stephan huller

From An Exposition of Van Manen's Epistle to the Romans by Thomas Whittaker http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/vmanrom.html

In our Epistle to the Romans there are traces of acquaintance with a written Gospel. The phrase in 2:16 ("according to my gospel"; cf. 1:9; 16:25) is most intelligible as referring to a book, and was so understood by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. From expressions not identical with, but recalling those of our canonical Gospels, it may be inferred that occasionally something was taken over from the Gospel spoken of. The following are possibly examples of this procedure: "a guide to the blind" (2:19), cf. Mt 7:1, Lk 6:39; "a light to those in darkness" (2:19), cf. Mt 5:14, Lk 11:35; "the one judging" (2:1), cf. Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37. More especially there may be cited: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them" (12:14), cf. Mt 5:44, Lk 6:28; love. as the fulfilling of the law (13:8-10, also Gal 5:14), cf. Mt 22:34-40, Mk 12:28-34, Lk 10:25-27; "Each of us shall give account of himself to God" (14:12), cf. Mt 12:36. Perhaps the Gospel used was the one recognized by the Marcionites. The friends of tradition who, following the Fathers mentioned above, would identify it with our third Gospel, are confronted with the necessity of placing the Epistle at least as late as the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, unless they have the courage to [133] accept the third Gospel as a work which Luke the companion of Paul had already completed. In any case, the use of it indicates a later date than that which is traditionally assigned to the Epistle to the Romans.

aa5874

Once the Pauline writings are examined carefully then the writers own words of how he got "his gospel" is VERY problematic and could hardly be true.

First of all, where did "Paul" get the name Jesus Christ from?

Paul claimed that there were people in Christ BEFORE him and that there were apostles BEFORE him.

"Paul" then must have gotten the name Jesus Christ from those BEFORE him.

How did "Paul" become to be a follower of Jesus Christ?

In Acts 9, there is a fictitious story and the Pauline writer developed AMNESIA.

2Co 12:2 - "Paul" cannot recall.

Who made "Paul an apostle? How did "Paul" get his authority.

Ga 1:1 - This can hardly be true. It is more likely that "Paul" was sent by men or through men as appear to be shown in Acts than by a resurrected dead.

Acts 9.19-20 Even if Acts of the apostles is NOT accurate, the author's story is far more plausible than that of "Paul".

How did "Paul" receive his "gospel"?

Gal.1.11-12 Again it is more likely that "Paul" consulted MEN about the "gospel" and that Acts of Apostles, even if not accurate, presents a far more plausible account in Acts 9 where Paul spent SEVERAL days with the disciples in Damascus and sometime AFTER went to see the Apostles in Jerusalem.

It is hardly likely that "Paul" received his gospel INDEPENDENT of flesh and blood and from a resurrected dead.

But, now "Paul" will claim that he received information from the RESURRECTED dead Jesus about events that supposedly happened on earth.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 - Again, a pattern has developed, the source for "Paul" is hardly likely. It is more likely that "Paul" got the information about the betrayal from some HUMAN source, written or verbally, than from a RESURRECTED Lord Jesus.

1. It is FAR more likely that "Paul" was converted through some human means than from a bright light from the resurrected dead.

2. It is FAR more likely that "Paul" did consult with FLESH and BLOOD before he was approved as an apostle than thorough the resurrected Lord.

3. It is FAR more likely that "Paul" consulted with FLESH and Blood or used written sources for his gospel than through the resurrected Lord.

4. It is FAR more likely that "Paul" got his information about the betrayal from a human or written source than from the resurrected Lord Jesus.

"Paul" is most likely not credible and it would appear that he got his information from gLuke since these words "do this in remembrance of me" are ONLY found in gLuke.

Luke 22:19 - And even the historian of the Church admits, perhaps inadvertently, that there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

"Church History" 3.4.8 The INTERNAL evidence places "Paul" AFTER and that he was AWARE of the gospel called Luke .

stephan huller

But you are assuming Acts is a roadmap to the identity of the Apostle. The Marcionites certainly didn't think so

Chili

Paul was a Christ and not a follower of Jesus Christ and so was a Christian like others before him. Christ was just a new name for an age-old end to religion. The Gospel of Luke in its full exposition is prior to man by nature after metamorphosis and so each Christian can write his own Gospel and end up in Luke.

aa5874

I am assumed nothing in Acts. I only presented the information found written in Acts.

Acts of the Apostles is in the Canon and the author claimed Saul/Paul was in a basket by a wall in Damascus, Acts 9, and a Pauline writer in the NT Canon, also claimed he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus, 2 Cor. 11.32-33.

These are not assumptions. I have presented the facts.



Now, Please state which book, which source, can verify that the Marcionites did not think so.

Sheshbazzar

It is interesting that the 'history' of 'Paul' first has him engaged in persecuting the church;
But one might observe that the 'Pauline' testimony in these verses are inconsistent, and are at odds with with;
In the former quotations 'Paul' knows who and WHAT it is he is going after, To go and actively seek out those believers who were preaching a risen, saving, Christ Jesus, (THE 'Messiah')
He would not have even been able to identify those 'in The Way' without being aware of what it was that they preached.
And it may be noted that 'Paul' specifically states that he;
and yet in the latter quotes he states that he;
Isn't 'Jerusalem' in 'Judea'?
Now apologetics might attempt to claim that 'Paul's Gospel' was essentially different from the one that was being preached before 'Paul' was 'converted' and began to preach 'his (form of the) Gospel'. Let's see if that claim holds water;
Note this "we", now lets look at whom this plural "we" refers to;
Now back to that 'faith which he once destroyed', and 'Saul' ne 'Paul' and what is revealed by the texts.
The figure of 'Saul'/'Paul' first enters the NT text at Acts 7:58 with the account of the stoning of Steven.
We are told in Acts 8:1-4;
Note that this is the very same 'Saul/Paul' who latter in Gal 1:22 long after his 'conversion', gets a severe case of amnesia and claims that he "was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea"

But lets back up and see what form of Gospel it was that these believers were allegedly preaching before 'Paul' shows up and steals the show.
In Acts 1:8 the assembled disciples are informed by Christ himself that;
Hmmm... doesn't mention anything about any Gospel divisions into Jewish and Gentile factions, or that they should wait around for some 'apostle to the Gentiles',
This was their commission, all of it.

Returning to Acts 8:4 we are informed that;
Then there is Peter's own testimony as to what he, Peter, and the church had been doing and preaching;
! The -Gentiles-! should hear by -Peter's-! mouth, and believe!
Hmmm, doesn't sound like Peter much needed Paul to teach him how to preach to the Gentiles.
Continuing;
'them' being the -Gentiles- that -Peter-! had been preaching to from the beginning of his ministry, (even while 'ol 'Saul' was still out persecuting')
as he, Peter! had been commisssioned to, by Jesus Christ Himself -in the flesh.
'At the first' IE from the beginning of the NT church.
(with NO waiting for a self-centered, self-ordained 'Saul/Paul' to arrive on the scene)

*Note. 'upon the neck of the disciples' is by the context indicated to be properly;'upon the neck of the Gentiles'
the referents of 'them' and 'they'. The context not referring to 'disciples' in general, but specifically to Gentile disciples that believed.

'Paul' was a piker.



Sheshbazzar

stephan huller

But the Marcionites never believed in this garbage. It is irrelevant to the present discussion. The Muslims think Paul was a devil. So what?

Sheshbazzar

What I presented was consistent with, supplements, affirms aa's four points, and his conclusion as listed above.
And thus is most certainly relevant to the "-Evidence Paul Knew and Used a Written Gospel

As even a careful reading of the -texts that we do have-, reveals that 'Paul' did NOT receive in 'his gospel' by way of a 'vision' on the road to Damascus as was claimed.
But rather by the internal evidence of the accounts, that to have engaged in pursuing and persecuting the disciples, he would have had to have known what it was that he was seeking, persecuting, and attempting to suppress.
He must have been well aware of the Apostles and disciples beliefs well in advance of the time of his claimed 'conversion' experience.

Certainly I agree with your assessment of the contents of the NT, particularly Acts and Galatians as being 'garbage' as factually relating real NT events.
In this example alone 'Paul' perjures himself.
However, these are the only NT texts that we actually have to work with.

You are reduced to guessing as to who might have been the author, as to what was the form, and what were the the details of whatever text the Marcionites -may- have employed -might have been-.
But without access to whatever actual text it was that they -might have- employed, all that you can presently validly arrive at are a string of perhapses and 'possibles', with no known surviving texts to confirm the correctness of any of these guesses at 'perhapses and 'possibilities'.

dog-on

Shesh, I think the Pauline reference regarding the persecution of the church was part of Paul's makeover for orthodox consumption and congregation expansion.

Prior to that, I think he was firmly in the camp of the "heretics".

Sheshbazzar

Likely.
But unless some securely dated 1st century writings by the original Paul show up, we will never know what the original 'Paul' actually thought or wrote.
Thanks to the integrity of the Church, we have pseudo-Paul's up the wazoo.