No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:58 am

to Michael BG,
From your confused reply. I can’t tell if you agree with me. If Paul had been to Macedonia and Achaia during the 14 years he states he only went to Syria and Cilicia he would have said so in his letter to the Galatians. As he didn’t say so, he can’t have been there. There is no point in Paul being untruthful but we know Luke often makes things up, such as Christianity starting at Jerusalem and spreading in an ordered way ending up at Rome.
If my reply looked confused to you (and that was not my intent), why didn't you look to my web pages http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html for clarification?
No, Paul did not have to provide a list of places he already went. And Paul never said he went ONLY in Syria and Cilicia during these 14 years.
Why did he mention Syria & Cilicia? Because Paul visited these places at the very beginning of his "ministry" (with Barnabas): it was at that time the members of the Churches of Judea learned about the new Paul, the one in Christ.
And I do not know why you think Christianity did not begin from Jerusalem (among the "Greek" proto-Christians) and propagated all the way to Rome (as specified in 'Romans' and Tacitus' Annals. The same Annals passage also says Christianity started in Judea.
You have no evidence that Paul converted Titus. As I said the first time we hear about Titus he is in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and goes to Jerusalem with them. I think it is just as probable that Barnabas converted Titus as Paul.
I see Titus in 2 Cor 2:13, coming in Macedonia from Corinth (2 Cor 7:5-7). Titus is said to be very acquainted with the Corinthians (2 Cor 8:23). In Galatians, it is very probable that Barnabas, according to directives from the Church of Jerusalem, went to Corinth in order to fetch Paul, who brought Titus along. I don't see where Titus is associated with the Church of Antioch, and even if he went to Antioch.
Do you accept Acts over Paul with regard to why there was a split between Barnabas and Paul?
In 1 Thessalonians written in the 2nd journey, Barnabas is absent. Sylvanus/Silas And Timothy are the companions of Paul. So there was a split before that. The reason of the initial split with Barnabas? I really don't care, that does not affect my timeline. "Luke" reason (about John Mark) is as good as any and I don't see why it cannot be as in Acts.
Paul seems to have travelled from Antioch to Jerusalem and returned there.
According to Paul's Galatians, (in 52) Paul went (from not indicated location) to Jerusalem, and then to Antioch.
You are relying on the information in Acts regarding Gallio and I am replying on the information regarding Stephen. It is very possible that both are not true. That Paul was not at Ephesus when Gallio was governor and Paul was not present in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned.
I have no problems with that.
Why do you think Paul was not in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned (which I date in 35, the year of the persecution of "Greek" proto-Christians in Jerusalem and Paul's conversion) and not in Corinth during Gallio (51-52)?
Again you are making the error of accepting Acts as historical. To have Paul in Jerusalem fits Luke’s view of the development of Christianity.
In Galatians, Paul said he went to Jerusalem twice.
These proto-Christians (and not Jesus' disciples) founding churches in Judea and Antioch is not what Christian writers in the 2nd & early 3rd century were happy with. That was not the idealistic way they wanted Christianity to be propagated. Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Origen have Jesus' disciples going all over the known world, right after the alleged resurrection, in order to preach Christianity.
Please consult http://historical-jesus.info/64.html for details and quotes.
I am saying one year is too short a time. I am using I think your theory which is Paul travels in the spring and does missionary work for the rest of the year. So Paul leaves Antioch after he gets back from Jerusalem and has had his split with Barnabas and goes to Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica) which seems to be the earliest missionary activity Paul talks of in his letters. The following spring he goes to Achaia (Corinth and Athens), then the next spring to Galatia finally ending up in Ephesus during or just after the third spring since the “Council of Jerusalem”.
In Galatians, Paul first activity as a missionary is in Syria & Cilicia.
- "So Paul leaves Antioch after he gets back from Jerusalem and has had his split with Barnabas and goes to Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)": Yes I agree.
- "The following spring he goes to Achaia (Corinth and Athens)": I don't agree: the same year in the fall.
- "then the next spring to Galatia finally ending up in Ephesus": That was after Paul's stay in Corinth (1.5 years according to Acts) and then coming back from Corinth to go to Jerusalem. That's when I put the Council of Jerusalem.
Also, after leaving Jerusalem, Paul, after the big split in Antioch, went to Northern Galatia in the fall (where he got sick but manage to make converts). In the next spring he was in Ephesus for a long sejourn (in 53 according to my study).
You seem to have a strange methodology. If early Acts is bad on history then it is likely the whole of Acts is. As early Acts is written with an over-riding view of the development of Christianity, then this over-riding view would also be applied to the rest of Acts.
True, early part of Acts (with the disciples right away creating the church of Jerusalem) is not truthful and I demonstrated that in the first part of http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html. But, as I already stated, the creation of Christian churches outside Jerusalem by non-disciples of Jesus goes against the grain.
And I certainly did not accept everything for the rest of 'Acts' (like the time of the council of Jerusalem). "Acts is to be used with extreme caution and as little as possible. And this is what I did.
And I find myself basically agreeing with scholar James Tabor on these comments on pages 229-230 of "Paul and Jesus " (2012), but with some reservations:
"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:
1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.
2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.
3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."
I think there is some historical traditions behind some of the stories in Acts 1-12, but much less after this. Luke’s portrayal of Paul does not agree with Paul’s letters. Paul before Gallio is likely to be a Lucan creation to present the Romans in a good light, which Luke likes to do.
So you don't think Acts is all crap. Yes, "Luke" was making Paul more Jewish than he was and good buddy with Peter & James and other members of the church of Jerusalem (which is not true).
I already told you I have no reason to dismiss the Gallio's episode. And why would "Luke" add up Gallio not intervening against those who beat up Sosthenes (Acts 18:17)?
"Luke" seems well aware of what went on then.

- "Paul was in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned": Probably, because Paul participated to the persecution right after that.
"That Paul persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and Judea": In Jerusalem for sure.
- "Paul's message was the same as other Christians": Definitively not, according to Paul's own epistles, such as 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
- "Paul didn’t have a disagreement with James and Cephas": Paul had a disagreement with Cephas and James' men in Antioch according to Galatians.
- "Paul preached in Jerusalem soon after being converted": NO, he did not.
"Paul could do miracles": In the Corinthians letters, Paul said some of his converts were miracle workers (1 Cor 12:10). What kind of miracles? I do not know. But I don't think Paul made that claim for himself.
- "Paul could cast out demons": No. Where does it says in Acts Paul casted out demons: I don't recall anything like that.
- "Paul circumcised Timothy": Likely
- "Then there are the three versions of Pauls’ vision on the road to Damascus": Yes, I noticed that also, which lead me to believe that's "Luke" invention.

About "not reliable":
Something or somebody not reliable does not mean not to be trusted in any circumstances.
For examples:
A car not reliable can work well for many miles before breaking down,
or
A person not reliable can obey directives or follow through his own promises most (but not always) of the time.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:11 am

to Michael BG,
Here are all my arguments for the dating of the council of Jerusalem, in case you did not read them in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html.
When was the "council" of Jerusalem?
Ac15:1-35 specifies this meeting occurred between the first and second journey. And most scholars agree this "council" in Jerusalem, about Gentiles' admission in the faith, is the same as narrated by Paul himself in Gal2:1-10 (with the version in 'Acts' very much embellished!). But is the timing correct in 'Acts'?
Likely not, because in Gal2:1-14 it is suggested the meeting happened later, that is between the second and third journey (in 52). Let's note "Luke" did tell of one Paul's visit at that particular time, without any details:
Ac18:22 NAB "Upon landing at Caesarea, he [Paul] went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch."

Here are the clues:
a) Titus is mentioned in Gal2:1-3 as a companion of Paul on his trip to Jerusalem for the "council". However, Titus is not in 'Acts', even if other companions/helpers are named with Paul during his first journey (Barnabas) and the second one (Silas & Timothy). But Titus appears (prominently) in '2Corinthians' (written during Paul's third journey) as the main "helper" towards the Corinthians:
2Co8:23 "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;"
That would date the "council" of Jerusalem described in Gal2:1-10 after Paul went to Europe (second journey), assuming this (uncircumcised) Titus was one of Paul's converts there, which is very likely.

b) The public dispute in Antioch with Peter (Gal2:11-14), right after the meeting in Jerusalem (Gal2:1-10), was about the critical issues of forcing Jewish customs on Gentile converts (Gal2:14) and Jews (even if Christians) not mingling with them & sharing their food:
"... I withstood him to his face [Peter's], because he was to be blamed ... "... why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?""
That was imposed by James (Jesus' brother), through his own men (Gal2:12). Not only Peter followed James on this, but also all Jews in the church of Antioch (except, of course, Paul), including Barnabas:
Gal2:13 "And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him [Peter], so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy."
In this situation, it would be very unlikely for Silas, a Jew close to the "Nazarenes" (Ac15:22), to accompany Paul (who defied James' directives!) as stated in the beginning of the second journey (Ac15:40). Furthermore, Ac18:23,19:1 indicates that, at the start of the third, Paul is traveling alone from Antioch to Ephesus, which is very understandable, taking in account his isolation following the aforementioned dispute. Another point: after taking such a strong public stand against Judaization of Gentile converts, why would Paul flip-flop soon after, by circumcising Timothy (Ac16:3, onset of second journey)?
Simply, the second journey (with Silas and Timothy ) does not fit as the one started after the "council" in Jerusalem (followed by the break-up in Antioch), but the third one (with Paul alone) does.

c) According to Gal2:2-5, Paul was worried his very own "ministry" being in jeopardy because:
Gal2:4 "... of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),"
Also, Gal2:2 implies the "Nazarenes" were not aware of the specifics of Paul's gospel:
" ... [I, Paul] communicated to them [the pillars of the church of Jerusalem] that gospel which I [& NOT 'we'] preach among the Gentiles"
Again this situation simply does not fit if the "council" happened between the first & second journey:
The former trip had been sponsored by the church of Antioch (Ac13:2-3), which also was fully informed after its completion (Ac14:27-28). Furthermore, Paul was then always in the company of Barnabas, well known & trusted by the "Nazarenes" (Ac5:36,11:22-26).
But the aforementioned situation makes a lot more sense if related to the second journey:
Then Paul was the only main preacher (that is without Barnabas), converting Gentiles (& some Jews) in far away Macedonia & Achaia. And it was done in such a way the Jews of Corinth united against Paul in order to bring him to a court presided by the proconsul (Ac18:12-17), because "This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law." (definitively a subject of concern for the "Nazarenes", all of them devoted Jews!).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:33 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:58 am
to Michael BG,

No, Paul did not have to provide a list of places he already went. And Paul never said he went ONLY in Syria and Cilicia during these 14 years.
Why did he mention Syria & Cilicia? Because Paul visited these places at the very beginning of his "ministry" (with Barnabas): it was at that time the members of the Churches of Judea learned about the new Paul, the one in Christ.
This is a circular argument. You believe that Luke is correct and Paul isn’t. As Luke is such an unreliable secondary source I go with the primary source. You haven’t come up with a reason why Paul would be silent about visiting other provinces. I have provided a reason why he wouldn’t leave any out, plus pointing out that it is likely Luke created the second journey.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You have no evidence that Paul converted Titus. As I said the first time we hear about Titus he is in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and goes to Jerusalem with them. I think it is just as probable that Barnabas converted Titus as Paul.
I see Titus in 2 Cor 2:13, coming in Macedonia from Corinth (2 Cor 7:5-7). Titus is said to be very acquainted with the Corinthians (2 Cor 8:23). In Galatians, it is very probable that Barnabas, according to directives from the Church of Jerusalem, went to Corinth in order to fetch Paul, who brought Titus along. I don't see where Titus is associated with the Church of Antioch, and even if he went to Antioch.
As I said there is no evidence it is all conjecture.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Do you accept Acts over Paul with regard to why there was a split between Barnabas and Paul?
I really don't care, that does not affect my timeline. "Luke" reason (about John Mark) is as good as any and I don't see why it cannot be as in Acts.
As so often Luke has created a reason because he can’t have Paul and Barnabas argue about eating with Gentiles.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Paul seems to have travelled from Antioch to Jerusalem and returned there.
According to Paul's Galatians, (in 52) Paul went from Corinth to Jerusalem, and then to Antioch.
The word ‘Corinth’ does not appear in Galatians. I think it is clear that Paul went from either Syria or Cilicia to Jerusalem. It is clear Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch. Paul states that the trip to Jerusalem was not part of a longer trip with other places visited either before or after Jerusalem.
Bernard Muller wrote: Why do you think Paul was not in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned (which I date in 35, the year of the persecution of "Greek" proto-Christians in Jerusalem and Paul's conversion) and not in Corinth during Gallio (51-52)?
One – Paul states he didn’t persecute the church in Judea or Jerusalem;
Two – Lukes like to add incorrect historical data to his stories.
Bernard Muller wrote: And I find myself basically agreeing with scholar James Tabor
If I found myself agreeing with James Tabor I would have to re-examine why this is the case.
Bernard Muller wrote: I already told you I have no reason to dismiss the Gallio's episode. And why would "Luke" add up Gallio not intervening against those who beat up Sosthenes (Acts 18:17)?
"Luke" seems well aware of what went on then.
Luke has Gallio not intervening either to judge Paul or to stop Sosthenes being beaten. This is so the Jews can be seen in a bad light. It is also evidence that the whole thing is a Lucan creation and could not have happened, just like Pilate releasing a prisoner at Passover.
Bernard Muller wrote: - "Paul was in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned": Probably, because Paul participated to the persecution right after that.
"That Paul persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and Judea": In Jerusalem for sure.
- "Paul's message was the same as other Christians": Definitively not, according to Paul's own epistles, such as 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
- "Paul didn’t have a disagreement with James and Cephas": Paul had a disagreement with Cephas and James' men in Antioch according to Galatians.
- "Paul preached in Jerusalem soon after being converted": NO, he did not.
"Paul could do miracles": In the Corinthians letters, Paul said some of his converts were miracle workers (1 Cor 12:10). What kind of miracles? I do not know. But I don't think Paul made that claim for himself.
- "Paul could cast out demons": No. Where does it says in Acts Paul casted out demons: I don't recall anything like that.
- "Paul circumcised Timothy": Likely
- "Then there are the three versions of Pauls’ vision on the road to Damascus": Yes, I noticed that also, which lead me to believe that's "Luke" invention.
But Paul was annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour.
Acts 16:18
Out of my 9 questions, you agree with me on 6 and disagree on 3 - two probably and one “for sure”. The one you are sure of, Paul gives us evidence that he didn’t! This evidence also makes the first improbable. Paul’s position in his letter on circumcising people as part of making them a Christian is strong evidence that he wouldn’t circumcise anyone.

If you could agree with me then a strong pattern would exist where we should never assume anything Luke tells us about Paul is historical unless Paul confirms it in his letters.

As I said you are just telling me what you concluded in the past and you are not questing if you were correct then, if you take a view that Luke can’t be trusted on anything he wrote.

This discussion has changed my mind on the date of the stoning of Stephen. I think it can really only have happened during the reign of Herod Agrippa but it isn’t helpful to dating Paul’s conversion as Paul was not in Judea or Jerusalem before his conversion according to Paul. I am also not convinced that the reference to King Aretas IV in 2 Corinthians was written by Paul. Therefore there is no date which can date anything Paul did. The only date I can see is 66 CE and the start of the Jewish revolt as the end date for Paul’s letters.

I also don’t have a clear date for the crucifixion of Jesus. My only criteria is having 14th Nisan on a Thursday which means 26, 27, 30, 33, 36 are all possible, but I would rule out 26 and 36. Therefore the earliest date for Paul’s conversion is 29 CE.

Therefore Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and his split with Barnabas in Antioch can be any year between 46 and 59.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:55 pm

to Michael BG,
I have to let you keep your opinions, create your history and reject Acts and the gospels (more so gMark) as having no historical values (with a very few exceptions).
However I want to make one point clear: according to Acts, the circumcision of Timothy occurred at the beginning of Paul's second Journey, at a time when there was no rupture yet between Paul & the churches of Antioch & Jerusalem. Furthermore Silas was with Paul then and certainly, as a former member of the church of Jerusalem, would have been pushing for the circumcision of Timothy, more so with him becoming an apostle. "Luke" gave a reason why:
Acts 16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."
"Luke" took the trouble to explain why Timothy got circumcised because that was not what Paul was advocating later (as example, Titus was not circumcised).
I found out that Paul's theology/Christology evolved as he went along in his "ministry".

I got used to the fact almost everyone on this board has his own ideas about everything, and cannot change, even from someone who put a lot of effort and time about the issue of the beginning of Christianity.

Again, I want to repeat myself:
"Furthermore, this data [from Acts about Paul's Journeys, timeline, places visited and main events], with the ones from the uncombined Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, fit very well together. And my 7 years theory would even cement my finding about Paul's trips even more."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:07 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:55 pm
to Michael BG,
I have to let you keep your opinions, create your history and reject Acts and the gospels (more so gMark) as having no historical values (with a very few exceptions).
Firstly I haven’t rejected Mark.
Secondly, I haven’t rejected Acts as having no historical value. Like Mark and Q, Acts could contain some traditions which are historical, but any dates attached to events are unlikely to be correct having been added later. Also we can’t rely on the order of these works as being based on historical reality. Events are ordered on the basis of other things not history.
Bernard Muller wrote: I got used to the fact almost everyone on this board has his own ideas about everything, and cannot change,
This does not apply to me. I often change my views (see my last post). A convincing argument can persuade me.
However, it seems to me your ideas are fixed, cast in stone years ago. You have real difficulties in re-examining your old conclusions. Recently I thought you had changed your mind on something, but within a few days you posted something which questions that you had really changed your mind.
Bernard Muller wrote: Again, I want to repeat myself:
"Furthermore, this data [from Acts about Paul's Journeys, timeline, places visited and main events], with the ones from the uncombined Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, fit very well together. And my 7 years theory would even cement my finding about Paul's trips even more."

Cordially, Bernard
Many a Christian will agree with you. Just because you can fit the data together does not mean that the data in Acts is true. (Some Christians manage to fit other data together, but this doesn’t mean that their conclusions are likely correct.)

As I said your methodology is problematic. I am not sure you would do the same in life. If you knew that someone often added dates to their stories which were wrong, I don’t think you would accept any date attached to any story they told unless you could verify it.

I think my conclusion, that Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and his split with Barnabas in Antioch took place between 46 and 59 is much more likely to be true that your conclusion that it happen in 52 CE. (I would like to narrow my date range but we lack reliable historical data to do so.)

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:41 am

to Michael BG,
Firstly I haven’t rejected Mark.
Sorry, that was my misunderstanding.
Secondly, I haven’t rejected Acts as having no historical value. Like Mark and Q, Acts could contain some traditions which are historical, but any dates attached to events are unlikely to be correct having been added later.
Unlikely, only?
I used Acts only for a few durations, the sequence & places visited of Paul's travel (most of them confirmed by Paul' epistles) and Gallio in Corinth & Felix's replacement by Festus as time markers.
If you accept Acts as having some historical value, why do you reject systematically the aforementioned which has no obvious Christian propaganda?
Also we can’t rely on the order of these works as being based on historical reality. Events are ordered on the basis of other things not history.
I do not see the events ordered on other things than history. Except for the timing of the council of Jerusalem that "Luke" misplaced, for an obvious purpose.
This does not apply to me. I often change my views (see my last post). A convincing argument can persuade me.
However, it seems to me your ideas are fixed, cast in stone years ago. You have real difficulties in re-examining your old conclusions.
You change your views based on your latest opinion (about the time of Stephen's killing), not data.
I made myself some critical changes since I thought I was all finished with my website. It just happens I did not have to do any about Paul's travel, because everything fits, from data of Paul's epistles and Acts and others.
And why should I change my mind? My research was in-depth, not on opinions and not based on incomplete data (as yours because of your rejection of relevant data in Acts).
Many a Christian will agree with you. Just because you can fit the data together does not mean that the data in Acts is true. (Some Christians manage to fit other data together, but this doesn’t mean that their conclusions are likely correct.)
I do not know what is Christian about the sequencing, the timing and places visited of Paul's travel, as I found out through my research.

It just happened I got a private message recently, with in it a Christian rendition of Paul's trips. See the differences: https://books.google.com/books?id=N0sSD ... 52&f=false

Compare it with mine:

Paul's early trips:

a) Winter/spring 35: Paul takes part into the persecutions against the proto-Christians starting in Jerusalem (Gal1:13,23a, Ac7:57-8:1-4a,9:1-2)

b) Late spring 35: Paul's conversion in Damascus (Gal1:15-16a, Ac9:18b)

c) Spring 38: three years later (Gal1:18a), Paul escapes from Damascus (2Co11:32-33, Ac9:25) and returns to Jerusalem for a fifteen days visit at Peter's home (Gal1:18b-19, Ac9:26).

d) Spring 38 to spring 42: Paul's exit from Jerusalem (Ac9:30) and stay in his home city, Tarsus in Cilicia (today southern Turkey)
Note: 42 is likely (according to the clue in 2Co12:2) but cannot be firmly established.

e) Spring 42: Paul is invited by Barnabas to join him in Antioch (Ac11:25-26a).

f) Spring 42 to winter 48/49: Paul is based in Antioch as the protege and companion of Barnabas, participating in missionary journeys in Syria and Cilicia (Gal1:21).

g) Spring & summer of 49: most likely time for Paul and Barnabas (westward) missionary trip ("Paul's first journey") to Cyprus, Pamphylia and "southern" Galatia. Back to Antioch for the winter (note: this trip could have happened one or a few years earlier and lasted longer)

h) Spring 50 to spring 52: Paul's second journey leading to the creation of Christian communities in Macedonia (Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea), Athens and Corinth (where he stays one year and a half - Ac18:11)

Paul's third journey:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years (Gal2:1) after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then.

b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter: Gal2:11-14) and departs (alone).

c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts (Gal4:13-15; Ac18:23,19:1a).

d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment (1Co1-4).

e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months (Ac19:8,10). He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians (1Co9). But, later, the situation improves greatly.

f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here: 1Co16:5-8; 2Co13:1-2), where Paul is rejected. Likely no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.

g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).

h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus (2Co1:15-24,7:5-7). Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55 (2Co8:10b-11).

i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.

j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted (2Co8:10b-11).

k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).

l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months (Ac20:3a); the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth (Ro15:26).

m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest (Ro15:25-26,31; Ac20,21)
As I said your methodology is problematic. I am not sure you would do the same in life. If you knew that someone often added dates to their stories which were wrong, I don’t think you would accept any date attached to any story they told unless you could verify it.
I do not know why you insist the relevant data from Acts is wrong.
If somebody I know is thought to be a liar, I would investigate what he said on issues of interest for me. Even a liar does not lie all the time, only at times, and for a self-serving purpose.
This is what I did, which allowed me to detect "Luke" misplacing in time the council of Jerusalem, among many other things (such as Jesus' disciples starting the Church of Jerusalem) I do not accept from Acts for the same reasons.

About my dating of the council of Jerusalem: see next post.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:57 am

From http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html
Please note I used passages of Acts against "Luke" dating of the council of Jerusalem.
When was the "council" of Jerusalem?
Ac15:1-35 specifies this meeting occurred between the first and second journey. And most scholars agree this "council" in Jerusalem, about Gentiles' admission in the faith, is the same as narrated by Paul himself in Gal2:1-10 (with the version in 'Acts' very much embellished!). But is the timing correct in 'Acts'?
Likely not, because in Gal2:1-14 it is suggested the meeting happened later, that is between the second and third journey (in 52). Let's note "Luke" did tell of one Paul's visit at that particular time, without any details:
Ac18:22 NAB "Upon landing at Caesarea, he [Paul] went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch."

Here are the clues:
a) Titus is mentioned in Gal2:1-3 as a companion of Paul on his trip to Jerusalem for the "council". However, Titus is not in 'Acts', even if other companions/helpers are named with Paul during his first journey (Barnabas) and the second one (Silas & Timothy). But Titus appears (prominently) in '2Corinthians' (written during Paul's third journey) as the main "helper" towards the Corinthians:
2Co8:23 "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;"
That would date the "council" of Jerusalem described in Gal2:1-10 after Paul went to Europe (second journey), assuming this (uncircumcised) Titus was one of Paul's converts there, which is very likely.
b) The public dispute in Antioch with Peter (Gal2:11-14), right after the meeting in Jerusalem (Gal2:1-10), was about the critical issues of forcing Jewish customs on Gentile converts (Gal2:14) and Jews (even if Christians) not mingling with them & sharing their food:
"... I withstood him to his face [Peter's], because he was to be blamed ... "... why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?""
That was imposed by James (Jesus' brother), through his own men (Gal2:12). Not only Peter followed James on this, but also all Jews in the church of Antioch (except, of course, Paul), including Barnabas:
Gal2:13 "And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him [Peter], so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy."
In this situation, it would be very unlikely for Silas, a Jew close to the "Nazarenes" (Ac15:22), to accompany Paul (who defied James' directives!) as stated in the beginning of the second journey (Ac15:40). Furthermore, Ac18:23,19:1 indicates that, at the start of the third, Paul is traveling alone from Antioch to Ephesus, which is very understandable, taking in account his isolation following the aforementioned dispute. Another point: after taking such a strong public stand against Judaization of Gentile converts, why would Paul flip-flop soon after, by circumcising Timothy (Ac16:3, onset of second journey)?
Simply, the second journey (with Silas and Timothy ) does not fit as the one started after the "council" in Jerusalem (followed by the break-up in Antioch), but the third one (with Paul alone) does.
c) According to Gal2:2-5, Paul was worried his very own "ministry" being in jeopardy because:
Gal2:4 "... of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),"
Also, Gal2:2 implies the "Nazarenes" were not aware of the specifics of Paul's gospel:
" ... [I, Paul] communicated to them [the pillars of the church of Jerusalem] that gospel which I [& NOT 'we'] preach among the Gentiles"
Again this situation simply does not fit if the "council" happened between the first & second journey:
The former trip had been sponsored by the church of Antioch (Ac13:2-3), which also was fully informed after its completion (Ac14:27-28). Furthermore, Paul was then always in the company of Barnabas, well known & trusted by the "Nazarenes" (Ac5:36,11:22-26).
But the aforementioned situation makes a lot more sense if related to the second journey:
Then Paul was the only main preacher (that is without Barnabas), converting Gentiles (& some Jews) in far away Macedonia & Achaia. And it was done in such a way the Jews of Corinth united against Paul in order to bring him to a court presided by the proconsul (Ac18:12-17), because "This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law." (definitively a subject of concern for the "Nazarenes", all of them devoted Jews!).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:14 pm

to Michael BG,
I want to go back on your fixation about Paul went to only Syria & Cilicia before he went to Jerusalem for the council.
Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now
[present tense: at the time Paul was in Syria & Cilicia] preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.
And they glorified God because of me."
Then after
[thereupon, thereafter, afterwards] fourteen years [from Paul's stay in Jerusalem with Peter for 15 days] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me."
It is clear to me what the churches of Judea heard "That he ... once he destroyed" was when Paul is preaching in Syria and Cilicia, at the beginning of his ministry. That's what Paul meant.
Of course, according to my study, during these 14 years, Paul also preached in Macedonia, Achaia and so-called southern Galatia (but not yet northern Galatia, where the letter was addressed). But when Paul wrote 'Galatians" why would he need to mention these places?
Such as:
"Then I went into the regions of Syria, Cili'cia, Macedonia, Achaia and your country [Galatia].
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."

Why would it take so long for the churches of Judea to learn about the "new" Paul?

Anyway, I do not think that the verses I just quoted are a reason to throw out data from Acts concerning Paul's trips.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:30 am

to Michael BG,
You wrote:
Luke often makes things up, such as Christianity starting at Jerusalem and spreading in an ordered way ending up at Rome.
It is not so according to Acts. First, it is Syria & Cilicia & "southern" Galatia & Cyprus (1st journey), then "southern" Galatia, Macedonia & Achaia (2nd journey). So far the progression is from Jerusalem towards Rome (but with a big detour through Macedonia!). But wait, next is Ephesus (where Paul is based for most of the 3rd journey). That's going backward from Corinth, in the opposite direction to Rome.
So that's not really in an ordered way from Jerusalem to Rome.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:33 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:41 am
to Michael BG,

If you accept Acts as having some historical value, why do you reject systematically the aforementioned which has no obvious Christian propaganda?
As I stated your methodology is at fault.

You need to start with the traditions, these are what was passed down not the dates. Therefore the things which are likely to be historical in the gospels are the saying of Jesus as these are likely to have been the most important things to pass on. When Jesus said them as in the date is unimportant to those passing these things on.

It is therefore a mistake to assume that when the author of a gospel or Acts had been passed on any dates it is historical. It is only Luke who adds dates. Therefore every date added by Luke is unlikely to be historical. In the same way as the gospel of Mark does not order the sayings and miracles of Jesus in historical order we should not assume that Luke does.

Therefore as Luke’s order of events can’t be relied on, it should not be. The only person who is most likely to state events in the correct order is Paul because either the order was important as in Galatians or it is an aside.
Bernard Muller wrote:
This does not apply to me. I often change my views (see my last post). A convincing argument can persuade me.
However, it seems to me your ideas are fixed, cast in stone years ago. You have real difficulties in re-examining your old conclusions.
You change your views based on your latest opinion (about the time of Stephen's killing), not data.
I made myself some critical changes since I thought I was all finished with my website. It just happens I did not have to do any about Paul's travel, because everything fits, from data of Paul's epistles and Acts and others.
And why should I change my mind? My research was in-depth, not on opinions and not based on incomplete data (as yours because of your rejection of relevant data in Acts).
Many a Christian will agree with you. Just because you can fit the data together does not mean that the data in Acts is true. (Some Christians manage to fit other data together, but this doesn’t mean that their conclusions are likely correct.)
I do not know what is Christian about the sequencing, the timing and places visited of Paul's travel, as I found out through my research.
The comparison is on methodology not results.

Of course I change my conclusion as I examine the information regarding any saying or event or text. There is no benefit in having a rigid view which can’t be modified as one re-considers things.
Bernard Muller wrote:
As I said your methodology is problematic. I am not sure you would do the same in life. If you knew that someone often added dates to their stories which were wrong, I don’t think you would accept any date attached to any story they told unless you could verify it.
I do not know why you insist the relevant data from Acts is wrong.
If somebody I know is thought to be a liar, I would investigate what he said on issues of interest for me. Even a liar does not lie all the time, only at times, and for a self-serving purpose.
This is what I did, which allowed me to detect "Luke" misplacing in time the council of Jerusalem, among many other things (such as Jesus' disciples starting the Church of Jerusalem) I do not accept from Acts for the same reasons.
The ‘proof’ is the wrong way round. You assume Luke’s dates are correct and then only reject those you have found reasons to reject. A better methodology with ‘a liar’ is to not believe anything they tell you unless you have some other evidence which confirms it.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:57 am
From http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html
Please note I used passages of Acts against "Luke" dating of the council of Jerusalem.
When was the "council" of Jerusalem?
Ac15:1-35 specifies this meeting occurred between the first and second journey. And most scholars agree this "council" in Jerusalem, about Gentiles' admission in the faith, is the same as narrated by Paul himself in Gal2:1-10 (with the version in 'Acts' very much embellished!). But is the timing correct in 'Acts'?
Likely not, because in Gal2:1-14 it is suggested the meeting happened later, that is between the second and third journey (in 52). Let's note "Luke" did tell of one Paul's visit at that particular time, without any details:
Ac18:22 NAB "Upon landing at Caesarea, he [Paul] went up and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch."
Gal. 2:1-14 does not mention either the first, second or third ‘missionary journeys’ of Acts. This is because they are fiction, created by Luke. Paul tell us that for the previous 14 years he was in Syria and Cilicia.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:14 pm
to Michael BG,
I want to go back on your fixation about Paul went to only Syria & Cilicia before he went to Jerusalem for the council.
Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now [present tense: at the time Paul was in Syria & Cilicia] preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.
And they glorified God because of me."
Then after [thereupon, thereafter, afterwards] fourteen years [from Paul's stay in Jerusalem with Peter for 15 days] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me."
It is clear to me what the churches of Judea heard "That he ... once he destroyed" was when Paul is preaching in Syria and Cilicia, at the beginning of his ministry. That's what Paul meant.
It might be clear to you, but you have concluded too much.

Paul states that he tried to destroy faith in something (most likely that Jesus was resurrected), but does not say where he did it, then during the 14 years he was in Syria and Cilicia the churches in Judea who believe this faith and had once heard about him trying to destroy this new faith heard during the 14 years that Paul is now preaching this new faith.

Imagine you wrote a letter saying that during a period of 14 years you worked in Texas and Louisiana. Then someone who I know is a liar told me that during those 14 years you also worked in New York, Virginia and Georgia. I think I would be wrong to conclude that you did actually work in New York, Virginia and Georgia during those 14 years even if I had other letters from you telling me about your work in New York, Virginia and Georgia.

Post Reply