very simple questions. Even though you previously just asserted knowing all sorts of things as "fact".

Again, your argument is extremely logically fallacious.

The Pauline writings do NOT state anywhere that Paul was the first to call Jesus the Messiah.

The Existing Pauline Corpus are dated to the late 2nd century or later.

Your presumptions that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE is worthless.

Until you can provide evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and before STORIES of Jesus were already known and written then you are wasting your time.

All stories about Saul/Paul place the character AFTER Jesus the Christ, After Peter/Cephas, After the 12 Apoostles, After Stephen and AFTER at least 5000 converts in Acts.



1. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed there were people in Christ BEFORE Paul.

2. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the Gospel of Christ was FIRST preached to Jews.

3. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed OVER 500 persons saw the Resurrected Christ before Paul.

4. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Paul was the LAST to see the Resurrected Christ.

5. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Paul PRESECUTED the FAITH that he now preached.

6. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that he RECEIVED Scriptures WHICH state that Jesus the CHRIST died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day.

7. There is ZERO claim in the Pauline Corpus that Paul was the first to call Jesus the Messiah.

8. Apologetic writers of antiquity did NOT claim the Pauline writers were the First to Call Jesus the Messiah.

...Where does that say before Paul there were Apostles who alreday named Jesus as the messiah? Where does that passage say anything about "Jesus"?

Again, you present extreme logicall fallacious arguments.

The very FIRST verse of Galatians INTRODUCE Jesus as the CHRIST.

Where does Paul say that the Apostles did not name Jesus as the Christ?

Where does Paul say the Churches in Christ did NOT name Jesus the Christ?

In Galatians it is claimed there were Churches of Judea in Christ who did not know Paul.

Galatians 1:21-22 KJV

Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ.

The very Galatians shows that there were people who used the name of CHRIST who was UNKNOWN to Paul.

The Galatians writer was NOT the first to be IN CHRIST in and out the NT.

 

[maximara]

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.

Total non sequitur Richard Carrier's comments based on research.

Carrier lists some 9 references to the apologetic historical fiction comment including Crossan (2012), Rothschild (2004), Alexander (1998), and Satterthwaite (1993) published by Eerdmans

Some three pages of evidence with reference taking up half of those pages is presented to back up the literary creation statement and used Burton Mack to show just how off in left field Acts is

Acts like all the NT is propaganda and it is so fantastic with Paul one upping Jesus in supernatural actions to the point it get silly and conflicts with the social-political nature as we know it to be that to take anything it says as remotely true is iffy at best.

 

[IanS]

Again, your argument is extremely logically fallacious.

The Pauline writings do NOT state anywhere that Paul was the first to call Jesus the Messiah.

The Existing Pauline Corpus are dated to the late 2nd century or later.

Your presumptions that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE is worthless.

Until you can provide evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and before STORIES of Jesus were already known and written then you are wasting your time.

All stories about Saul/Paul place the character AFTER Jesus the Christ, After Peter/Cephas, After the 12 Apoostles, After Stephen and AFTER at least 5000 converts in Acts.



1. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed there were people in Christ BEFORE Paul.

2. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the Gospel of Christ was FIRST preached to Jews.

3. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed OVER 500 persons saw the Resurrected Christ before Paul.

4. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed Paul was the LAST to see the Resurrected Christ.

5. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that Paul PRESECUTED the FAITH that he now preached.

6. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed that he RECEIVED Scriptures WHICH state that Jesus the CHRIST died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day.

7. There is ZERO claim in the Pauline Corpus that Paul was the first to call Jesus the Messiah.

8. Apologetic writers of antiquity did NOT claim the Pauline writers were the First to Call Jesus the Messiah.




Again, you present extreme logicall fallacious arguments.

The very FIRST verse of Galatians INTRODUCE Jesus as the CHRIST.

Where does Paul say that the Apostles did not name Jesus as the Christ?

Where does Paul say the Churches in Christ did NOT name Jesus the Christ?

In Galatians it is claimed there were Churches of Judea in Christ who did not know Paul.

Galatians 1:21-22 KJV

The very Galatians shows that there were people who used the name of CHRIST who was UNKNOWN to Paul.

The Galatians writer was NOT the first to be IN CHRIST in and out the NT.

OK, so you had absolutely no answer, and you could not quote Paul or anyone else saying they believed in Jesus before Paul did.

So when you said Galatians 1:17, or any other part of it, had said that a Church of God had believed in Jesus before Paul, you were 100% totally & completely wrong ... it says nothing of the kind. In fact G-1:17 does not even mention Jesus.

This really shows why your posts are worthless. Here you are making an absolutely claim presented by you as certain "fact" (i.e. Jesus before Paul in Galatians 1:17). You are then show to be completely wrong. And your reaction to that is that you cannot admit your errors, and instead make repeated posts trying to claim all sorts of other things.

You were also asked how Paul could know that anyone else believed in Jesus, if as you say Paul never even existed?

Did you say that was just the words of a "Pauline writer"? Well how does an anonymous "Pauline writer" know that a non-existent Paul once believed about an earlier Church of God?

 

[IanS]

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.

OK, which part of the above do you claim is factually wrong?

You ask if I really “believe” it?

What I believe about it is what I have already explained to you at least 20 times before. Namely - if we accept the dating for Paul’s letters that you have been endorsing from bible scholars as circa. 50-60AD (supposedly pre-dating any of the canonical gospels), then it is a fact that Paul is the first person we know of to name Jesus as the messiah ...

... that’s simply an inescapable fact, isn’t it!

 

[Craig B]

@ Maximara

I stated:

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.

And you reply

Total non sequitur Richard Carrier's comments based on research.

Dear Heavens! You've caught a bad dose of guruism. It is not illogical to deny infallibility to Carrier. He is regarded by many as a crackpot, and his web page indicates megalomania. The fact that people do research doesn't make them infallible.

 

[Craig B]

Deleted. Posted in error.

 

[IanS]

@ Maximara

I stated: And you reply Dear Heavens! You've caught a bad dose of guruism. It is not illogical to deny infallibility to Carrier. He is regarded by many as a crackpot, and his web page indicates megalomania. The fact that people do research doesn't make them infallible.

I would not especially endorse Richard Carrier, but who are these "many" who regard him as a "crackpot"?

You mean theologians, Christian writers and bible scholars, almost all of whom have a huge background of very deep religious belief ... the people who write to say that the evidence of the bible makes Jesus a "certainty"? The same people who previously tried to "rubbish" G.A.Wells and others who had written to express & explain doubts about the existence of Jesus?

People like John Dominic Crossan who says (from memory) “the crucifixion Jesus is just about the most certain event in all of history” ... e.g. see this brief quote from Wikipedia -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

See also: Historicity of Jesus

In modern scholarship, the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[4][6] For example, James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[4] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[7] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[8] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[9] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[5] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.[10]


These are the sort of people who told you that academic sceptical writers must be crackpots if they say they doubt the existence of Jesus in anything like the biblical descriptions?

 

[dejudge]

OK, so you had absolutely no answer, and you could not quote Paul or anyone else saying they believed in Jesus before Paul did.

Again, you post extreme logically fallacious arguments.

You put forward a most absurd notion that the Pauline writer PERSECUTED the CHURCHES which did NOT name Jesus the CHRIST.

You put forward a most bizarre argument that the Pauline writer a claimed Hebrew of Hebrew, a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin PERSECUTED JEWS or people in the Roman Empire who did NOT name Jesus the CHRIST.

What complete logically fallacious argument.

1. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the Apostles before him did NOT believe in Jesus.

2. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the Churches in CHRIST of Judea did not name Jesus the Christ.

3. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that people in CHRIST before him did not name Jesus as the Christ.

4. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the Apostle Peter/Cephas did NOT name Jesus the CHRIST.

5. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the Apostle James[the Lord's brother] did NOT name Jesus the CHRIST.

6. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the PILLARS of the Church [Peter/Cephas, James and John] did NOT name Jesus the CHRIST.

7. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that Andronicus and Junia who were IN CHRIST Before him did not name Jesus the CHRIST.

8. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that the OVER 500 persons who claimed to have been seen of the resurrected Christ did not name Jesus the CHRIST.

9. You cannot quote the Pauline writer saying that he persecuted Churches which did NOT name Jesus the Christ.

10.You cannot quote a Pauline writer saying that he wrote Epistles to Churches c 50-60 CE.

All you do is make admitted assumptions about your Paul and cannot provide any contemporary evidence whatsoever from antiquity to support your speculation that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and that Paul was the first to name Jesus the Messiah.

You seem not to understand that my argument based on the existing evidence is that the Gospels were composed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus and were the FIRST to name Jesus the CHRIST and Son of God.

Mark 8:29

And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Matthew 16:16

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Luke 9

20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

John 11:27

She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

In the Gospels Jesus is named the CHRIST BEFORE he died.

In the Pauline Corpus the Pauline writer named Jesus the CHRIST AFTER the Resurrection which MUST be a LIE or False [there was NO resurrected CHRIST whether or not Jesus existed]


The authors of the Gospels were the FIRST to name Jesus the Christ and Son of God in the NT Canon.

Did you say that was just the words of a "Pauline writer"? Well how does an anonymous "Pauline writer" know that a non-existent Paul once believed about an earlier Church of God?

What complete absurd questions? Have you never heard of fiction? Have you NOT ever heard of FORGERIES? Have you NOT ever heard of False attribution? Have you NOT ever heard of interpolations?

Please tell us us who wrote the Epistles to Timothy?

How did writers under the name of Paul write letters to Timothy if they were NOT Paul?

Did your Paul exist when the Epistles to Timothy were fabricated?

Did your Paul exist when letters under the name of Paul were INTERPOLATED?

Your argument is extremely low on logic and without a shred of actual evidence from antiquity.

You are presently using manuscripts under the name of Paul dated to the last quarter of 2nd century or later written when your PAUL did NOT exist at that time.

 

[IanS]

Again, you post extreme logically fallacious arguments.

.
.
< snipped to remove entirely irrelevant verbiage which never even attempted to answer the 3 questions you were asked>
.
.

Why have you not quoted Galatians 1:17 saying as you claimed, that Paul says in G-1:17 that a Church of God preached Jesus as the messiah before he did?

Please quote where that is said in Galatians 1:17. Because it is certainly not in the quote from Bible Gateway. ...

... you insisted as an absolute fact, stressing it in capital letters, that Galatians 1:17 has Paul saying that a Church of God had already named Jesus before Paul did ... so please quote where Galatians 1:17 says that! ...

... just quote it please.


When you have done that (which should take you all of 10 seconds to quote Galatians 1:17), please explain how when you say Paul certainly never existed, how that same Paul can know that a Church of God had already preached Jesus as their messiah??

If you say it was a "Pauline writer" who said that a church of God preached Jesus before Paul did, then -

1. please quote where any Pauline writers say that

2. please explain how any anonymous "Pauline writer" could possibly know what was ever said by a Paul that you say certainly never himself existed.


Just answer those 3 direct very simple questions please (quote where Galatians 1:17 says a Church of God preached Jesus before Paul did, and answer 1 and 2 above).

 

[dejudge]

In an earlier post to show that letters under the name of Paul were composed AFTER the short gMark found in the Sinaiticus I referenced an English translation of Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 which shows the phrase the NEW Covenant however when one examines the very GREEK rendition of gMatthew 26.28 the Greek phrase does NOT say the NEW covenant. It is the Greek word for "Covenant"

gMatthew and gMark are in agreement--the Covenant [τηϲ διαθηκηϲ]

gLuke and 1 Corinthians are in agreement--the NEW Covenant [καινη διαθηκη]

Examine the Greek Sinaiticus Codex.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...hapter=11&lid=en&side=r&verse=25&zoomSlider=0

Greek Sinaiticus SHORT gMark 14.24..τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"

Greek Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 ......τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"


Greek Sinaiticus gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη..."the NEW Covenant"

Greek Sinaitus 1 Corinthians 11.25... καινη διαθηκη .."the NEW Covenant"

Now, in the Codex Alexandrinus with the LATER gMark, the LONG gMark the phrase "the NEW Covenant" is inserted.

Greek Alexandrinus LONG gMark 14.24 ....καινης διαθηκης "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

Examine the Greek version of Papyri 46 [1 Corinthians 11.25.

The phrase for the NEW Covenant is found in 1 Corinthians as in gLuke.

gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

P 46 1 Cor. 11.25 ...καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

It is now seen that the Pauline Corpus version of the Last Supper is the LATER version in existing manuscripts and Codices.

The existing Greek manuscripts and Codices appear to show that the Pauline writers did KNOW of gLUKE as claimed by Apologetic sources.

The earliest version of the Last Supper is found in the SHORT gMark.

1 Corinthians of the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the short gMark.

 

[IanS]

In an earlier post to show that letters under the name of Paul were composed AFTER the short gMark found in the Sinaiticus I referenced an English translation of Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 which shows the phrase the NEW Covenant however when one examines the very GREEK rendition of gMatthew 26.28 the Greek phrase does NOT say the NEW covenant. It is the Greek word for "Covenant"

gMatthew and gMark are in agreement--the Covenant [τηϲ διαθηκηϲ]

gLuke and 1 Corinthians are in agreement--the NEW Covenant [καινη διαθηκη]

Examine the Greek Sinaiticus Codex.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...hapter=11&lid=en&side=r&verse=25&zoomSlider=0

Greek Sinaiticus SHORT gMark 14.24..τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"

Greek Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 ......τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"


Greek Sinaiticus gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη..."the NEW Covenant"

Greek Sinaitus 1 Corinthians 11.25... καινη διαθηκη .."the NEW Covenant"

Now, in the Codex Alexandrinus with the LATER gMark, the LONG gMark the phrase "the NEW Covenant" is inserted.

Greek Alexandrinus LONG gMark 14.24 ....καινης διαθηκης "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

Examine the Greek version of Papyri 46 [1 Corinthians 11.25.

The phrase for the NEW Covenant is found in 1 Corinthians as in gLuke.

gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

P 46 1 Cor. 11.25 ...καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

It is now seen that the Pauline Corpus version of the Last Supper is the LATER version in existing manuscripts and Codices.

The earliest version of the Last Supper is found in the SHORT gMark.

1 Corinthians of the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the short gMark.

Where in the above have you quoted Galatians 1:17 saying as you claimed, that Paul says in G-1:17 that a Church of God preached Jesus as the messiah before he did?

1. Where is that quote of Galatians 1:17 please.

When you have provided that very simple quote, then please show where in the above you quote a “Pauline writer” saying -

2. The Church of God preached Jesus before Paul did

Where in the above do you show how a “Pauline writer could

3. possibly know what was ever said by a Paul that you say certainly never himself existed


Do please just quote the answers to those 3 extremely simple quick questions.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't really care about what discussion is going on or how relevant Dejudge's post I'm quoting relates to whatever discussion is going on...I'm mostly just taking a moment to tell Dejudge that this, in and of itself, is great work!

In an earlier post to show that letters under the name of Paul were composed AFTER the short gMark found in the Sinaiticus I referenced an English translation of Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 which shows the phrase the NEW Covenant however when one examines the very GREEK rendition of gMatthew 26.28 the Greek phrase does NOT say the NEW covenant. It is the Greek word for "Covenant"

gMatthew and gMark are in agreement--the Covenant [τηϲ διαθηκηϲ]

gLuke and 1 Corinthians are in agreement--the NEW Covenant [καινη διαθηκη]

Examine the Greek Sinaiticus Codex.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...hapter=11&lid=en&side=r&verse=25&zoomSlider=0

Greek Sinaiticus SHORT gMark 14.24..τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"

Greek Sinaiticus gMatthew 26.28 ......τηϲ διαθηκηϲ "the COVENANT"


Greek Sinaiticus gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη..."the NEW Covenant"

Greek Sinaitus 1 Corinthians 11.25... καινη διαθηκη .."the NEW Covenant"

Now, in the Codex Alexandrinus with the LATER gMark, the LONG gMark the phrase "the NEW Covenant" is inserted.

Greek Alexandrinus LONG gMark 14.24 ....καινης διαθηκης "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

Examine the Greek version of Papyri 46 [1 Corinthians 11.25.

The phrase for the NEW Covenant is found in 1 Corinthians as in gLuke.

gLuke 22.20 ..........καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

P 46 1 Cor. 11.25 ...καινη διαθηκη "the NEW Covenant"

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

It is now seen that the Pauline Corpus version of the Last Supper is the LATER version in existing manuscripts and Codices.

The existing Greek manuscripts and Codices appear to show that the Pauline writers did KNOW of gLUKE as claimed by Apologetic sources.

The earliest version of the Last Supper is found in the SHORT gMark.

1 Corinthians of the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the short gMark.

I am quite impressed, Dejudge!
Well done.

This is quite accurate.

The reason for the absence of the "new" in Matthew and Short Mark is that both are quite clearly (at least at their 'origin') targeted at Hebrew Jews [that doesn't mean we can leap to deciding that it was written by Hebrew Jews, per say - that's not my meaning here].
Where those Jews were located geographically is an entirely different matter (as it is unlikely they were in Judea).

Jews weren't looking for a "new" agreement with their god - that wasn't what was expected in their prophecies.
What was expected was fulfillment of a suffering messiah via the likes of Isaiah (or Zoroastrianism, but we'll stick with the Hebrew version in Isaiah).

Chapter 53...

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

The covenant being referred to in both Matthew and Mark is the blood covenant of ancestry (via Abraham) for which all Hebrews contained; in Matthew and Mark this is a big tangent - the right of authority to judge and morally decide and not find reason to not unite as an entire Hebrew people.

Ergo the wording in the more literal fashion of Matthew:

That for this blood of mine of the covenant that concerns of the many is poured into forgiveness of errors.

And Mark:

And he had spoken himself, "This is the blood of mine of the covenant that is poured on behalf of many."

Stating "new" would make very little interest or sense to Jewish (or even "jack-Jew") readers.

However, Luke, Corinthians, and Long Mark are all Hellenist undertakings with an intention of translating the conversation into Hellenist cultural comprehensions and acquisitions; it doesn't really work to offer Hellenist non-Jews a story about some savior messiah fellow who is being claimed to have come to fulfill Isaiah and honor the Covenant of Abraham and heal the Hebrew land.

You have to take that construction and drag it a bit more "meta" in the narrative to get it into a Hellenist interest, and that means giving them their own special covenant and spinning so that the messiah makes that access happen - that a whole new arrangement is produced and all the old concepts are just suddenly tossed out.
This character is no longer talking about the inherent authority of Hebrews to judge morally without worrying over pedantic details of affiliating with this or that group of Hebrew, and is now newly rewritten (and translated) to be telling everyone that he himself is bringing a new type of authority and releasing the exclusivity of his god's grace from just being accessible to the Hebrews to now being accessible to everyone (doctrine later makes this even more extreme and odd in interpretation of the Trinity instead of a traditional Ugaritic adoption system which makes it all far more sensible).


Regardless of where these were written, or when; there's two waves of information: the first wave appears to be written for some Jewish audience somewhere, but probably not in Judea, and the second wave is the Hellenist grabbing (and the third wave is the editing and formulating once "church" became a construction of interest officially in subsequent years).

Again; well done.

 

[dejudge]

Where in the above have you quoted Galatians 1:17 saying as you claimed, that Paul says in G-1:17 that a Church of God preached Jesus as the messiah before he did?

You write Fiction.


In Galatians 1, it is claimed that there were Churches of Judea in CHRIST which did not even know the Pauline writer.

In Galatians 1, there were Apostles of CHRIST before the Pauline writer claimed he was an Apostle of CHRIST.

In Galatians 1, the writer claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH he now preached.


1. You cannot show that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

2. You cannot show that the Galatians writer claimed he was the FIRST to call Jesus the Christ.

3. You cannot show that the Galatians writer was alive c 50-60 CE.

You are presently using manuscripts dated to the end of the 2nd century or later WHICH ARE COMPLETELY USELESS to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE or show that the writers were the first to name Jesus the Christ.

 

[Brainache]

...

The reason for the absence of the "new" in Matthew and Short Mark is that both are quite clearly (at least at their 'origin') targeted at Hebrew Jews [that doesn't mean we can leap to deciding that it was written by Hebrew Jews, per say - that's not my meaning here].
Where those Jews were located geographically is an entirely different matter (as it is unlikely they were in Judea).

Jews weren't looking for a "new" agreement with their god - that wasn't what was expected in their prophecies.
What was expected was fulfillment of a suffering messiah via the likes of Isaiah (or Zoroastrianism, but we'll stick with the Hebrew version in Isaiah).

Chapter 53...


The covenant being referred to in both Matthew and Mark is the blood covenant of ancestry (via Abraham) for which all Hebrews contained; in Matthew and Mark this is a big tangent - the right of authority to judge and morally decide and not find reason to not unite as an entire Hebrew people.

Ergo the wording in the more literal fashion of Matthew:


And Mark:


Stating "new" would make very little interest or sense to Jewish (or even "jack-Jew") readers.

However, Luke, Corinthians, and Long Mark are all Hellenist undertakings with an intention of translating the conversation into Hellenist cultural comprehensions and acquisitions; it doesn't really work to offer Hellenist non-Jews a story about some savior messiah fellow who is being claimed to have come to fulfill Isaiah and honor the Covenant of Abraham and heal the Hebrew land.

You have to take that construction and drag it a bit more "meta" in the narrative to get it into a Hellenist interest, and that means giving them their own special covenant and spinning so that the messiah makes that access happen - that a whole new arrangement is produced and all the old concepts are just suddenly tossed out.
This character is no longer talking about the inherent authority of Hebrews to judge morally without worrying over pedantic details of affiliating with this or that group of Hebrew, and is now newly rewritten (and translated) to be telling everyone that he himself is bringing a new type of authority and releasing the exclusivity of his god's grace from just being accessible to the Hebrews to now being accessible to everyone (doctrine later makes this even more extreme and odd in interpretation of the Trinity instead of a traditional Ugaritic adoption system which makes it all far more sensible).


Regardless of where these were written, or when; there's two waves of information: the first wave appears to be written for some Jewish audience somewhere, but probably not in Judea, and the second wave is the Hellenist grabbing (and the third wave is the editing and formulating once "church" became a construction of interest officially in subsequent years).

...

Hi Jayson. Where would you say the "Damascus Covenant" fits into all of this?
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

...
All that enter the covenant with no intention of going into the sanctuary to keep the flame alive on the altar do so in vain. They have as good as shut the door. Of them God has said: 'Who is there among you that would shut the door, and who of you would not keep alive the flame upon Mine altar?' In vain [Mal. 1.10] [are all their deeds] if, in an era of wickedness, they do not take heed to act in accordance with the explicit injunctions of tile Law; to keep away from men of rn-repute; to hold themselves aloof from rn-gotten gain; not to defile themselves by laying hands on that which has been vowed or devoted to God or on the property of the sanctuary; not to rob the poor of God's people; not to make widows their prey or murder the fatherless; to distinguish between unclean and clean and to recognize holy from profane; to keep the sabbath in its every detail, and the festivals and fasts in accordance with the practice laid down originally by the men who entered the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus';23 to pay their required dues in conformity with THE DETAILED rules thereof; to love each man his neighbor like himself; to grasp the hand of the poor, the needy and the stranger; to seek each man the welfare of his fellow; to cheat not his own kin; to abstain from whoredom, as is meet; to bring no charge against his neighbor except by due process, and not to nurse grudges from day to day; to keep away from all unclean things, in accordance with what has been prescribed in each case and with the distinctions which God Himself has drawn for them; not to sully any man the holy spirit within him. 24
...

It talks about the "Ancient Covenant" as the one with Abraham and also speaks of a "New Covenant" where everyone is his own "watch tower". That there is no longer a covenant with the whole nation, but rather only with individuals who follow the rules and those individuals don't necessarily have to be from the "Land of Judah".

Do you think this kind of thing had any influence on Paul?

ETA: Also what do you make of the idea that the term "Damascus" (Dam-mashek in Hebrew) apart from being the name of a city, can also be read as "Cup of blood" (or something like that because "Dam" is Hebrew for "Blood" and "mashek" could be read as the Hebrew for "to give to drink"). Is that at all likely in your opinion?

 

[dejudge]

The reason for the absence of the "new" in Matthew and Short Mark is that both are quite clearly (at least at their 'origin') targeted at Hebrew Jews [that doesn't mean we can leap to deciding that it was written by Hebrew Jews, per say - that's not my meaning here].

What you say is not really logical because we have versions of gMark and gMatthew with the greek word for "new".

Please, identify the Hebrew Jews who were targeted by the BLASPHEMOUS stories where Jesus the Son of God could forgive SIN and was born of a Ghost or was a Transfiguring Sea water walker and was raised from the dead on the third day?

By the way, even in the stories of gMark and gMatthew, with or without "NEW", the Jews REJECTED Jesus as the Christ and found him to be guilty of death for blasphemy.

It would appear that the stories of Jesus in the NT targeted Non-Jews.

The writings of Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not show that Jews were ever targeted by the Blasphemous Synoptics.

Supposed early Jewish writers of antiquity did not even mention a single phrase about Jesus or argued about the versions of the Last Supper found in the Entire Canon.

 

[JaysonR]

we have versions of gMark and gMatthew with the greek word for "new".

Yes we do. You yourself already went over that fact in the post I quoted of yours.

Please, identify the Hebrew Jews who were targeted by the BLASPHEMOUS stories where Jesus the Son of God could forgive SIN and was born of a Ghost or was a Transfiguring Sea water walker and was raised from the dead on the third day?

We don't know; what I was indicating was that the values of many of the core tangents both Matthew and Mark are something few cultures outside of the Jewish cultures would understand much more than just odd gibberish.
I'm not suggesting that the entire text was intended for them; I have always maintained that these are varied editions of the same story and even these editions are edited and re-written multiple times.

It could be that these were stories for Jews in Egypt for all we know, and then they were grabbed quickly and re-skinned for Hellenistic interest in what was (at that time) a fashion of mysticism in their (Hellenist) culture.
Or, it could be that it was never intended for Jews and the Jewish-centric parts were to give it some air of authenticity...but I have some doubts considering the entire tangent of very Jewish centered ideas being expressed politically.

But let's just skip past the whole part where you tell me I'm thinking poorly or some like belittlement and just assume they were never written for Jews.

What's clearly obvious is that in Matthew and Mark, there are versions clearly formed to discuss this Jesus character as a shoe-in for the Isaiah prophecy and not discussing a new covenant from a Orthodox Christian holy trinity.

By the way, even in the stories of gMark and gMatthew, with or without "NEW", the Jews REJECTED Jesus as the Christ and found him to be guilty of death for blasphemy.

Yep.
That's not a real shocker for the story, either. If we're looking at fiction and Jesus never actually existed, then even more so because this is Isaiah 52 and 53 being forced into the character of Jesus:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

This re-casting, or forced casting, of the Jesus character to tick every Isaiah checkbox makes most of the Jesus story pretty boring in hindsight.
It takes longer to tell a story that ends up pretty much being covered almost entirely in Isaiah 53 in a much less amount of space.

Just grab some super-deity content from Zoroastrianism and splash it over Isaiah and presto! Jesus Messiah story! Look! We even have super Magi to verify his authenticity!

It would appear that the stories of Jesus in the NT targeted Non-Jews.

I honestly think both are true.
It's not one or the other - in fact, it's all over the place in value sets; very metropolitan of the era's Mediterranean cultures.
There's a little Jewish culture, some Anatolian, some Persian, even some Ugaritic.

The writings of Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not show that Jews were ever targeted by the Blasphemous Synoptics.

I didn't claim these texts indicated anything.

Supposed early Jewish writers of antiquity did not even mention a single phrase about Jesus or argued about the versions of the Last Supper found in the Entire Canon.

I'm not even certain a Jewish hand wrote anything in these texts at all; regardless of who they were written for.

 

[JaysonR]

Hi Jayson. Where would you say the "Damascus Covenant" fits into all of this?
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm



It talks about the "Ancient Covenant" as the one with Abraham and also speaks of a "New Covenant" where everyone is his own "watch tower". That there is no longer a covenant with the whole nation, but rather only with individuals who follow the rules and those individuals don't necessarily have to be from the "Land of Judah".

To be clear; when I say "new" in the above context when supporting Dejudge's assessment of Matthew and Mark by contrast to other texts, I meant in the way the Christian's employ the concept of "new" - a wipe out of all previous covenants.
It's not unusual for more covenants to be taken, but they cannot violate the original covenants - even in that document it quite openly expresses that idea.

Do you think this kind of thing had any influence on Paul?

No clue. If Paul was a real person, then the Jewish understanding of covenants must be at some level present in his cultural understanding.
If on the other hand, Paul is made up or vastly fabricated, then any bets are available as to what extent the authors were familiar with Hebrew covenant cultural traditions.

ETA: Also what do you make of the idea that the term "Damascus" (Dam-mashek in Hebrew) apart from being the name of a city, can also be read as "Cup of blood" (or something like that because "Dam" is Hebrew for "Blood" and "mashek" could be read as the Hebrew for "to give to drink"). Is that at all likely in your opinion?

The name is so old that it's very spread across multiple languages to the point of being incredibly difficult to determine the value of the name in and of itself.
For one; it's considered pre-Semitic even, so any idea of its value in Hebrew culture is extremely prone to error as we're ultimately looking at a culture's attempt to transliterate another culture's name, etc... down the line.

 

[Brainache]

To be clear; when I say "new" in the above context when supporting Dejudge's assessment of Matthew and Mark by contrast to other texts, I meant in the way the Christian's employ the concept of "new" - a wipe out of all previous covenants.
It's not unusual for more covenants to be taken, but they cannot violate the original covenants - even in that document it quite openly expresses that idea.


No clue. If Paul was a real person, then the Jewish understanding of covenants must be at some level present in his cultural understanding.
If on the other hand, Paul is made up or vastly fabricated, then any bets are available as to what extent the authors were familiar with Hebrew covenant cultural traditions.

I don't take the idea that Paul was fabricated in the second to fourth centuries by "Hoax Forgers" at all seriously. Especially when it is based on dejudge's insistence that the oldest extant manuscripts prove that the Pauline corpus was composed no earlier than 180 CE.

The name is so old that it's very spread across multiple languages to the point of being incredibly difficult to determine the value of the name in and of itself.
For one; it's considered pre-Semitic even, so any idea of its value in Hebrew culture is extremely prone to error as we're ultimately looking at a culture's attempt to transliterate another culture's name, etc... down the line.

Well, OK, but the word "Damascus" features pretty heavily in Paul's conversion story in Acts. It is also the name of this "New Covenant" and it contains the Hebrew words for "drink" and "blood" (or the sounds of those words). I'm not saying that the name of the city actually means "blood to drink", or whatever, only that it might sound like that to speakers of Hebrew at that time. The tradition in Acts is that Paul stayed at "The House of Judas" on "The Straight Way" in "Damascus" when he first converted. I don't think it's too far-fetched to see these things as allegorical.

 

[Craig B]

Well, OK, but the word "Damascus" features pretty heavily in Paul's conversion story in Acts. It is also the name of this "New Covenant" and it contains the Hebrew words for "drink" and "blood" (or the sounds of those words). I'm not saying that the name of the city actually means "blood to drink", or whatever, only that it might sound like that to speakers of Hebrew at that time. The tradition in Acts is that Paul stayed at "The House of Judas" on "The Straight Way" in "Damascus" when he first converted. I don't think it's too far-fetched to see these things as allegorical.

I do. I think its nonsense to suggest that. Paul and Acts give circumstantial accounts containing the correct name of the monarch, and that the city was ruled by a governor. I think the name Straight Street is a reasonable name for a city thoroughfare, and requires no allegory to account for it. It's not simply that the word Damascus appears in the conversion story; the city Damascus features in the story.