Duvduv

The issue here is not why the original AUTHORS of the texts included so many contradictions or discrepancies in their own texts but rather why CHURCH officialdom accepted them as they appeared in the texts and never contemplated reconciling them permanently or addressing them in apologetics

Even if it could be argued that they believed the texts simply *complemented* or supplemented one another, and even if they assumed that only a relatively small number of literati/officialdom would have access and make use of the texts, the question still stands.

One of the most glaring contradictions not addressed in the apologetics that I have raised before is the issue of the exclusive revelation of the "gospel" to Paul, where of course the "gospel" as compared with the canonical texts is never clarified. Namely, IF he had an exclusive gospel of the risen Christ, and it was what he was promoting in the letters (and in Acts), then how was it ever possible for him to refer to other people as being "in Christ" or being "apostles before me" when in the context of his true revelation these descriptions are meaningless.

The second contradiction is between his unique revelation as described in the texts versus the Great Commission to the nations in the canonical gospels. It stands to reason that if the Church accepted the Great Commission commanded by Christ himself in his lifetime, then the exclusive revelation of Paul was superfluous since the Christ had already commanded preaching to the gentiles.

Finally, the apologists never explain the process by which the canon was established, how the alleged letters of Paul were collected or WHO determined that the canonical gospels were allegedly written by apostles of Jesus himself and inspired by God despite all the differences they contain.

Of course there are many more (i.e. mention in GJohn that "salvation is from the Jews" just as the Christ of GJohn does not identify with the Jews), however it remains unanswered as to why Church officialdom and the literati and apologists never thought to iron these contradictions out.

aa5874

It is imperative that you understand that the Great Commission was NOT commanded in the LIFETIME of Jesus.

The Great Commission was commanded AFTER his Lifetime, AFTER Jesus was supposedly dead and buried.

The Great Commission of the resurrected Jesus is effectively a blatant invention and NOT even plausible.

Now, the author of the short gMark wrote Nothing of the Great Commission so most likely was composed BEFORE Galatians.

Galatians Discrepancies were left in the Canon because fundamentally the NT is a document that shows some of the the Myth Fables that were believed in antiquity.

There were probably many, many versions of the Jesus stories by the 4th century and the Roman Church selected FIVE of them using four Fake authors to make it seem that the Jesus stories originated before c 70 CE.

The invented Pauline Revelations from the resurrected Jesus was introduced in an attempt to harmonise the Canon.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel from the resurrected Jesus was FINAL so all previous discrepancies are irrelevant.

Galatians 1:8-9 KJV

Duvduv

I know the Great Commission was added, for heaven sake! I am asking about how the CHURCH itself addressed the contradictions and discrepancies such as between the GC and Paul's revelation gospel. In any event you are not addressing the points I specifically raised. Please try again.

sotto voce

Lordy. Bullhead's bullshit, yet again.

What is referred to as the church was actually whitewashed Judaisers, and everything in the OP is pure ordure.

But you know that.

outhouse

They were not writing history or set in stone scripture at the time.


These were allegory, and metaphor told through known mythology, and much LATER mistranslated into a literal book.


The original compilation was nothing more then gathering up fables that were important, only to different small groups of semi like minded people.

Since they were not writing a book report or history, there was no importance in getting all the mythology straight .

gurugeorge

If the writings they are collecting were known, then they couldn't alter them too much. Since there are some contradictions, this implies that the various sources did in fact contradict each other, i.e. their sources were to some extent diverse. But that's just what you'd expect when someone's trying to form a "Catholic" church.

Another reason might be: that they had other fish to fry than we think, in the sense that the purpose for which they were collecting the writings was not a purpose in terms of which contradictions such as those we find would matter.

In the case of Paul, I think the key to the puzzle is that they didn't include Paul because they wanted to legitimize their own Canon by means of including Paul, but rather that they wanted to legitimize Paul as orthodox, by squeaking him in as someone who was friendly with someone else (Peter) who was (in terms of Catholic lore) given the Great Commission.

If they felt they had to do this, that suggests he wasn't orthodox. In fact, it looks like the inclusion of Paul in the canon was meant as a ploy to legitimize him in Catholic terms, by making him appear to be part of the weave of the Catholic lineage story. This is of course done primarily by Acts, but also by the inauthentic letters and by the Catholicizing interpolations that some scholars have thought to notice in the authentic letters.

This process, as it were, "defangs" Paul, when people like Marcion and the Gnostics claim apostolic lineage to Paul and diss the Catholic lineage, the Catholics can say "oh no, he was actually one of ours". (This line of argument can be seen clearly in Tertullian) It also makes it more likely that Christians of a Pauline lineage will feel ok about committing to Catholicism.

Duvduv

I appreciate the input, guys, but so far I remain dissatisfied. Of course there are difficulties in reconciling all contradictions for a variety of reasons, however, one would expect a minimum basic CONSISTENCY of message per the examples I gave (not to mention the inconsistent messages of the 4 gospels and even among the epistles themselves).

And I don't buy the theory that the Church wanted to downsize Paul since WITHOUT Paul there is no religion of any practical consequence in the life of believers. As I pointed out, acceptance of the gospels alone merely provides a doctrine of belief about the identity of the messiah and nothing else. It is Paul who provides the idea of SALVATION to make it into an actual meaningful belief system

aa5874

I just showed you Galatians 1 &2.

The DISCREPANCIES were addressed by introducing the Pauline Gospel as the FINAL Gospel.

Galatians 2.
Do you see that the Pauline writer contradicts the short gMark--there is NO Great Commission in short gMark.

Do you see that the Pauline writer contradicted the Great Commission in the Gospels??

The Pauline writer has Introduced Discrepancies but he will state that Anyone who preaches any other Gospel must be ACCURSED.

The discrepancies in the other NT writings are irrelevant.

The discrepancies in the NT have been addressed.


The Pauline Gospel is FINAL.

Galatians 1:8-9 KJV

Duvduv

AA, see what I added above. However, the specific contradictions I brought up have not been addressed. Perhaps they did not see the GC and Paul's revelation as overlapping since Paul provides meat and potatoes for salvation whereas the GC for repentance and merely believing that JC was the messiah was something else. But the other issues still remain, i.e. the status of apostles and "in Christ" prior to Paul and his exclusive revelation, etc.

Chili

We call it the Church Suffering where fire is used to purify gold out of the sins that once were comitted by the suffering soul.

This is from John 21:18 where "another will tie you fast and carry you off against your will," and those are the wolves that are needed to get the job done. In the Gospels it was called Galilee where the fire is hot so that the insurrectionist might be crucified, that we call Purgatory today.

To note here is that crucifixion is the best thing the Jews ever did, and sought to get this done often enough to do it just right.