Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[angellous_evangellous]

So then, be concerned about the fact that there is no evidence that Paul's epistles were in use by the Early pre-70 A.D. Church.

Be concerned that the Pastorals are universally said to be written in the 2nd century.

Be concerned that there was an obvious, concerted effort to make up "Deutero" Pauline epistles, and attribute them to Paul to support various Theologies.

When have I said otherwise about the pastorals?

And the thing about Paul's epistles not being used in the early church is downright silly. I hope that there's not a scholar today who believes that, because if they did, they'd be a complete moron.

 

[Shermana]

When have I said otherwise about the pastorals?

And the thing about Paul's epistles not being used in the early church is downright silly. I hope that there's not a scholar today who believes that, because if they did, they'd be a complete moron.

Well, personally I think the Tubingen school lost its clout only because of the religious revivalism of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Baur's writings were never really disproved, they kind of just got shelved.

If you can find evidence for this particular debate though, then perhaps you can make your claim that the epistles may be valid. Can you produce any?

So I take it you agree on the Pastorals. How about Ephesians and 2 Thesalonnians?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Every time I see 55CE for Mark, I cringe a little. That date just seems impossibly early, and I don't know why they chose 55CE instead of 56 or 62 or whatever.

But in my mind, it's the most popular view. In fact, I don't think that I've ever seen a date after 70CE for Mark - unless I've forgotten...

I don't have the ABD or Udo Schnelle on hand - do you know what they say?

I'll check Schnelle when I get home ...

Sorry - I had a shiva call the last two evenings and forgot all about this. From Schnelle ...

The Gospel of Mark was written either shortly before or shortly after 70 CE. The precise dating is dependent on the interpretation of Mark 13.2,14. Both verses, in there present macrocontext, refer to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. The disputed point, of course, is whether these verses already look back on the destruction of Jerusalem or whether they are real prophecies that announces the disaster that is about to befall the city. M. Hengel votes for a dating of Mark prior to 70 CE: 'It presumably originated in the politically explosive time after the murder of Nero and Galba but before the renewal of the Jewish war by Titus, i.e., sometime between the winter of 68/69 and the winter of 69/70 CE. The destruction of the temple is not yet presupposed; rather, the author anticipates the advent of the antichrist (as Nero redivivus) in the holy place, and the breaking in of the final, most severe stage of the Messianic woes before the parousia.' To be sure, Hegel's interpretation does not distinguish between the source that has been edited into Mark 13 and the Markan redaction, but identifies Mark 13.2,14 with the time in which the whole Gospel was composed. Both verses, however, are probably pre-Markan tradition and cannot be used as evidence that the Gospel itself was written prior to 70 CE. 'While the standpoint of the author of the source was situated before v. 14, that of the author of the Gospel must be located after vv. 14-20(22).' [Brandenburger] From the viewpoint of the evangelist, Mark 13.2,14 are vaticinia ex eventu, and the Gospel of Mark was probably written after the destruction of the temple early in the 70s (cf. also Mark 12.9; 15.38)

This is relevant scholarship, of course, so Shermana et. al. may not be interested. Particularly since there is no mention of the Essenes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The question is whether his agenda was in league with Yashua's, ...

Yashua [sic!] ...

 

[Shermana]

For the record, I don't agree with Essene theology, or their belief that meat eating is a later addition. I believe some Essenes were in fact part of the Christian movement, and were possibly involved with the Gospel to the Hebrews, maybe not. The only reason I said they may "Possibly" had something to do with the "Early Gospels" (Like Q) was because of their scribal history and association with the maintenance of the DSS. I will retract the very claim of the possibility they had something to do with if you're going to keep harping on it.


As for the "Relevant scholarship", that's all opinion, where do they draw their conclusion from particularly? It's like the same people who say Daniel couldn't have been written before Antiochus just because it came true.

Both verses, in there present macrocontext, refer to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE.

Oh really? They mention it happening exactly?

The precise dating is dependent on the interpretation

Now how are they "interpreting" it exactly to draw such a conclusion? So they say it mentions the Temple being destroyed, as their interpretation, to base the date....really? That's the base of this scholarship? Interesting. I don't see how it explicitly says that its a reference to the Temple being destroyed.

So if Angellous accepts this date, that means he accepts that Mark was written at that date because it was written in retrospect?
I guess that means that in such an "interpretation" Mark's writing wasn't a prediction whatsoever.

Can you produce such scholarship for your friend Angellous on where Thesallonians was used before 50 A.D.?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the record, I don't agree with Essene theology, or their belief that meat eating is a later addition. I believe some Essenes were in fact part of the Christian movement, and were possibly involved with the Gospel to the Hebrews, maybe not. The only reason I said they may "Possibly" had something to do with the "Early Gospels" (Like Q) was because of their scribal history and association with the maintenance of the DSS. I will retract the very claim of the possibility they had something to do with if you're going to keep harping on it.

You are embarrassingly ignorant about Qumran, the Essenes, and the scrolls. I'd offer some suggested reading but it would be a waste of time for both of us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, personally I think the Tubingen school lost its clout only because of the religious revivalism of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Baur's writings were never really disproved, they kind of just got shelved.

If you can find evidence for this particular debate though, then perhaps you can make your claim that the epistles may be valid. Can you produce any?

So I take it you agree on the Pastorals. How about Ephesians and 2 Thesalonnians?

I don't know if you can say that I "agree" with you on anything, particularly in the thought process that gets you there.

Now Baur had many writings and opinions, some of them have withstood the test of time and some of them have not. Sometimes I see Baur everywhere, sometimes he is nowhere.

I really don't understand how you can say that Baur's writings got somehow forgotten.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for the "Relevant scholarship", that's all opinion, ...

As you so persistently demonstrate, not all opinion is created equal.

 

[Shermana]

Well as you can see, such a late dating of Mark is used by people who think Mark was not inspired. If that's the opinion Angellous takes, well then.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well as you can see, such a late dating of Mark is used by people who think Mark was not inspired. If that's the opinion Angellous takes, well then.

You should stop assuming stuff, you're lousy at it.

 

[Shermana]

You are embarrassingly ignorant about Qumran, the Essenes, and the scrolls. I'd offer some suggested reading but it would be a waste of time for both of us.

Please explain how you derive your conclusion.

It's not exactly a waste of time to offer some links that support your own position and shoot down mine, then you might look like you can back up your claims.

 

[Shermana]

You should stop assuming stuff, you're lousy at it.

You already said you accept the late dating of Mark, and the late dating of Mark is given by people who think that the "interpretation" of the Temple's destruction means it couldn't have been prophetic...in their "interpretation".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You already said you accept the late dating of Mark, and the late dating of Mark is given by people who think that the "interpretation" of the Temple's destruction means it couldn't have been prophetic...in their "interpretation".

Jeez, where did I write that?

 

[Shermana]

See what I mean about the date? That puts Mark from 65-80, and 80 is quite late because it doesn't allow time for development between Mark and the other Gospels as well as other early Christian literature.

And as I said - I don't see anything magical about dating Mark at 55CE or 65CE. The only difference is 10 years, and nothing can pinpoint the date in that decade. The real issue is simply this: is it written before the destruction of the Temple or after.

My bad. I misunderstood what you said earlier. Now I guess you'll harp on this instead of discussing any of the other issues as an excuse.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not exactly a waste of time to offer some links that support your own position ...

Given your ...

As for the "Relevant scholarship", that's all opinion, ...

... it is clearly a complete waste of time. Your attitude toward scholarship is as laughable as it is shameful, and your awareness/understanding of relevant scholarship is simply nonexistent.

 

[Shermana]

Given your ...It is clearly a complete waste of time. Your attitude toward scholarship is as laughable as it is shameful, and you awareness/understanding of relevant scholarship is simply nonexistent.

It's a debate board, if you don't back your claims, you lose the debate or you retract your claim .Simple.

You brush off the Tubingen school completely, you didn't even know who Baur is. It's not so much having a disdain for scholarship, but choosing which scholars you agree with.

I agree with most scholars for example, that the Pastorals are forged.

You however, show a clear personal vendetta against me for some reason. You love to make accusations without backing them.

What's shameful is your inability to actually produce anything to back any of your claims and the accusations you make. May you be well acquainted with humility.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a debate board, if you don't back your claims, you lose the debate ...

:clap

 

[Shermana]

:clap

Good, so now as you can see, you lose.

 

[Shermana]

You are embarrassingly ignorant about Qumran, the Essenes, and the scrolls. I'd offer some suggested reading but it would be a waste of time for both of us.

I will give you this however, this article does a good job actually explaining why the Qumran community might not have been the Essenes.

http://www.cornerstonesociety.com/Insight/Articles/essenes.pdf

But it instead links the Qumran community as possibly the early Christians, as I hypothesized on the other thread.

 

[Shermana]

Now back to Paul..how do we explain this discrepancy in Acts?

Version One:​

Acts 9:3-17: "…[Saul] was approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'…The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.…there was a…disciple at Damascus named Ananias…laid his hands on Saul and said, `Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Version Two:​

Acts 22:6-21: "While I was…approaching Damascus…a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying…Saul,Saul, why are you persecuting me?...those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice…I could not see because of the brightness of the light…those with me…led me to Damascus…