Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

but I am interested in what you said above here, AdD, and was wondering if you could clarify for me. You seem to set up a case in which "inner mysteries" (=faith?) is in opposition to True Religion (dogma? following the letter of the law?). Do you mean this is like mixing the spiritual with the practical, and that the two should never meet?

Actually the "inner mysteries" are much more akin to Greek philosophy than faith. True Religion is faith. So the conflict is not Love v. Law but whether virtue arises from reason/wisdom or faith. The "Jewish aspects of Christianity - the faith - is incompatible with the Mystery aspect, whose deeper meanings were philosophical and based on reason rather than on faith or revelation.

[Abogado del Diablo]

I would also add that Greek philsophy and the mysteries permeate Christianity in places other than the writings of Paul. The Gospel of John starts with the phrase "In the beginning was the Word." "Word" is the Greek Logos, which has its roots centuries earlier in the writings and teachings of Plato - himself a disciple of the Cult of Dionysius and student of Pythagoras.

Plato taught that the world of matter was under the control of a great spiritual principle—the Nous—which principle was also called Logos, or The Divine Mind or Word of God. When this principle manifested itself in the world, it was called virtue or goodness, or chrestos, from whence we get the name Christ.

And for a likely original author of Christianity as Paul came to know it, I would propose Philo ("the Pythagorean") a Jewish philosopher at around the time attribtued to the "life of Christ". In Philo's thought, Logos is the divine "template" of which the visible world is a copy; it is the divine power of manifestation, process, and unfolding in that world; and it is the agent of creation, an intermediary or demiourgos, following Plato's Timaeus, that realizes God's plan.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

The only problem is that Peter did not write 2 Peter, and on this point your argument collapses. Didn't you read my last post on this?
If you don't beleive me, just enter "authorship of 2 Peter' in your search engine and explore the results.

I could equally validate it by getting rid of 2 Peter from the start and using Acts to discredit the gospels, since Acts was written by Luke. But this is beside the point. You still haven't proven that there is even one fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and preachings of Paul.

So I'll make it easy for you. Show me where Paul subverts Jesus on the most critical of all teachings: Love. If you can prove that Paul's preachings on love contradict Jesus' teachings, then in my opinion Paul is completely discredited because love is the foundation of Jesus' message. But the kind of contradiction I'm asking for is a fundamental one; not a nit-picky one, based on an isolated clause taken out of context.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

I could equally validate it by getting rid of 2 Peter from the start and using Acts to discredit the gospels, since Acts was written by Luke. But this is beside the point. You still haven't proven that there is even one fundamental difference between the teachings of Jesus and preachings of Paul.

So I'll make it easy for you. Show me where Paul subverts Jesus on the most critical of all teachings: Love. If you can prove that Paul's preachings on love contradict Jesus' teachings, then in my opinion Paul is completely discredited because love is the foundation of Jesus' message. But the kind of contradiction I'm asking for is a fundamental one; not a nit-picky one, based on an isolated clause taken out of context.

Marsha,
You will find the answers you are looking for in Victor's thesis: 'the pauline conspiracy' which is availble in the articles section of this website.

I agree with Brian when he said Victor's argument against Paul is difficult to refute. If you're up the challenge, dare to read Victor's article and refute him, point by point.

[Marsh]

Why are you so unwilling to make any arguments of your own? I'm only asking for one.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Why are you so unwilling to make any arguments of your own? I'm only asking for one.

Critics of Paul share the same argument that he is not a true apostle.

But we each submit some evidence in common and some evidence that is original, so some of my material is duplicated by Victor and some is not.

But most is parallel. Read Victor's thesis and see for yourself.

Go ahead and refute Victor, point by point.

But remember, the burden of proof is not to refute Paul's claim to apostleship, but to prove it in the affirmative.

The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.

But remember that Jesus never foretold of any new apostles; He only foretold of the arrival of false apostles!

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.

Which works would those be?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Which works would those be?

From the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John (although Mark was actually a disciple of Peter, still he was at least recollecting the thoughts of a true apostle among The Twelve).

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

From the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John (although Mark was actually a disciple of Peter, still he was at least recollecting the thoughts of a true apostle among The Twelve).

How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?

Actually we don't know for sure. Most bible scholars agree these works were inspired by their namesakes but the final text was written by several layers of redactors (including the gospel of Q). Still these books are accepted as gospels originating from the alleged authors, and these books never make any mention of Paul or Luke.

And Jesus was able to accomplish His teaching without quoting Paul or Luke, so if He didn't need Paul or Luke, then it is quite possible to maintain a Christian doctrine without including the books of Paul or Luke.

I still do not understand why Christians are so dependent on Pauline doctrine.
Thw Words of Jesus should be sufficient.

Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? It is solely a compilation of the Words of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson said that "Paul was the first corrupter of the gospels".

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

How do you know that any of those were written by apostles? How do you know that Mark was written by a disciple of Peter?

Oops, I forgot to respond to your question about Mark being a disciple of Peter. Most bibles introduce this gospel by mentioning this commonly accepted view, but I also found the following by doing a quick Internet Search.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692An Introduction To The Gospel Of Mark

By: David Malick

I. AUTHOR: JOHN MARK A. Strictly speaking, the Gospel is anonymous B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE strongly supports John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark in association with the Apostle Peter1 1. Pseudo-Barnabas ([5:9; Mark 2:17] c. A.D. 70-130) 2. Polycarp (c. 110-150) 3. Hermas (c. 115-140) 4. Papias (the bishop of Hierapolis A.D. 140) wrote in his last work (Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles) the strongest evidence for Marcan authorship tied to Peter:2The Elder said this also: Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of his followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord's sayings. So Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statements therein.3 For more go tohttp://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Actually we don't know for sure. Most bible scholars agree these works were inspired by their namesakes but the final text was written by several layers of redactors (including the gospel of Q). Still these books are accepted as gospels originating from the alleged authors, and these books never make any mention of Paul or Luke.

Accepted by whom as "originating" from the alleged authors. The majority of Bible scholars accept no such thing. The dating that most scholars agree with would make Paul's authentic epistles older than all four "Gospels."

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

And Jesus was able to accomplish His teaching without quoting Paul or Luke, so if He didn't need Paul or Luke, then it is quite possible to maintain a Christian doctrine without including the books of Paul or Luke.

And you know this how? Because you read it in the "Gospels"? That would be circular logic.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

I still do not understand why Christians are so dependent on Pauline doctrine.

I understand why. I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree with the literal reading of any "sacred" text.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Thw Words of Jesus should be sufficient.

We don't have those.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Have you heard of the Jefferson Bible? It is solely a compilation of the Words of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson said that "Paul was the first corrupter of the gospels".

There is no evidence that there were even Gospels to corrupt when Paul was writing. The "first corrupter of the Gospels" is a title that should belong to Ireaneus followed closely by Eusebius.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Oops, I forgot to respond to your question about Mark being a disciple of Peter. Most bibles introduce this gospel by mentioning this commonly accepted view, but I also found the following by doing a quick Internet Search.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692An Introduction To The Gospel Of Mark

By: David Malick

I. AUTHOR: JOHN MARK A. Strictly speaking, the Gospel is anonymous B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE strongly supports John Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark in association with the Apostle Peter1 1. Pseudo-Barnabas ([5:9; Mark 2:17] c. A.D. 70-130) 2. Polycarp (c. 110-150) 3. Hermas (c. 115-140) 4. Papias (the bishop of Hierapolis A.D. 140) wrote in his last work (Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles) the strongest evidence for Marcan authorship tied to Peter:2The Elder said this also: Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor been one of his followers, but afterwards, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to compose his discourses with a view to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord's sayings. So Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them. For he was careful of this one thing, to omit none of the things he had heard and to make no untrue statements therein.3 For more go tohttp://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1692

The reading from Papias, aside from being from around 140 C.E. is taken from a quote of Papias in Eusebius who describes the text you quote above as "a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words . . . ". That not only makes it double hearsay but simply makes it not credible. Nothing attested to by Iraeneus or Eusebius should be considered credible in the first instance for the simple reason that both were determined to establish their own apostolic succession in order to justify their stance against those who would disagree with them - all of whom were labeled "heretics."

Moreover, the author of Mark, whoever it was, was completely unfamilar with the geography of the region as Randall Helms details. The work itself is almost entirely derivative. It is composed of the "passion/ressurection" account from the "Gospel of Peter" and/or the Cross Gospel mixed with the Q sayings. You can even see where the author changed details from GPet to suit his political purpose without understanding that certain details in GPet had a theological significance in that work. For one example, read this:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...gall#post13235

The first statement you made is probably the only accurate thing that can be said. Its author is anonymous. Even if it weren't, it still wasn't an apostle that wrote it. And its accuracy is attested to by Papias - according to Eusebius - writing long afterwards. Neither Papias nor Eusebius would know anyway because the apostles, if there ever were any, would have been long dead by then. They have about as much authority to attest to the accuracy of Mark's supposed recollection of Peter's stories of Jesus as I do, since none of us (me, Eusebius and Papias) never heard any of them first hand.

[Abogado del Diablo]

So, in the end, you have an extremely politically motivated Eusebius (he was the biographer and personal whitewasher to the Roman Emperor Constantine), writing around 300 CE about a "tradition" regarding the author of Mark written about by Papias in 140 CE who supposedly attests to the author and accuracy of a book written around 70 CE describing events in 30 CE.

Not much evidence when you really look at it.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

So, in the end, you have an extremely politically motivated Eusebius (he was the biographer and personal whitewasher to the Roman Emperor Constantine), writing around 300 CE about a "tradition" regarding the author of Mark written about by Papias in 140 CE who supposedly attests to the author and accuracy of a book written around 70 CE describing events in 30 CE.

Not much evidence when you really look at it.

Whatever. Most scholars accept that Mark was a disciple of Peter. It's not an important point to me. My main point was simply that Paul and Luke were never mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or John. Thus Paul and Luke are operating autonomously. JJIM asserts this was because they arrived in a time period after the content of the events of the gospels, but the Second Coming is also anticipated in these gospels so his argument fails on that account.