Originally Posted by aa5874

Why do you IMPLY that I know ALL the answers when I NEVER EVER made such a statement?

The ANSWERS about the "4 gospels" can be found in the writings of antiquity if they are NOT mis-interpreted.

We have the writings of Justin Martyr and he claimed that the MEMOIRS of the Apostles" were read in the Churches on Sundays but Justin did NOT write that he had "4 Gospels" or knew about Gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Remarkably the first mention of the dating, chronology, authorship and even some contents of the "4 Gospels" as given by Irenaeus have been REJECTED by Scholars so Justin Martyr's writings appear to be credible.

It is MORE likely that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which was the first writing to be regarded as scripture.

Originally Posted by avi

Thanks for this reply, Iskander, I don't know anything about what Jesus or anyone else living, or reputed to have been living, may, or may not have said, even one year ago, let alone 2000 years ago.....

In other words, in trying to focus on the questions posed, it is to me not significant what this person, or that person says. What is important to me, is to learn what has been written, or carved in stone. Paul's epistles were written. When were they written? I have no idea. Who wrote them? Again, I have no information. The principal issue of this thread was to raise a series of questions, for which I possess no answers, but perhaps some other forum member knows instantly exactly when, where, what, why, and how.

Most English translations of Paul's epistles, translate "graphas" from 1 Corinthians 15:3 & 4 as "scriptures", and accordingly, most forum members regard these words, "scriptures" as describing the "old testament" , yet, we know now, i.e. I have learned during this past week, that "graphas" does not correspond to "scriptures", at all. This Greek word, used by Paul, represents "writings", not "scripture".

So, now, we have several other, unanswered questions before us:

2. Is there another word, in Greek, that represents "sacred texts", as opposed to graphas, which simply means "writings", as far as I can determine.

3. How do the Gospel writers refer to the "old testament" texts? Do they write "graphas", or use some other word?

4. How did the neoplatonists, e.g. the Alexandrian school--> Clement, Origen, refer to the "old testament"?

In addition, it is still unknown when, and who, changed the meaning of graphas, from writings, to "scriptures".

So, what do these four questions have to do with anything? Why should they be questions worth answering?

I think that Paul's writings date from after the appearance of the gospels. Most forum members dispute this.

I am waiting for someone to explain which written source provided Paul with the information needed to write, as he did, in 1 Corinthians 15: 5 "Cephas and the twelve". Some forum members are content to imagine that Paul relied upon oral tradition to add that bit of information. I am a tad wary of accepting such a facile response on this issue, because of "graphas" in verses preceding, i.e. 3 & 4. In other words, if "Cephas and the twelve" represents oral tradition, why not rely upon that method of transmission for the "facts" presented in verses 3, and 4? Paul seems, to my thinking many centuries after the fact, to be concerned to communicate to the intended recipients of his letters, that these "facts" are genuine, and the "genuineness" is assured by their having been written, i.e. that he, Paul, has read these facts, and not relied simply on oral tradition. Where did he read them? I claim that Paul read them in the Gospels.

In my opinion, based solely on supposition, not evidence, Paul intended to convey to the recipients of his correspondence complete confidence in the validity of his message of "good news". The best way, Paul thought, in my opinion, to assuage any doubts those receiving Paul's epistle may have had, was to cite "graphas", to emphasize that his "good news" was not just some rumor, sloshing about from the gossip of big city Jerusalem.

"Cephas and the twelve" is juxtaposed to "graphas", (written twice, in the preceding two verses,) in my opinion, to lend support to the validity of Paul's claim. Perhaps Paul learned of "Cephas and the twelve", precisely from gossip, or, from having met "Cephas" in person!!!! Alternatively, maybe he read about them in the Gospels (cited in John), or, read about them in some other document, like "Memoirs of the Apostles", or "Diatessaron"....

avi

Originally Posted by Iskander

Speculation.

Originally Posted by aa5874

It would seem that you either DON'T understand what "speculation" means or don't care.

1. It is a fact that Justin Martyr did NOT mention gospels called "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (See ALL the extant writings of Justin Martyr)

2. It is a fact that Scholars have REJECTED the authorship, dating, chronology and even some contents of the Gospels as given by Irenaeus. (See the debate of Bart Ehrman and William Craig)

3. It is a fact that Justin Martyr did write that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" was read in the Churches on Sundays. (See "First Apology")

Based on those FACTS, I have made an INFERENCE.

This is the INFERENCE based on the FACTS.

"It is MORE likely that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which was the first writing to be regarded as scripture".

Perhaps you don't know the facts or don't care.

Originally Posted by Iskander

I do care.

I don’t need inventors of myths to dislike religion and the gods.
Mythers remind me of religious fanatics ready to swear by their nonsense.