Implication of the composition date of paul's letters and the gospels?

Question

What implication does the composition date of Paul’s letters and the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John have for our understanding of the developing belief about the divinity of Jesus?

Answer 1

Liberal theologians want to explain away the divinity of the Savior as a developing belief, but they have to ignore the internal new testament evidence to do so. For example, they conjecture that first century Jewish Christians could not have worshiped Jesus because of their belief in monotheism. Yet the belief in "God the Father" identified as "El, "Elyon" or "Elohim" was an ancient hebrew tradition. And Jehovah, being the Son of God and the creator of the world was also contained within ancient Jewish tradition. (see "The Great Angel" A study of Israels other God by Margaret Barker) Jehovah of the old testament is the same as the Lord and Kyrios of the New Testament.

New testament evidence testifies of Jesus being the Holy Messiah. The idea of the divinity of Jesus being a later development of Christianity is challenged when one considers the first century, independent letters of Paul and his testimony. (see Romans 1:3-4)

Using Rabbi and Gnostic texts that were written two or three centuries after Christ are less reliable in understanding Jewish Christian beliefs than relying on background information from more contemporary dead sea scroll documents.

Answer 2

ssssssshhhh. don't be asking such uncomfortable questions. Paul is the darling of the Paganized Christians. the first Christians were Jews and one had to be a Jew and follow Hebrew law in order to be a Christian. Paul undermined Hebrew law in order to make Christianity palatable to the Gentiles. The Laws of the Old Testament god are many and tedious. and it was never Jesus' intent to hand "chosen people" status over to the Gentiles regardless of how fine a happenstance that sounds to Christians..

Answer 3

The christian bible is a collection of fictional short stories. Some people believe that Jesus actually existed, and that his followers created fantastical stories about him to make him seem to be more than he actually was. However, there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, as either a normal man or a god-man.

* * *
Did a historical Jesus exist?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
[Excerpt]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

* * *
The Myth of the Historical Jesus
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Pagan origins of Jesus:
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html
http://geocities.com/christprise/
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/pcc09.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
http://www.harrington-sites.com/motif.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

Answer 4

I think the fact that Paul never knew Jesus, and taught things that directly contradicted him, has a huge impact. Who are you going to believe? If you're a Christian, you should believe Jesus over Paul, shouldn't you?