Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Craig B]

Is he Professor Plum in the Drawing room with the candlestick? I don't know... We'll have to wait and see...

That's about as probable as what I expect you to come up with when you get round to it.

 

[Brainache]

That's about as probable as what I expect you to come up with when you get round to it.

OK.

You know more about than I do then. I have no idea where this is leading. Is there some commonly accepted Crackpot answer to this?

I'm just following a trail as these things occur to me. If you don't agree, you can tell me about it or not, I don't mind, but I don't have some sinister ulterior motive here.

I don't pretend that anything here is going to change the world or even that it is necessarily the correct hypothesis for what happened.

I'm learning about it and I thought others might be interested. It was someone's enquiry that started the whole thing.

If you aren't happy with the plausibility of it all, OK fine. I never said it was certain and I know it isn't mainstream, but it doesn't hurt to look at what it actually is before dismissing it.

 

[dejudge]

Paul comes before the Gospels. The Gospels have Jesus insulting the Jews, calling them a generation of vipers etc How is it that the Messiah can turn around and be so hateful towards the very people who are proclaiming him "King"?

The Gospels are full of Roman anti-semitic rhetoric, as are Paul's letters.

Actually there is no evidence at all from antiquity to support the claim that Paul comes before the Gospels.

In fact, all stories about Paul is that he came AFTER the Jesus story was known or after Jesus was believed to have resurrected and that Paul Persecuted those who preached the Gospel.

And further, the Pauline writer claimed to have met Apostles found in the Gospels and writers like Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.


But, what is most devastating for early Pauline writings is that the author of Acts mentioned nothing of the Pauline Corpus and showed no influence at all by Pauline writings even though he mentioned Paul over 140 times.

There is virtually no hint of the Pauline Corpus in Acts and all the other books of the Canon.

If the Gospel authors were after the Pauline Corpus was already known and circulated then it cannot be explained how none of the authors incorporated Pauline teachings into the mouth of their Jesus.

Incredibly in many instances the Jesus of the Gospels contradicts the teaching of Paul.

The Pauline writer could NOT have been an Herodian in the 1st century when the Pauline Corpus is a product of the 2nd century or later.

No Pauline letter have been found and dated to pre 70 CE.

None will ever be found for such a time period.

 

[Brainache]

Actually there is no evidence at all from antiquity to support the claim that Paul comes before the Gospels.

In fact, all stories about Paul is that he came AFTER the Jesus story was known or after Jesus was believed to have resurrected and that Paul Persecuted those who preached the Gospel.

And further, the Pauline writer claimed to have met Apostles found in the Gospels and writers like Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.


But, what is most devastating for early Pauline writings is that the author of Acts mentioned nothing of the Pauline Corpus and showed no influence at all by Pauline writings even though he mentioned Paul over 140 times.

There is virtually no hint of the Pauline Corpus in Acts and all the other books of the Canon.

If the Gospel authors were after the Pauline Corpus was already known and circulated then it cannot be explained how none of the authors did not incorporate Pauline teachings into the mouth of their Jesus.

Incredibly in many instances the Jesus of the Gospels contradicts the teaching of Paul.

The Pauline writer could NOT have been an Herodian in the 1st century when the Pauline Corpus is a product of the 2nd century or later.

No Pauline letter have been found and dated to pre 70 CE.

None will ever be found for such a time period.

Do you have a cite for these assertions?

Who is saying these things?

You?

 

[dejudge]

Do you have a cite for these assertions?

Who is saying these things?

You?

I have mentioned Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels. They show virtually zero influence by the Pauline writings.

The NT Canon show those things if you study them.

If one reads and studies the Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles and Revelation it would appear that none of authors attended a Pauline Church, read a Pauline Epistle or ever heard Paul preach.

In fact, gMark's Jesus boasted that he wanted the Populace to remain in Sin, demanded that his disciples tell NO-ONE that he was Christ and did not ever claim he would abolish the Laws of the Jews.

gMark is completely contrary to the Pauline Corpus.

There are 13 books under the name of Paul in the NT Canon yet you cannot find a single complete sentence in any other book of the NT.

On the other hand, there are ONLY 16 chapters in gMark, yet we have almost 100 % word for word copying by later authors.

Amazingly, AFTER four versions of the Gospel in the Canon all of them did not mention any of the post resurrection "details" in the Pauline Crpus which would have greatly enhanced the Gospel.

 

[Craig B]

OK.

You know more about than I do then. I have no idea where this is leading. Is there some commonly accepted Crackpot answer to this?

No. And the answer you finally come up with (hopefully quite soon) may or may not be crackpot. However, if you're stating that Paul was a member of the Herodian royal family it will in all probability not be in the category of "commonly accepted" things.

 

[Brainache]

No. And the answer you finally come up with (hopefully quite soon) may or may not be crackpot. However, if you're stating that Paul was a member of the Herodian royal family it will in all probability not be in the category of "commonly accepted" things.

Ah, OK. I seem to be getting a bit defensive lately. I wonder why?

 

[Brainache]

I have mentioned Acts of the Apostles and the Gospels. They show virtually zero influence by the Pauline writings.
{snip for space}
...

Are you going to answer my question?

Who is making these assertions?

Are they from someone else's writings?

Or, did you come up with them yourself?

 

[dejudge]

Are you going to answer my question?

Who is making these assertions?

Are they from someone else's writings?

Or, did you come up with them yourself?

You yourself are merely repeating what someone else have written about Paul and are making assertions that "Paul comes before the Gospels".

How did you come up with such assertions? Surely you did not examine the NT Canon and Apologetic writings.

In the NT Canon and Apologetic writings Paul comes AFTER the Gospels were known.

Are you not aware of the story of Paul?

Paul preached the Faith that he once destroyed. See Galatians and Corinthians.

The story of Paul is that he Persecuted those who believed the Gospel.

Why are you making assertions about Paul without a shred of evidence from antiquity.

At least, your assertions should match the Pauline story.

 

[Brainache]

OK, now as I said, I don't know where this is leading.

I can't find Manaen in Josephus, but if he was raised as a brother with Herod the Tetrarch, wouldn't that mean he was raised in Caesar's Palace in Rome along with Claudius and that generation of Julio-Claudians?

He is the one in I Claudius, isn't he?


(I highly recommend it, if you haven't seen it) I know it isn't a documentary, but this is the Herod The Tetrarch we are talking about, isn't it? He had a falling out later on life with Claudius when he started fortifying the cities in Judea, IIRC.

So who is the Foster-Brother of this guy? I'm not going to say it's the Roman Emperor or anything stupid like that. But at the very least it shows some kind of connection between one Herodian and the "Cradle of Christianity" - Antioch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch

...
As a result of its longevity and the pivotal role it played in the emergence of both Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, Antioch was called "the cradle of Christianity."[1] It was one of the four cities of the Syrian tetrapolis. Its residents are known as Antiochenes. Once a great metropolis of half a million people, it declined to insignificance during the Middle Ages because of warfare, repeated earthquakes and a change in trade routes following the Mongol conquests, which then no longer passed through Antioch from the far east...

I keep look I guess...

 

[Brainache]

You yourself are merely repeating what someone else have written about Paul and are making assertions that "Paul comes before the Gospels".

...

OK. Don't answer.

You are wrong.

Since you assert these things without evidence, I can reject them without further trouble.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Craig B]

In the NT Canon and Apologetic writings Paul comes AFTER the Gospels were known.

The Canon was defined much later. Many many decades later than Paul, so the order in which things are written down is not evidence of the order of composition. It is for example almost universally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the canonical gospels though it is placed second in the NT.

Are you not aware of the story of Paul? Paul preached the Faith that he once destroyed. See Galatians and Corinthians. The story of Paul is that he Persecuted those who believed the Gospel.

Very few sensible Christian theologians - let alone atheist scholars - would argue that Paul was familiar with the written gospels.

Paul uses the word in its original sense of "good news". That's what he was preaching, and what he had originally been denying, the "good news" of Jesus' resurrection, as he believed, which seemed to him to indicate that the end of the world was imminent, and that the Kingdom of Heaven was about to be established. He was not persecuting, or later writing letters to, the possessors of four written gospels, for such writings did not yet exist.

 

[Brainache]

You yourself are merely repeating what someone else have written about Paul and are making assertions that "Paul comes before the Gospels".

How did you come up with such assertions? Surely you did not examine the NT Canon and Apologetic writings.

In the NT Canon and Apologetic writings Paul comes AFTER the Gospels were known.

Are you not aware of the story of Paul?

Paul preached the Faith that he once destroyed. See Galatians and Corinthians.

The story of Paul is that he Persecuted those who believed the Gospel.

Why are you making assertions about Paul without a shred of evidence from antiquity.

At least, your assertions should match the Pauline story.

My first reply probably seems flippant and dismissive to you. I have to admit there is always something a bit dismissive and flip about me, don't take it personally.

But really you can't just say something like "The Gospels show no Pauline Influence" without at least attempting to back it up with something.

Some quotes from anyone qualified who thinks this is the case, might be a good start. Do you have anyone like that?

Otherwise my first answer stands.

You also don't appear to be reading the thread very closely if you think I'm ignoring Paul's "pre-conversion" persecution of the Jesus followers.

 

[Brainache]

The Canon was defined much later. Many many decades later than Paul, so the order in which things are written down is not evidence of the order of composition. It is for example almost universally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the canonical gospels though it is placed second in the NT.

Very few sensible Christian theologians - let alone atheist scholars - would argue that Paul was familiar with the written gospels.

Paul uses the word in its original sense of "good news". That's what he was preaching, and what he had originally been denying, the "good news" of Jesus' resurrection, as he believed, which seemed to him to indicate that the end of the world was imminent, and that the Kingdom of Heaven was about to be established. He was not persecuting, or later writing letters to, the possessors of four written gospels, for such writings did not yet exist.

Just to be sure you are quoting dejudge, not me right? Or is this the

Twilight Zone?

 

[Craig B]

Just to be sure you are quoting dejudge, not me right? Or is this the

Twilight Zone?

Yes, dejudge. I trust for your part that you agree with my view of the meaning of "gospel" to Paul.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, dejudge. I trust for your part that you agree with my view of the meaning of "gospel" to Paul.

What? I thought it was that crappy 70's musical that inspired Jesus Christ Superstar....



sorry


ETA: Yes sorry Craig, I do agree that Paul's Gospel is different to the books Mark, Matthew, Luke and John that we call "The Gospels". Those books came after Paul, not before.

 

[Craig B]

... I do agree that Paul's Gospel is different to the books Mark, Matthew, Luke and John that we call "The Gospels". Those books came after Paul, not before.

Do you think he had any written "gospel" or did he just mean oral "good news"?

 

[dejudge]

OK. Don't answer.

You are wrong.

Since you assert these things without evidence, I can reject them without further trouble.

Thanks for playing.

You assert things without evidence. You claim Paul came before the Gospels which is contrary to the very NT Canon.

In the Canon Paul comes AFTER the Gospels.

1.In the Canon Paul persecuted those who believed and preach the Gospel.

2.In the Canon there were people who were Apostles of Christ before Paul.

3.In the Canon over 500 person were aware that Jesus was raised from the dead before Paul.

4.In the Canon Paul was the LAST to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Galatians 1:23 NAS

...but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

1 Corinthians 15

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15

....He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep ; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles ; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also

 

[dejudge]

My first reply probably seems flippant and dismissive to you. I have to admit there is always something a bit dismissive and flip about me, don't take it personally.

But really you can't just say something like "The Gospels show no Pauline Influence" without at least attempting to back it up with something.

You are the one who first made a flippant statement without a shred of evidence that Paul comes before the Gospels and continue to repeat the flippancy as if you have no intention of present any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

You give the impression that whatever you assert cannot be questioned or that you have no obligation to present any supporting evidence.

You have no evidence at all in or out the Canon that Paul comes before the Gospels.

The Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be seen of Jesus.

Paul's Revelation was after the Apostles.

Paul's Revelation was AFTER the Revelation of the Apostle John.

Examine the Muratorian Canon---Paul's Epistles were composed AFTER the Revelation of John.

The Muratorian Canon corroborates the writings of Justin Martyr when he mentioned the Revelation of John but not a single sentence from the Pauline Corpus.

 

[pakeha]

dejudge, are you saying Paul's epistles were composed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70?