aa5874

Galations 1.11-12(KJV), "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

I will show that the gospel of Jesus which Paul claimed was revealed to him actually was the gospel of Luke. I will use the Last Supper before the alleged trial of Jesus to support my position.

There are three accounts of the Last Supper in the Synoptics, I will give Mark's version, first, but just the verses under inquiry.

Mark 14.22-25, "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they drank all of it.
And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

Now, I will give Matthew's rendition of the words of Jesus and it will be noticed that both Mark's and Matthew's are virtually identical.

Matthew 26.26-28, "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, " Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sin".

If Luke is now examined, a new phrase will be added to the dialogue of Jesus, "do this in remembrance of me".

Luke 22.19-20, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them saying, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(20)Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

Also, with the insertion of "do this in remembrance of me", the structure of the 20th verse is peculiar to Luke.

Now if we can find Luke's version of the Last Supper in the Pauline Epistles, then it can be theorised that is was written by Luke or by someone who had read Luke. However, Paul claimed he received his gospel through revelation, not from man.

His revelation from the Lord, as written in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25, " For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
(24) "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'

The passages in Luke and 1 Corinthians are virtually identical, and contain the phrases "do this in remembrance of me" and the structure of Luke 22.20 and 1 Corinthians 11.25 are basically similar. Paul therefore, had a revelation from Luke's Jesus.

Perhaps Luke is Paul, or the epistles of Paul were interpolated at a later date or even written after the gospel of Luke. What do the scholars or non-scholars have to say about Paul's revelation of the Last Supper?

Malachi151

I think you have things backwards.

Its quite likely, especially given Acts, that the author of Luke used the letters of Paul as one of his sources when writing his works, both his Gospel and Acts.

Also, you may want to read:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

andrewcriddle

One should note that there is a textual problem in Luke 22 with verses 19b-20 omitted in Codex Beza.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You should bear in mind that Acts is regarded as fiction. The Paul in Acts is not the Paul of the Epistles which bears his name. From the Pauline epistles, Paul shows no personal knowlegde of the life of Jesus and he, according to Galations, got all his knowledge by revelation. It is highly unlikely that Paul could have come up with two verses of Luke, in the similar sequence of words and structure, without the aid of some other person or written text.

It is accepted that Luke copied the events of the Last Supper from Mark or Matthew, definitely not Paul's letters. The chronology of the Passover and the Last Supper in Mark 14 or Matthew 26 are reflected in Luke 22, both begin and deal with the plot to kill Jesus by the chief priest and scribes, then the planned betrayal by Judas Iscariot, followed by the selection of a house to have the Passover and then the Last Supper with Jesus and the twelve Apostles.

It is known that Paul's revelation is most likely a lie, that is, since Paul was not at the Last Supper, then some person or the writings of someone provided the dialogue of Jesus during the Last Supper. And Paul was provided with the dialogue of Luke, almost word for word and structural sequence, after Luke had copied Mark or Matthew.

In the previous paragraph, I said that Paul's revelations of the Last Supper are most likely untrue, they must have come from a third party, someone or some writing external of Paul, but the revelations of the Supper, as described in 1 Corinthians 11, can be true if Paul is actually Luke, otherwise the words, "For I have received of the Lord" is fiction.

aa5874

I read some of your link earlier and this is a quote, "I will here argue that the author of the Gospel of Mark was writing a fictional story and knew that Jesus was not a real person.........."

Now, if Mark's Jesus is regarded as fiction then we begin to understand the purpose of Luke, to historicise fiction, to make known fiction appear to be real.

Luke re-writes Mark and Matthew and produces a different birth date, genealogy, a Nativity scene of rejoicing, celebration and openess, instead of the fear and secrecy of Matthew and finally on the cross at Luke's crucifixion, instead of feeling rejected and uttering, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," Luke's Jesus says, " Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit."

Luke has produced a better Jesus, a more realistic one, he has historicised the fiction of Jesus, now he is going to replace the fiction called Peter, the Rock of the Church, with Paul, a better Rock, he is going to fabricate history with the Acts of the Apostles in which his Paul becomes the foundation of the Christian Church.

Now, if Mark's Jesus is fiction, then Luke's Jesus is fiction. If Mark's Jesus is fiction, then Luke's Acts is fiction with respect to Jesus, his Apostles and Paul. If Mark's Jesus is fiction, then Paul's revelation of Jesus is fiction, once these revelations reflect events in Mark, Luke or Acts.

If all is fiction, then all the information revealed to Paul must come from his author, Luke, the one who makes fiction come true and have eyewitnesses to fabricate history.

Malachi151

I think so exactly, which I also mention towards the end, where I say:

Timetospend

Speaking of fiction, how can anyone ever validate conjectures such as this one? Even if it happened exactly this way, there would be no way to verify it?

There must be hundreds of other possibilities with as much probably (extremely low approaching zero) which cannot be verified or totally denied. One might as well belief that the originals happened as advertised as opposed to believing such fictional reconstructions as this.

Thanks,

aa5874

Why should a person believe obvious fiction as advertised in the NT? The Paul of Galations claimed he got revelations from the Lord about the Last Supper, that is obvious fiction.

aa5874

I agree with you fundamentally except with regards to the Epistles, both in chronology and credible content. I consider the Epistles to originate through mischief, especially those that are reputed to have come while the writer is imprisoned. I will accept only a letter of recantation or an epistle showing that the writer has agreed to cease and desist from carrying out the same crime for which he was detained.

I certainly do not accept that a person condemned to die, bound hand and foot, could become a missionary, writing volumes of literature about Christ, the same person he was condemned to die for, and do all that from his prison while under guard.

The epistles, even if written earlier than the Synoptics, they appear to be heavily interpolated. If it is agreed that Jesus is fiction, then the Epistles cannot contain any credible information about Jesus regardless of their chronology.

neilgodfrey

To go far with any discussion comparing the Last Supper passages in Luke and 1 Corinthians we need first to deal with Winsome Munro's arguments in her Authority in Paul and Peter.

Winsome Munro argues that last supper passage in 1 Corinthians was part of a larger "pastoral interpolation" and does not sit well with the original letter. (She sees the Pauline corpus having been edited by someone from the same "school" or theological position that produced the Pastoral epistles.)

I posted a detailed discussion of this section (1 Cor.10-11) which includes a special discussion of this Last Supper subset on my blog back in March.

From my blog discussion:

The Lord’s Supper, according to the original letter (10:16-17), was a meal to commemorate the unity of all as one body in Christ. The partaking of it symbolized their unity in Christ, as one body, one bread. A unity uncorrupted by association with idols. But this eucharist was not to the “pastoralist’s” liking. It was too much like an uncontrolled feast. Not without some exaggeration and causing some indignation, I am sure, he wrote:

When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper: for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. (1 Cor. 11:20-22)

So he imposed his more familiar and “controlled” cultic order on the rest of the church. More than mere unity, the Last Supper now represented the more sombre memorial of the dead, and the making of the covenant:

The fuller discussion, with links to Winsome Munro's book, is posted here.

Neil