Danny, I don't know how I can get this through to you. You are the one doing the assuming. You assume that what we now have as so-called authentic pauline epistles are actually representative of the original writings. Even xtians know this isn't true.
https://www.amazon.com/Interpolations-Pa...1841271985
And before you start with your customary "he can't be a real scholar" line of shit I suggest you take a look here.
http://www.trinity.edu/wwalker/
I submit his credentials are superior to yours.
Now this xtian scholar admits that the pauline letters AS WE KNOW THEM contain interpolations intended to push church dogmas which did not exist in the first or second centuries. But this completely ignores the question of what did the originals say? The first time we hear of a body of pauline writings it is in the work of Marcion in the mid 2d century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism...cholarship
For the umpteenth time, Marcion thought yhwh was a scumbag - an inferior god who had nothing to do with jesus. There is no way in hell he would have had "paul" talking about OT bullshit in a positive manner.
If Price is right then you have no clue what the original pauline letters had to say.... and there is no evidence that Price is wrong. Notice the insertion of the word "evidence" there. The pious bleating of jesus freaks does not consitute "evidence."
https://www.amazon.com/Interpolations-Pa...1841271985
Quote:Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement)
Quote:In this fundamental and at times provocative study, Walker demonstrates that Paul's letters contain later, non-Pauline additions or interpolations and that such interpolations can sometimes be identified with relative confidence
And before you start with your customary "he can't be a real scholar" line of shit I suggest you take a look here.
http://www.trinity.edu/wwalker/
Quote:WILLIAM O. WALKER, JR., PH.D.
JENNIE FARRIS RAILEY KING PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF RELIGION
TRINITY UNIVERSITY
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
I submit his credentials are superior to yours.
Now this xtian scholar admits that the pauline letters AS WE KNOW THEM contain interpolations intended to push church dogmas which did not exist in the first or second centuries. But this completely ignores the question of what did the originals say? The first time we hear of a body of pauline writings it is in the work of Marcion in the mid 2d century.
Quote:Robert M. Price, a New Testament scholar at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, considers the Pauline canon problem:[26] how, when, and who collected Paul's epistles to the various churches as a single collection of epistles. The evidence that the early church fathers, such as Clement, knew of the Pauline epistles is unclear. Price investigates several historical scenarios and comes to the conclusion and identifies Marcion as the first person known in recorded history to collect Paul's writings to various churches together as a canon, the Pauline epistles. Robert Price summarizes,
"But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism#cite_note-27][/url]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism...cholarship
For the umpteenth time, Marcion thought yhwh was a scumbag - an inferior god who had nothing to do with jesus. There is no way in hell he would have had "paul" talking about OT bullshit in a positive manner.
If Price is right then you have no clue what the original pauline letters had to say.... and there is no evidence that Price is wrong. Notice the insertion of the word "evidence" there. The pious bleating of jesus freaks does not consitute "evidence."
