No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
robert j
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:21 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:33 am

Paul states that he tried to destroy faith in something (most likely that Jesus was resurrected) ...
I think it’s about gaining full access with those of the Land of Milk and Honey --- without the knife.

On point with the rest of the letter, Paul is reminding his converts that he had once done to other believers, the same as they are experiencing now. The message --- I was wrong then, just as those harassing you are wrong now.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:15 pm

to Michael BG,
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.
Mark" is Not "Luke" in Acts. Yes Mark's gospel does not put in order the sayings and miracles of Jesus (most of those invented, as argued in my website (by miracles, I understand credited healing only, all extraordinary miracles (and parables) were invented), but that's no reason to generalize and say Acts is the same, more so when there are concordances between Acts and Paul's epistles.
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.
The first, second or third ‘missionary journeys’ are not mentioned in Acts either, but much later, these terms got used commonly. Anyway that was not created by "Luke".
The comparison is on methodology not results.
So, my methodology is Christian! that's news to me.
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.
I don't think your example is close to the structure of Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1.
Let me have a much closer paraphrase, like part of an imagined letter to a distant relative:
"Then, (after I was in Paris in order to see distant relatives) I went in China and India.
People back home only heard it said, "He who once was thought a stand-at-home guy is now a world traveler."
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Paris ..."
It is clear that people learned about the "new" me when I was in China & India (I think you would accept that), but then the fourteen years have nothing to do with how long I was in these two countries or say I did not go to other countries after my trips to China & India in these 14 years. The 14 years are only about the time elapsed between my two visits in Paris.

I think you are seeing things which are just not here.

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

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:38 pm

to robert j,
On point with the rest of the letter, Paul is reminding his converts that he had once done to other believers, the same as they are experiencing now. The message --- I was wrong then, just as those harassing you are wrong now.
You are imagining things. What does that has to do with Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1?

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:54 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:15 pm
to Michael BG,
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.
Mark" is Not "Luke" in Acts. Yes Mark's gospel does not put in order the sayings and miracles of Jesus (most of those invented, as argued in my website (by miracles, I understand credited healing only, all extraordinary miracles (and parables) were invented), but that's no reason to generalize and say Acts is the same, more so when there are concordances between Acts and Paul's epistles.
If Luke didn’t know the historical order of the sayings and miracles in Mark then he is unlikely to know the historical order of the sayings and miracles he passes on in Acts.
As I have stated you need to reject the order of events in Acts as it is unreliable. You need to reject Luke’s redaction of adding historical people into his stories.
Bernard Muller wrote:
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.
The first, second or third ‘missionary journeys’ are not mentioned in Acts either, but much later, these terms got used commonly. Anyway that was not created by "Luke".
The comparison is on methodology not results.
So, my methodology is Christian! that's news to me.
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.
I don't think your example is close to the structure of Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Paris ..."
It is clear that people learned about the "new" me when I was in China & India (I think you would accept that), but then the fourteen years have nothing to do with how long I was in these two countries or say I did not go to other countries after my trips to China & India in these 14 years. The 14 years are only about the time elapsed between my two visits in Paris.

I think you are seeing things which are just not here.

Cordially, Bernard
You are arguing about the words:

Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα …

Then after three years I-came-up to Jerusalem

And

Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα …

Then after fourteen years again I-went-up to Jerusalem

In the first you correcting conclude that Paul was in Arabia and Damascus, but in the second you reject the idea that Paul is stating in the same way that he was in Syria and Cilicia.

Verses 22-24 are an aside and can be removed to keep the meaning of what Paul is telling his readers. It should be clear that the 14 years applies to his time in Syria and Cilicia just as the 3 years apply to the time in Arabia and Damascus.

robert j
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:25 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:38 pm
to robert j,
On point with the rest of the letter, Paul is reminding his converts that he had once done to other believers, the same as they are experiencing now. The message --- I was wrong then, just as those harassing you are wrong now.
You are imagining things. What does that has to do with Gal 1:21 to Gal2:1?

Cordially, Bernard

About —- Galatians 1:13-14 and 1:23 —-

How could Paul, a devout Jew, accept the audacious idea that Gentiles could become full participants with the covenant that God made with his chosen people without the benefit of circumcision? The requirement for circumcision is clear and unequivocal for those of any age in life (Genesis 17:9-11, Exodus 12:43-49, Leviticus 12:1-3, Joshua 5:2-6, LXX).

Paul’s explanation --- ‘Hey, I thought it was a crazy idea too, and I even harassed those who believed that way, but then God himself set me straight’ (Galatian 1::13-16 and 3:13).

The letter to the Galatians has the character of a legal affidavit, a legal brief. Nearly the entire letter is aimed at providing support for Paul’s position on the ability of Gentile believers to become full-participants with the chosen people of Israel without circumcision and the Jewish rituals —- and to demonstrate both support for his position, as well as inconsistency with rituals, from those he claimed to be his predecessors in the faith from the very heart of the Jewish homelands.

It’s clear from the letter that Paul’s Galatians wanted nothing more than to be sons of the great and ancient God of the Jews, and to become full members with the Israel of God. And at least some were apparently willing to go full-monty just be sure.

If they resorted to the knife, they really wouldn’t need Paul.
Last edited by robert j on Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:53 am, edited 5 times in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:45 am

to Michael BG,
If Luke didn’t know the historical order of the sayings and miracles in Mark then he is unlikely to know the historical order of the sayings and miracles he passes on in Acts.
As I have stated you need to reject the order of events in Acts as it is unreliable. You need to reject Luke’s redaction of adding historical people into his stories.
I agree that "Luke" did not know the historical order of the sayings and miracles in gMark. But does that matter? According to "Luke", these happened during a brief period of only one year.
However, Paul's travels as a missionary took years (around 15 years according to my research). That's different.

And I am persuaded that "Luke" (with other members of her church) heard the testimonies of traveling companions of Paul. But by the time Acts was written, these companions were dead, which allowed "Luke" to embellish their account and even add fictional elements. This is even more true for the "we" passages in Acts. See http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html under "Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts".

There is so much concordances between Acts and the Pauline epistles, that some commentators think that "Luke" knew some of Paul's epistles, especially the Corinthians and Galatians letters (but I do not agree with that: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html & http://historical-jesus.info/76.html).
In the first you correcting conclude that Paul was in Arabia and Damascus, but in the second you reject the idea that Paul is stating in the same way that he was in Syria and Cilicia.

Verses 22-24 are an aside and can be removed to keep the meaning of what Paul is telling his readers. It should be clear that the 14 years applies to his time in Syria and Cilicia just as the 3 years apply to the time in Arabia and Damascus.
Yes, Paul wrote that during three years he was in Arabia & Damascus.
But about Syria & Cilicia, Paul did not say he was there for fourteen years. He only said that when he was in these two provinces, the churches of Judea "... only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy".
The fourteen years are about the time between two consecutive visits by Paul to Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:53 am

Hello, Peter Kirby,
I think this whole exchange about the travels of Paul should be relocated in a different thread.

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 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:56 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:45 am
to Michael BG,
If Luke didn’t know the historical order of the sayings and miracles in Mark then he is unlikely to know the historical order of the sayings and miracles he passes on in Acts.
As I have stated you need to reject the order of events in Acts as it is unreliable. You need to reject Luke’s redaction of adding historical people into his stories.
I agree that "Luke" did not know the historical order of the sayings and miracles in gMark. But does that matter? According to "Luke", these happened during a brief period of only one year.
I always though Mark implies that Jesus’ ministry is one year and Luke just takes it over and adds a fictional year for it to happen in. The reason is because Luke’s wants his readers to think he is writing a history which has dates from known history.
Bernard Muller wrote: However, Paul's travels as a missionary took years (around 15 years according to my research).
Your studies include believing that Luke, a known liar, can sometimes tell us about an event and link it to an historical event or figure and he didn’t make up the link.
Bernard Muller wrote: And I am persuaded that "Luke" (with other members of her church) heard the testimonies of traveling companions of Paul. But by the time Acts was written, these companions were dead, which allowed "Luke" to embellish their account and even add fictional elements. This is even more true for the "we" passages in Acts. See http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html under "Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts".

There is so much concordances between Acts and the Pauline epistles, that some commentators think that "Luke" knew some of Paul's epistles, especially the Corinthians and Galatians letters (but I do not agree with that: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html & http://historical-jesus.info/76.html).
I think your methodology is faulty. You assume that because Luke and Paul don’t agree that Luke can’t have known Paul’s letters and changed things. I think this be like thinking that John couldn’t have known, Mark, Matthew and Luke because he radically changed what they wrote to suit his purposes. You need to consider why Luke could have made the changes rather than just create the stories out of nothing.
Bernard Muller wrote:
In the first you correcting conclude that Paul was in Arabia and Damascus, but in the second you reject the idea that Paul is stating in the same way that he was in Syria and Cilicia.

Verses 22-24 are an aside and can be removed to keep the meaning of what Paul is telling his readers. It should be clear that the 14 years applies to his time in Syria and Cilicia just as the 3 years apply to the time in Arabia and Damascus.
Yes, Paul wrote that during three years he was in Arabia & Damascus.
But about Syria & Cilicia, Paul did not say he was there for fourteen years. He only said that when he was in these two provinces, the churches of Judea "... only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy".
The fourteen years are about the time between two consecutive visits by Paul to Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard
It seems you have not considered that you are in error and the three verses should be seen as an aside so it should be read:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
Then after three years I-came-up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
As I said you read this second section about being in Syria and Cilicia for 14 years in a different way to how you read the first section about being in Arabia and Damascus for three years.

I wonder if you would read it the same way if you were unaware of Acts?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:50 pm

to Michael BG,
I always though Mark implies that Jesus’ ministry is one year and Luke just takes it over and adds a fictional year for it to happen in. The reason is because Luke’s wants his readers to think he is writing a history which has dates from known history.
"Mark" might have implied one year, but "Luke" was more precise for this one year because of Lk 4:19. Where did you see "Luke" added a fictional year?
Your studies include believing that Luke, a known liar, can sometimes tell us about an event and link it to an historical event or figure and he didn’t make up the link.
"Luke" was no more of the liar that the other writers of the NT, including Paul. But that's no reason for accusing her on systematically lying on any data about the timing, sequencing (rather formal info with no religious connotations) and some events (some misplaced and often very much embellished because of religious consideration) of Paul's travels.
I think your methodology is faulty. You assume that because Luke and Paul don’t agree that Luke can’t have known Paul’s letters and changed things. I think this be like thinking that John couldn’t have known, Mark, Matthew and Luke because he radically changed what they wrote to suit his purposes. You need to consider why Luke could have made the changes rather than just create the stories out of nothing.
Well we cannot generalize. I got my reasons why I think "Luke" and her community did not have the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians & Galatians. See http://historical-jesus.info/75.html & http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
As for gJohn, I made an in-depth study, saying that the gospel is, along many years, the product of additions to the original one (when "John" knew only of gMark) made when gLuke became known, and then after, when Acts became known: http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html
It seems you have not considered that you are in error and the three verses should be seen as an aside so it should be read:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
Then after three years I-came-up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
First, it's not three years, but fourteen years. (Gal 2:1). Shall I conclude from that you are a systematic liar? No, I won't. It is just a mistake.
The three verses in question must be Gal 1: 22, 23 & 24.
I see no reason to put Gal 1:23 aside. It seems to me you consider these verses against your point. And yes, it is.

1:21 then I came to the regions of Syria and of Cilicia,
...
1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past [at that time] now preaches the faith which once he destroyed;
...
2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;

BTW, do you know anybody else who concluded, from the above verses, that Paul preached for fourteen years in Syria & Cilicia?
As I said you read this second section about being in Syria and Cilicia for 14 years in a different way to how you read the first section about being in Arabia and Damascus for three years.
Yes I read it a different way because of Gal 1:23.
And fourteen years is an abnormal long time for preaching in the cities of Syria & Cilicia. And no epistle addressed to Gentile Christians in these provinces during all that time!

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

robert j
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:53 pm

How did Paul end-up preaching to Galatians?

Based on Paul’s letters, it’s not clear exactly where his Galatian converts were located. Perhaps they were located somewhere in the relatively long (from north to south) Roman province of Galatia, or perhaps they were a community of ethnic Galatians elsewhere in Asia Minor. But that’s not my question here.

My questions are these --- Did Paul end-up preaching in that location by happenstance? And was Paul travelling alone? I think the evidence in the letter Galatians leans towards “yes” for both questions.

I think the most relevant passage to interpret these questions is ---

But you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time [my note: πρότερον, earlier, in former times]; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. (Galatians 4:13-14, NASB).

οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι' ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον (Galatians 4:13)

Many bible translators use what I think is the natural sense of the text, that the “ὅτι δι'” represents “that on account of” or “that because of”. I think Paul ended-up preaching to his Galatians because he got sick and they cared for him. If Paul had a traveling companion, they could have found a cheap flop-house to lay low while Paul’s companion took care of him. But no, Paul seemed to be at the mercy of the kindness of strangers.

To speculate here --- if you were a Jew, alone somewhere in Asia Minor in Paul’s day, and got sick, where would you go? I think Paul would have gone to the nearest town and looked for a synagogue --- Josephus, and especially Philo, wrote that Jews were numerous throughout Asia Minor. Paul’s own people would likely provide comfort to a fellow Jew in need. And it would make sense for Paul to have encountered Gentile God-fearers there who cared for him. And in turn, Paul gave them his “good news”.

Back to the evidence now --- there is no clear evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul himself ever made a second visit with his Galatians.

Post Reply