goat wrote:Yes, it is. It is a collection of text, many of which are based on others, so they are not independent.
You say "many", I say "some", but neither of us is saying "all". Can you show that Paul’s (authentic) letters are "based on" any other NT books? You can’t. They’re not like the synoptics. In the example that I’ve given (which you have so far scrupulously avoided) it doesn’t even matter if Acts is "based on" Paul or not; the author of Acts had to write a cleaned up version of the embarrassing history that Paul gives, and no one bothered to alter Paul’s original story.
goat wrote:PLUS the fact that those texts have been 'filtered' by the Church, and often redacted.
I’ve been wondering when you were finally going to get around to those claims. In spite of any alleged 'filtering' or redaction by "the Church" the NT is still a mess from an editorial standpoint. Seems like "the Church" never got around to things like harmonizing the birth narratives, or settling on Judas' cause of death, or deciding if Christians are justified by faith (Paul) or works (James). Those alleged redactors sure must have been lazy because they just let all these contradictions exist side by side. In case you haven’t caught on, all those contradictions, as well as other embarrassing features of the NT (like Jesus’ baptism, or most importantly to this discussion, Paul’s inferior status vs the Jerusalem 'pillars') are evidence
against any significant level of redaction. Now you are welcome to provide evidence for your assertion that NT texts were redacted. (Please keep it relevant to the issue of Paul’s letters, and what they tell us about the historical Jesus. I don’t need to hear about the ending(s) of gMark.)
goat wrote:That doesn't bode will for their veracity.
If only you could be a teensy bit specific that would really help. Otherwise, your generalizations are meaningless rhetoric.
goat wrote:You got texts copying texts copying texts, reedited several times over, chosen out of dozens of other texts, and you think that makes it independent? I think not.
Some are, and some are not. As I said be specific.
goat wrote:Yes, it should. Circular reasoning.
That’s only if we accepted your unproven (and as yet unevidenced) premise that the individual books that comprise the NT should be treated like chapters within the same book. That’s an equivocation.
goat wrote:Can you show that Pauls concepts didn't come from the much earlier Gabrials vision of revelation, with a myth added on?
I doubt that I could argue against any number of fanciful speculations that you might dream up. I don’t think there is even a definitive translation of the stone, is there? In any case, it wouldn’t matter, because as Paul says…
… he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures
Paul’s theological "concepts" aren't the issue here. What is important is what he tells us about the historical Jesus, and about his dealings with those who knew him while he was alive – his family and disciples.
goat wrote:Can you show any outside verification of Paul's letters? I mean, you can't seriously think that any writing that uses Paul for it's theology is independent, can you?
I see we’ve moved the goalposts now from "
anything that verifies Paul's letters" to "
outside verification of Paul's letters". I did mention 1Clement, didn't I? There are also some points of convergence between Paul's letters and gThomas.
goat wrote:It all comes down to Paul. Provide evidence the meager details he provides have anything to do with reality.
The fact that the details Paul provides
are so meager is one bit of evidence in favor of their authenticity. Had Paul wished to invent Jesus, he could have provided plenty of imaginative details (as the evangelists later did). And that is another bit of evidence in Paul’s favor – the "meager details" that he does provide about the living Jesus are quite mundane. Don't just take my word for it…
"So, Saul knew his Yeshua. Most scholars find this hard to accept, because it leads to a maddening sequence of investigation which begins in earnest with this query: if Saul did indeed acquire a full folk knowledge of the historical Yeshua, why, why did he not tell it to us, why did he make us depend on material that is post-70 CE in it?s origin?
A facile and familiar answer is that he taught the historical story of the earthly Yeshua to his own disciples in person and that in writing his letters Saul took for granted that they had assimilated the basic facts and, perhaps, sayings. That he taught the Yeshua-history while he was in each community is not merely plausible, but has prima facie validity. However, it lacks explanatory robustness in relation to the matter at hand. When dealing with the specific communal or personal situations that occasioned each of his letters, one would think that Saul would remind them of some aspect of Yeshua?s life or words. One expects him to recall to an erring congregation the teachings of Yeshua that Saul had given to them and for him to urge that they relearn their lessons. He doesn?t.
What this leads to is a possibility (I think it is a probability) that most biblical scholars abhor: that Saul did indeed know his life of the historical Yeshua; that he had a full awareness of the miracle stories, sayings, and of various folk-beliefs about Yeshua, most of which are now forever lost; that he taught the most important stories and sayings to his own followers ? but that, when moments of spiritual crisis loomed, all the stories, all the sayings, and, indeed the entire earthly life of the historical Yeshua did not count. Only the post-earthly Christ did.
This distancing of his version of Christianity from the historical Yeshua has three aspects. First, Saul has such an intense and high regard for the Risen Jesus that his enthusiasm inevitably puts the earthly Yeshua in the penumbra, barely visible. Secondly, Saul is openly contemptuous of certain beliefs about the historical Yeshua that he knows are circulating throughout the web of Yeshua-followers. Thirdly, Saul at times consciously diminishes the figure of the historical Yeshua, pointing out where he was wrong on a given halachic issue. And fourthly, running through all three of the preceding facets ia a casual attitude towards the mundane facts about the historical Yeshua, an attitude that these are of secondary moment because, actually, they were mundane." - Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, pg.173
On top of that, as I have mentioned, we can add the criterion of embarrassment in relation to Paul’s dealings with the 'Pillars'. This would be a rather odd thing to invent if one of Paul’s motives was to establish his own authority. There are more indicators that Paul is basically a reliable source (eg the Gallio inscription), but since he makes no outrageous claims (aside from his theological beliefs) why would one assume that the events he writes about was not reality? There is nothing inherently unbelievable about his accounts (unlike the gospels).
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
... you get the picture. 
