Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2012, 07:48 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-11-2012 09:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-11-2012 09:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Well...yes....maybe....but....I'll say it again....this "likenss of man" did nothing, and said virtually nothing, according to Paul. He just pretended to be flesh, and died for everyone's sins.

Step back and let this run through your head. Paul knew the mother, the brother and disciples of Yeshua. Surely....if he had thought Yeshua was a god, he would have been interested in the exploits and words of the recently departed deity. Paul's Christ wasn't Yeshua. When Paul mentions "Jesus" it's not Paul, but must be some second century dude tampering with Paul's epistles.


That doesn't mean Yeshua didn't exist, but does mean Paul doesn't equate him with his "Christ" the son of god. Make sense?
There is no question that Paul did not equate Yeshua with a deity. The "divinity" developed later, and is different in each of the gospels. The "messiah" was never a divinity in Hebrew culture. The "divinity" as as idea can be traced, but Paul"s "raised up" Christ, was only a "son" of God, in the sense that all the others were. It was a general honorific title that meant they were "righteous" men. The councils debated the divinity for centuries.
I think it's questionable whether Paul considered Yeshua as anything more than an executed insurrectionist.

I suspect, but can't prove, that when "Paul" mentions "Jesus" we're looking at interpolations. What do you think about this Bucky?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 08:00 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(19-11-2012 06:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I think Ignatius and Clement were quoting Jesus from something, but we don't know what, and there is no good evidence it was from the gospels as we know them now.

Mostly agree. However, each and every quote they did make can be found in the current canon. There is not one single quote that cannot be found in the current canon.

Quote:My personal opinion is that the 4 gospels we have now may have originally been jotted down post 70 CE, but in fact are mainly second century creations. Way too many words have been wasted trying to prove who wrote them and when. It's much more realistic to accept that they evolved over a 200 year period.

We can make that assumption, but it is still an assumption nonetheless. Yet, when we examine other ancient documents, such as Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" from around AD 135, we find the nativity scene being mentioned, Jesus being crucified by Pilate, his followers are named Christians, the resurrection, that the Gospel was "written," and all his quotes of Jesus are found in the current canon.

So what do we make of that? All of what Trypho mentioned is in the current canon.

Since Justin wrote this Trypho dialoge around AD 135, it is clearly obvious that since he says a gospel was "written," that it was indeed written sometime before AD 135.

Quote:I can't agree about the existence of the synoptics by 75 CE, and I know that most historians don't either. The standard line is something like this....Mark 70-75 CE, Matthew 80-90, Luke 90's, John c100. Everyone is guessing, and, given the above paragraph, it's rather irrelevant when they were first jotted down anyway.

Yet, in the letters of Paul we find this sequence in the works:

Quote:2Co_11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Gal_1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal_1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


In the context of the letters, what we see above is Paul telling us that there was indeed another gospel going around, and this this gospel was not the one he preached about, and that it depicted genealogies, fables, arguments about the Law, etc. This is a perfect description of what we see in the current canon.

Not only that, it gives us further insight as to why Paul mentions no miracles of Jesus, aside from the resurrection, as he may have indeed considered those miracles to be "fables."

So what can we infer from this? To me, it tells us that there were indeed other gospels in existence during the time of Paul, and considering that they had "endless genealogies," it is without doubt that they were written down. Obviously Paul is telling Timothy to tell the people in Ephesus to stop teaching other doctrines.

But guess what else I see? I see at least a 3rd Christian faction competing with Paul's Gentiles Church and James' Church of Jerusalem.

Quote:As to Paul thinking Jesus was a human...my theory is that the quotes you mention are interpolations. The catholic church pinched Paul's original opus from Marcion, and then wrote 3 more epistles in Paul's name, and these fakes implied a much more human Jesus. They wouldn't have thought twice about embellishing Paul's words. Bear in mind Marcion's Christ was a spirit... "Isu Chrestos," and his "gospels" consisted only of Paul's writings and a shorter version of Luke.

I find this assertion about what the Catholics supposedly did with Marcion's works to have no support with evidence. Since the Catholic church despised Marcion, and burned everything he wrote, why would they accept any doctrines from him as being the truth?

In addition to this, we constantly find Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement quoting the teachings of Paul decades before Marcion. Therefore, we know that Paul's letters were already in the hands of the Apostolic Fathers before Marcion, so there were be no need to pinch anything from Marcion. These apostloc fathers acknowledge a human Jesus who was crucified, so we cannot blame a church that didn't exist at that time for interpolating Paul's letters.

The time-line simply doesn't work here for your theory to be plausible. In fact, it's mathematically impossible.

Also, we have Justin Martyr claiming in AD 135 that a written gospel depicted a human Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. This gospel clearly existed before AD 135, otherwise Justin could not quote from it.

Quote:I'm repeating myself here....but you're ignoring the fact that Paul made almost no mention of Jesus' exploits. That's impossible if Paul thought Jesus, who had passed on only 15+ years earlier, was the son of god. Think about it.

I've thought about it, and see nothing as being impossible. Paul had his own church going, rivaling other early Christian doctrines. Also, as demonstrated in this post a few lines above, we can see why Paul did not mention the supposed exploits of Jesus. He viewed them as fables.

Quote:Re the quote from Paul about him and 500 others seeing Christ. Nobody "saw" Christ. Paul, or whoever wrote in his name, is lying. Paul "received" ie imagined, his Christ. If he had "seen" Jesus, why didn't he describe him? If James had seen a risen Jesus, one doesn't he say so in his letter? If 500 people had seen a resurrected corpse, why doesn't one single one of them bother to document it?

Maybe he is lying, but regardless if he's lying does not mean that the person named Jesus didn't exist. Just because people can lie about 1 thing does not mean they lie about all things. If this were true, then nothing you or I, or anyone else says, could ever be true.

Obviously there are documents about people seeing this supposedly risen Jesus, as all 4 gospels and Acts talk about it. We both know it is bullshit though.


Quote:We can compare what Paul wrote to what is in the gospels, yet in my opinion that only proves that the gospels were written to back up Paul's idea of a resurrected Christ. Think about it. We know the resurrection story in Mark (the most original of the 4 gospels and the one the others copied) was only added in the late second century! The original Mark contained no resurrection story. Paul's resurrected Christ had to be written into it.

Considering that Paul doesn't mention hardly anything written in the Gospels, I doubt this to be true. We cannot claim with any certainty whatsoever or not that the original Mark had no ressurection, because we do not have the original. If you are meaning the oldest extant copy, then that copy does not have anything past the empty tomb.

However, there is still something more that should be considered ...

Papias of Hierapolis, as quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, and who wrote in the 1st third of the 2nd century around AD 115, talks about Mark's gospel:

Quote:Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to make teachings according to the cheias, [a special kind of anecdote] but not making as it were a systematic composition of the Lord's sayings; so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled [them]. For he had but one intention, not to leave out anything he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them". This is what was related by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew`s this was said: "For Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able"

According to Papias, both Mark and Matthew wrote and recorded the life of Jesus, and the sayings attributed to him. This is solid evidence that a written Gospel (or 2) was in the hands of Papias in the first third of the 2nd century, which indicates that those gospels pre-existed him.

So again, this is yet more evidence to support the existence of a written gospel being in the hands of early Christians who were born contemporary to the 1st century.


Quote:Paul saw his "Christ" in his imagination (he admits this), and it wasn't Jesus. Paul, or whoever wrote this, was trying to create the false impression that James and the disciples and about 500 others, believed in his Christ. They didn't. They thought of Yeshua as a prophet, only a human. It was blasphemy for them, true jews, not Christians, to imagine god had a son who had come to earth.

Mostly agreed, but he still based his idea of Christ from an actual historical person named Jesus, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Re"Yet, when we examine other ancient documents, such as Justin Martyr's
"Dialogue with Trypho" from around AD 135, we find the nativity scene
being mentioned, Jesus being crucified by Pilate, his followers are
named Christians, the resurrection, that the Gospel was "written," and
all his quotes of Jesus are found in the current canon.

So what do we make of that? All of what Trypho mentioned is in the current canon.

Since Justin wrote this Trypho dialoge around AD 135, it is clearly
obvious that since he says a gospel was "written," that it was indeed
written sometime before AD 135. "

Mate...I gotta disagree with you here. Please read this and check out the link.

The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name “Catholic,” and Justin Martyr became their preeminent apologist. He was unaware of the concept of a New Testament canon, or that there should only
be four Gospels, or of the existence of any of the four now canonical gospels. (
see [font="]http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm[/font] ). He used more than three hundred quotations from books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from now-apocryphal books, but none from the four Gospels. One of four things must be true; either the Gospels hadn’t been written yet (likely), or they were in a very different state from what they are today, and unnamed (possible), or they existed but he had never seen any of them (very unlikely), or that he knew of them but failed to mention them (impossible).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 08:18 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
RE:

"In the context of the letters, what we see above is Paul telling us that
there was indeed another gospel going around, and this this gospel was
not the one he preached about, and that it depicted genealogies, fables,
arguments about the Law, etc. This is a perfect description of what we
see in the current canon.

Not only that, it gives us further insight as to why Paul mentions no
miracles of Jesus, aside from the resurrection, as he may have indeed
considered those miracles to be "fables."

So what can we infer from this? To me, it tells us that there were
indeed other gospels in existence during the time of Paul, and
considering that they had "endless genealogies," it is without doubt
that they were written down."

Ok.....big breath.....there's a lot of issues here. Paul is stating there are other gospels. Firstly, he's not necessarily referring to written texts. Secondly, there is no evidence that, if he was referring to something written, was it any of the four canonical gospels. You must remember Paul wrote pre 66CE. Almost all non evangelical historians date the canonical gospels as having been written post 70 CE.

One possibility is that Paul was referring to the "gospel of the Nazarenes" Google that to find out about it.

Do you accept my point that the gospels "evolved" over at least a 200 year period? It is overly simplistic to suggest they were written by one author at one time and that's the end of the story. For example, we know that Eusebius and others were still editing the gospels in the early fourth century.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 08:29 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
RE

"I find this assertion about what the Catholics supposedly did with
Marcion's works to have no support with evidence. Since the Catholic
church despised Marcion, and burned everything he wrote, why would they
accept any doctrines from him as being the truth?



In addition to this, we constantly find Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement
quoting the teachings of Paul decades before Marcion. Therefore, we know
that Paul's letters were already in the hands of the Apostolic Fathers
before Marcion, so there were be no need to pinch anything from Marcion.
These apostloc fathers acknowledge a human Jesus who was crucified, so
we cannot blame a church that didn't exist at that time for
interpolating Paul's letters.



The time-line simply doesn't work here for your theory to be plausible. In fact, it's mathematically impossible."

Ok...thanks for pointing this out. I've gone back and checked some sources. When I was writing the book, I gained the distinct impression from a number of sources that it was Marcion who presented Paul's opus to the Romans in roughly 140 CE. I'm not sure about that now. Bucky, what do you think?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 08:57 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2012 05:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
RE:

"I've thought about it, and see nothing as being impossible. Paul had his
own church going, rivaling other early Christian doctrines. Also, as
demonstrated in this post a few lines above, we can see why Paul did not
mention the supposed exploits of Jesus. He viewed them as fables."

Free....the fact remains Paul rambled on about his "Christ" and said virtually nothing about a once living person. If he thought his "Christ" was a recently departed once living person he would have documented details about that person...but he doesn't!

Consider an analogy. I want to start a religion. I think John Lennon was God. The new religion is one day to be called "Beatleanity." John Lennon is my recently departed hero. How am I going to convince people to join my John Lennon cult? Well....I'm going to play his music, make a movie about him, put his pictures on the internet, talk to Yoko, his mother, his son, his brothers and sisters, and anyone who knew him. I'll bad mouth anyone who disagrees with my image of him, and I'll say why. I'd promote his life's story, start a fan club, and sit back and watch the cash roll in.

What I won't be doing is saying "listen here fuckers, this spirit type guy died for you and that's all you need to know. Believe that and you'll go to Beatle heaven. If you don't have faith in what I'm telling you, you're fucked. If any of you play Rolling Stones records I curse you." Yet that is what Paul did.

I rest my case that Paul's "Christ" wasn't Jeebus, but someone/something else.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 09:40 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I've just spent an hour trying to get my head around Marcion. Bloody complicated!

I don't think anyone knows how Paul's writings got popular in Rome. I'm guessing....but I think Marcion was the man....the following article suggests he was there in 116CE!

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/marcion.htm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2012 09:15 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:Yet, when we examine other ancient documents, such as Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" from around AD 135, we find the nativity scene
being mentioned, Jesus being crucified by Pilate, his followers are named Christians, the resurrection, that the Gospel was "written," and all his quotes of Jesus are found in the current canon.

So what do we make of that? All of what Trypho mentioned is in the current canon.

Since Justin wrote this Trypho dialoge around AD 135, it is clearly obvious that since he says a gospel was "written," that it was indeed written sometime before AD 135.

Mate...I gotta disagree with you here. Please read this and check out the link.

The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name “Catholic,” and Justin Martyr became their preeminent apologist. He was unaware of the concept of a New Testament canon, or that there should only be four Gospels, or of the existence of any of the four now canonical gospels. See [font=]http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm ).

He used more than three hundred quotations from books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from now-apocryphal books, but none from the four Gospels. One of four things must be true; either the Gospels hadn’t been written yet (likely), or they were in a very different state from what they are today, and unnamed (possible), or they existed but he had never seen any of them (very unlikely), or that he knew of them but failed to mention them (impossible).

Yet how closely are they looking, Mark? Let me show you something:

Quote:CHAPTER X -- TRYPHO BLAMES THE CHRISTIANS FOR THIS ALONE--THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW.

Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html

As you can clearly see, "Trypho" has read the precepts in the Gospel. Now, how about something verbatim:

Quote:CHAPTER C -- IN WHAT SENSE CHRIST IS [CALLED] JACOB, AND ISRAEL, AND SON OF MAN.

For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

Mat_11:27 All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.

Luk_10:22 All things are delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.

How closely are your sources looking, Mark? Not only have I shown you "verbatim" quotations, I have now shown you twice with two quotes to also demonstrate that a gospel was written.

Also, it is quite clear that since Trypho is talking about things that are currenlty in the canon, then we can narrow down his source to be most lilely Matthew & Luke, since all the elements he referrences can be found in the those gospels. In Dialogue with Trypho, the word "Gospel" is mentioned only 3 times, and twice it is mentioned as being written.

Also ...

Quote:For He appeared distasteful to you when He cried among you, 1. 'It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!' He overthrew also the tables of the money-changers in the temple, and exclaimed, 2 'Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye pay tithe of mint and rue, but do not observe the love of God and justice. 3 Ye whited sepulchres! appearing beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones.' And to the Scribes, 4. 'Woe unto you, Scribes! for ye have the keys, and ye do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering in ye hinder; ye blind guides!'

Compare the underlined quotes above to:

1. Luk_19:46 saying to them, It is written, "My house is a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of thieves.

2. Mat_23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.

3. Mat_23:27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

4. Luk_11:52 Woe to you, scribes! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and you have hindered those who were entering in.


This kind of thing can be done for hours with Trypho, so I am not so confident in whatever sources you are using because I actually read this stuff to show you where I am going with it. His works are so filled with what we can find in Matthew and Luke that I can only reasonably and logically conclude that he sourced written Gospels for his works.

He admits in his works of the existence of written gospels, and the quotes he uses can all be found in the current canon as either verbatim, or near verbatim.

Again, of the numerous quotes he makes of Jesus, there is not one that is not in the current gospel record. Does it not make you ask the question that if he was quoting non biblical sources, then why does he not quote anything unique to those sources?


And finally, here is the "kicker" that should make you re-think everything you may have concluded.


How about the following quote from Dialogue with Trypho as we compare it to Matthew:


Quote:Dialogue With Trypho


Wherefore also our Christ said,[when He was] on earth, to those who were affirming that Elijah must come before Christ: 'Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose.' And it is written, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.' "

Gospel of Matthew


Mat 17:11 And answering Jesus said to them, Elijah truly shall come first and restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but have done to him whatever they desired. Likewise also the Son of Man shall suffer from them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.


Do you and your sources see what I see in the above quotes, Mark? Do you not only see that Justin is not only quoting Jesus almost verbatim, but also ... he is quoting the gospel's narrator in Matthew 17:13?

What I have just shown you is clear evidence that Trypho was indeed sourcing a written Gospel around AD 130 - 140, and that written Gospel he is quoting from is indeed the one and only Gospel of Matthew.

Otherwise, how could he quote the narrator of the Gospel verbatim?

These are the things we can see when we really want to investigate, Mark. I have always felt that solely depending on the scholarship of others can deny and mislead us as to what the truth actually is. Therefore, myself and a few "gifted friends who all like to stay anonymous" as opposed to receiving "internet accolades" actually tear these old texts apart word for word to demonstrate what is actually there, as opposed to using theories and conjecture. It's the only way to get to the truth.

You may see "Free" as a name I use here but, "Who the fuck is Free?" I'm a nobody, and plan on staying that way.

Tongue

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 10:04 PM (This post was last modified: 24-11-2012 10:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(22-11-2012 07:36 PM)Free Wrote:  This does not make sense to me. Of course Paul never met Jesus in person as far as we know. However, we do know that Paul was influenced by the other Apostles of Jesus, such as Peter and James, who were from the Nazarene sect.

They would have given Paul the information he had about Jesus, such as his crucifixion. Other info about his resurrection likely came from the gentile Christians from stories spread among the Greeks. The info about any other supposed miracles would also likely come from the Greeks, yet would be rejected by Paul due to his Jewish roots in much the same way as the Nazarene sect rejected such fables.

Actually we know that is not the case. (Paul didn't write Timothy, BTW). And the letter writer Paul, (who is not the same Paul as the Paul of Acts, which we know from the very different philosophical outlook on some important points), tells us so, in Galatians 1:11 ""Let me make it clear, friends, the gospel I announced does not conform to human expectations. I say this because it was NOT transmitted to me by anyone, nor did anyone teach it to me. Rather it came to me as an insight from God, about Jesus as God's Anointed." In fact before that, in the same letter he even talks about "preaching another gospel", which is clearly not a *written* document. The Paul in Acts said he talked to the Apostles.

Don't forget, Trypho was an invention. There was no Trypho. He was a literary device. He proves nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-11-2012, 10:06 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(24-11-2012 08:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE

"I find this assertion about what the Catholics supposedly did with
Marcion's works to have no support with evidence. Since the Catholic
church despised Marcion, and burned everything he wrote, why would they
accept any doctrines from him as being the truth?



In addition to this, we constantly find Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement
quoting the teachings of Paul decades before Marcion. Therefore, we know
that Paul's letters were already in the hands of the Apostolic Fathers
before Marcion, so there were be no need to pinch anything from Marcion.
These apostloc fathers acknowledge a human Jesus who was crucified, so
we cannot blame a church that didn't exist at that time for
interpolating Paul's letters.



The time-line simply doesn't work here for your theory to be plausible. In fact, it's mathematically impossible."

Ok...thanks for pointing this out. I've gone back and checked some sources. When I was writing the book, I gained the distinct impression from a number of sources that it was Marcion who presented Paul's opus to the Romans in roughly 140 CE. I'm not sure about that now. Bucky, what do you think?
You have a book going?

Drop me a link.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 10:11 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(24-11-2012 08:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE:

"In the context of the letters, what we see above is Paul telling us that
there was indeed another gospel going around, and this this gospel was
not the one he preached about, and that it depicted genealogies, fables,
arguments about the Law, etc. This is a perfect description of what we
see in the current canon.

Not only that, it gives us further insight as to why Paul mentions no
miracles of Jesus, aside from the resurrection, as he may have indeed
considered those miracles to be "fables."

So what can we infer from this? To me, it tells us that there were
indeed other gospels in existence during the time of Paul, and
considering that they had "endless genealogies," it is without doubt
that they were written down."

Ok.....big breath.....there's a lot of issues here. Paul is stating there are other gospels. Firstly, he's not necessarily referring to written texts. Secondly, there is no evidence that, if he was referring to something written, was it any of the four canonical gospels. You must remember Paul wrote pre 66CE. Almost all non evangelical historians date the canonical gospels as having been written post 70 CE.

One possibility is that Paul was referring to the "gospel of the Nazarenes" Google that to find out about it.

Do you accept my point that the gospels "evolved" over at least a 200 year period? It is overly simplistic to suggest they were written by one author at one time and that's the end of the story. For example, we know that Eusebius and others were still editing the gospels in the early fourth century.


Yes, I accept that they did indeed evolve over the years but were not so changed from the 1st century texts as to become unreasonable.

They are still evolving even today.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: