The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[dewitness]

Markan Priority is the theory that gMark was the earliest version of the Jesus story in the Canon.

Once gMark is accepted as the earliest Gospel in the Canon then it is imperative that it is clearly understood what was the earliest Good News.

gMark was written about the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus [the Good News of Jesus].

Sinaiticus gMark 1

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ

The author of Sinaiticus gMark will explain the Good News of the supposed Jesus.

Sinaiticus gMark 1

1.14 But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

15 that the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe in the gospel.

The earliest Good News was that the Kingdom of God is at hand--the time is fulfilled.

The earliest Good News is based on supposed prophecies about a new Jerusalem in the new earth.

Now, examine Isaiah 65.

Isaiah 65 NAS

17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth ; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

18 "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create ; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness.

19 "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people ; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.

The earliest Gospel, the earliest Good News was the coming of the New Jerusalem.

gMark's Jesus did NOT want the Populace to be saved but to remain in sin.---See Mark 4

gMark's Jesus did not want the Populace to call him the Christ.---See Mark 7.34-36

The Pauline claim that Jesus Christ died for the Sins of mankind is a Late Gospel and is NOT the Good News of gMark's Jesus.

The Pauline claim that without the Resurrection mankind would remain in sin was a Late invention unknown to the author of gMark.

Mark 4

...... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables........ lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

The earliest Gospel, the earliest Good News, gMark's Good News, had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation by sacrifice or the abolishment of the Laws of the Jews for sacrifice.

gMark's Good News predated the Pauline Gospels.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The Markan Jesus never preached such Gospel.

The Markan Good News was that the Kingdom of God was near---the New Jerusalem at hand.

The Good News of the New Jerusalem found in Isaiah and gMark is also found in the Revelation of John.

Revelation 1 KJVV

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying , Behold , the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away .

The earliest Good News in the Canon is gMark's Good News--the coming of the New Jerusalem--the New Kingdom of God.

God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

[dewitness]

The Pauline Gospel was invented after gMark's and is not even found in the Septuagint.

gMark's Gospel, Good News, was that the kingdom of God [A New Jerusalem] was coming soon which was supposedly predicted in Isaiah 65.

There would be no death, pain, sorrow or crying in the New Jerusalem.

But, now examine the Pauline Gospel.

Romans 10.8-9

.....The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is , the word of faith, which we preach ; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

There is no such Gospel in the Septuagint or books of the prophets.

The Markan Jesus made no claim that his resurrection would abolish the Laws of the Jews for Remission of Sins.

Universal Remission of Sins by the Resurrection of Jesus was also unknown by Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Octavius in Minucius Felix and Arnobius or up to at least the mid 3rd century.

The Pauline Gospel [remission of sins by the resurrection] was invented and was unknown by the author of gMark.

The Markan Jesus came to FULFILL so-called prophecies NOT to start a new religion or abolish the Laws of the Jews for remission of sins by the resurrection.

Mark 9:31 KJV

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them , The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed , he shall rise the third day.

[dewitness]

In favor of an ultra minimalist & non-Christian historicist position on Jesus (from a revised posting of mine on Richard Carrier's blog):
“In Paul’s epistles & ‘Hebrews’, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham (Galatians l3:16), Israelites (Romans 9:4-5), the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), Jesse (Romans 15:12) & David (Ro1:3) and also requiring a woman in order to “come” under the Law (Galatians 4:4). “The one man Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:15) “humbled himself” (Philippians 2:8) in a world of “flesh & blood”, as one of them (Hebrews 2:14a,17a), among sinners, some opposing him (Hebrews 12:3). There he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15) (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses talking about salvation (Hebrews 2:3). This Jesus, at some time in the past a minister to the Jews (Romans 15:8) and an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), had a brother called James (Galatians 1:19), whom Paul met several times (Galatians 1:19,2:9) and Josephus knew about (Ant. 20).
Let’s add to that Jesus was poor (2 Corinthians 8:9) and was crucified. What is the best location for that: earth or that celestial place below the moon?
Furthermore, Jesus is described to have brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19). Paul also mentioned Jesus was handed down at night (1 Corinthians 11:23) prior to the crucifixion, alluding it took place in “Zion” (Romans 9:31-33, 15:26-27)."

A very similar description is given to a character called Jesus who was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost in the very same Canon.
Examine the biography of Matthean, Lucan and Johanine Jesus.

Matthew 1:18 CEB

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

It is most remarkable that the Pauline Corpus is taken as literal history when the author believes Holy Spirits, Gods, angels, demons are actual figures of history.
The Pauline author also suffered from amnesia.

2 Corinthians 12:2 NIV

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.

[spin]

Markan Priority is the theory that gMark was the earliest version of the Jesus story in the Canon.

This is simply wrong. Marcan priority is the theory that Mark is the forerunner to both Matthew and Luke.

And the rest is argument from silence without any reason to believe the silence is significant.

[dewitness]

The Pauline writer specifically identified his Jesus as a Mythological man made of Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit

Adam was a Myth character in Genesis and the Pauline Jesus is both Myth and Spirit.

The Adams had no human father.

The Pauline Jesus is completely compatible with the Gospels--a product of a Spirit.

[dewitness]

Markan Priority is the theory that gMark was the earliest version of the Jesus story in the Canon.

This is simply wrong. Marcan priority is the theory that Mark is the forerunner to both Matthew and Luke.

And the rest is argument from silence without any reason to believe the silence is significant.

You don't know what you are talking about!! Have your "foe" button stopped working? Get it fixed quickly.

It is well known that the gMark story is considered the earliest version of the Jesus story in the Canon because it lacks many of the so-called 'details' in gMatthew and gLuke and that is one of the reason for the Markan Priority theory.

Now, in the NT Canon, the Pauline Corpus consumes almost 50% of the Canon--13 of the 27 books are under the name of Paul.

Only one book is attributed to Mark in any Canon.

The Canonised writings must have been of major significance to the Jesus cult and should have been used in the early development of the teachings of the Church.

If the Pauline Corpus was the earliest writings and of such great significance to the Jesus cult that they Canonised 13 Epistles then we would expect the other authors to have known of them and used them to frame and shape their Jesus stories.

We know that the Septuagint was used by all the Canonised authors because all of them made references to passages in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible and sometimes word for word.

However, when we examine the Canon, NO author of the New Testament used a single ten word phrase from the Pauline Corpus. In other words, if we remove ALL the Epistles under the name of Paul from the New Testament we would have NO idea that Paul wrote Epistles and No idea of the contents.

On the other hand, if we remove gMark from the New Testament, we would still have virtually the Entire gMark Jesus story in gMatthew from baptism to resurrection and at times word for word. The gMark Jesus story is also found in gLuke.

The very internal evidence in the Canon show that the Pauline Corpus was unknown to the authors of the New Testament or was completely insignificant.

This is also shown in Acts of the Apostles where the author mentioned Paul over 100 times and failed to mention a single Epistle or a ten word phrase from the Pauline Corpus.

Nowhere in the New Testament, outside the Pauline Corpus, is it claimed that Remission of Sins was universally obtained by the Resurrection.


The Pauline Gospel of Remission of Sins by the Resurrection was a Late invention and unknown up to the mid 3rd century by Apologetic writers.

[spin]

Markan Priority is the theory that gMark was the earliest version of the Jesus story in the Canon.

This is simply wrong. Marcan priority is the theory that Mark is the forerunner to both Matthew and Luke.

And the rest is argument from silence without any reason to believe the silence is significant.

You don't know what you are talking about!! Have your "foe" button stopped working? Get it fixed quickly.

It works just fine. I sometimes think it is worthwhile pointing out your bludners to the world.

These reveries of yours which string together assertions, naive-literalist readings of source materials, failures in basic reasoning and a host of other joys don't seem like they are ever going to improve, nor ever stop. A little injection of reality from time to time cannot hurt you.

[dewitness]

Just thought I'd poke my head in here. While I acknowledge what Earl Doherty has done in his way to contribute to the discussion, I do not consider it the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis. My present opinion is that the strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis would put the epistles of Paul after 70 AD and concede awareness of a human Jesus Christ to them.

There is no evidence for what you suggest. The strongest possible non-HJ hypothesis is based on the abundance of evidence.

How can one concede awareness of a human Jesus in a non-HJ hypothesis??

The Pauline writer conceded that his Jesus was the last Adam and made a Spirit.

In effect, the Pauline Jesus was the Last to be made by God as a Spirit.

We know that Church writers admitted the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Four Gospels and After Revelation.

See Origen's Commentary on John and the Muratorian Canon.

Origen's Commentary on John 1

Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity strongly supports the non-HJ hypothesis and post 70 CE Pauline Corpus.

The weakest argument is for HJ of Nazareth--no credible sources and massive forgeries.

[dewitness]

It works just fine. I sometimes think it is worthwhile pointing out your bludners to the world.

These reveries of yours which string together assertions, naive-literalist readings of source materials, failures in basic reasoning and a host of other joys don't seem like they are ever going to improve, nor ever stop. A little injection of reality from time to time cannot hurt you.

Your posts are really of no value to me. You have no position--no evidence--nothing.

Your "foe" button is working fine?? I don't believe you.

[spin]

It works just fine. I sometimes think it is worthwhile pointing out your bludners to the world.

These reveries of yours which string together assertions, naive-literalist readings of source materials, failures in basic reasoning and a host of other joys don't seem like they are ever going to improve, nor ever stop. A little injection of reality from time to time cannot hurt you.

Your posts are really of no value to me. You have no position--no evidence--nothing.

Your "foe" button is working fine?? I don't believe you.

That's typical of you though, isn't it? Making statements that defy logic.