razlyubleno

There is a difference between attributing a teaching to Jesus, and saying that you received it from Jesus through revelation. Paul never, not once, did he say anything along the lines of, "Be at peace with one another, just as Christ Jesus himself said during his ministry." That would count as attribution.

Jesus (according to the gospels) only spoke a small fraction of what Paul says in his letters... Paul may very well give credit upfront, by saying that he received a revelation of Christ, but anyone could have said that, and it doesn't count, because it's revelation and not what Jesus said during his Earthly ministry as described in the gospels; it's not a direct quote. There are no direct quotes. Paul never once says, "As you already know, Jesus said that you should be at peace with one another." If he had known the gospel story, he would have said as much.

But noone was familiar with the gospels at this point. Not even Paul. End of story.

razly

storytime

As Paul did not turn from his Judaism, what other religion do you think he would have been recruiting people into? Was he trying to convert people to idol worship of Romans?

As I read it, Paul was attempting to recruit people into the tradition of the Jews[Judaism] without them submitting to circumcision and laws of Moses. As Paul was raised Jewish he would have known his gospel to the Gentiles was false, a lie and something that his God nor Jesus would accept as valid.

What then was the purpose of the story in Paul's lie[gospel]?

"Salvation is of the Jews" holds meaning in observance of their tradition in circumcision and laws of Moses.

I see in this story an attempt to either protect Judaism[the Jews] or destroy it. And it seems the writer's effort to equalize Gentiles as Jews gives to the side of destruction of Judaism, thus the lie[gospel] of Paul was preached to the Gentiles as the Jews had refused it.

razlyubleno

Sure, all points conceded; except that I'd substitute something else for "lie," since I've never noticed anything disingenuous in Paul's letters. He seems to have changed his mind as the times called for such changes, but they seem to be organic rather than orchestrated. I simply can't smell the snake-oil.

razly

storytime

humm.. I think "lie" is appropriate in context of Jewish tradition.

aa5874

All you are doing is moving the goal-post. Whenever I point out your errors, you just come up with some other story. But, these are the facts.

1. Paul attributes his gospel to Jesus Christ.

2. Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died, resurrected, ascended to heaven and is coming back a second time.

3. Paul appears to have quoted directly a passage from gLuke.

4. The church writers place Paul after the Apostles and the day of Pentecost when the Apostles talked in tongues.

5. Paul claimed he talked in tongues.

6. Eusebius claimed it was said Paul was aware of gLuke.

7. Paul claimed Jesus was the offspring of David by the flesh.

8. The writer Paul wrote that he visited Peter and the Lord's brother when he went to Jerusalem.

Where did the writer called Paul get all this information or did he just make all of it up in the 1st century, 5-10 years after the supposed Jesus died?

People would have immediately realised that Paul had no idea of what he was talking about.

Now, if Paul did not have any knowledge of the gospels up to the days of Nero and was writing all these letters about Jesus, what did Peter know about Jesus when Paul visited him in Jerusalem?

And now what hapens to Paul information about Jesus when Jesus did not actually exist?

Your scenario with Paul is just a chronological disaster.

If Paul had no knowledge of the gospels where did he get the name Jesus from and how did he know what Jesus did? And when was Paul preaching his gospel to people?

sugarhitman

But who has followed the law without breaking it? Noone which is why Paul says noone is saved by the law but faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Also the law specifically points to the blood sacrifice of the Messiah...which is also law.

razlyubleno

I've been quite consistent. You're just unwilling to understand the logic. You rely too heavily on the testimony of church fathers, who didn't know which way was up half the time. This is why you think gMatthew was the first, which is an untenable position. And this is why you think Paul knew gLuke, which is also an untenable position.

Just ask yourself a question: What the hell would Eusebius know? He was born in the 3rd century. Jesus is dead. Paul is dead. Even the youngest eye-witnesses are dead. What the hell would Eusebius know?

razly

aa5874

You have not been consistent at all. You claimed in error that Paul did not attribute his teachings to Jesus Christ, when I exposed your error you then intrduced a double meaning for "attribution".

You claimed in error that Paul did not quote Jesus directly, when I showed you 1 Corinthians and Luke, the betrayal, you then claim that there was a problem with "order of dependence".

Now, I depend heavily upon evidence, the written statements of all writings of antiquity, I don't know what you rely on.

But, what the hell do you know? Just ask yourself the question. You were born perhaps in the 20th century. The writer Paul is dead. Jesus, if he lived, is dead. And you don't rely heavily on the so-called church writings, you don't rely on Eusebius.

Now, I rely heavily on all writings of antiquity.

Eusebius appears to know a hell-of-a-lot. He mentioned many many writers of antiquity that supposedly preceeded him. He mentioned Philo, Josephus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, some non-canonised writings, the NT and other works that are still extant today.

Eusebius knew a lot. I depend heavily on Eusebius.

Now, after reading and examining the afore-mentioned writings, it would appear to me that the writings on Paul are late, that is they are all after the writings of Justin Martyr or at least after the Jesus story was first written.

There is a clear change in the character called Jesus from gMatthew to gJohn, the Jesus of the Gospels appear to go through a metamorphosis, this change indicate to me that the Jesus of the Gospels was before that of Paul. The original gospels, like gMark for example, were amended, modified and interpolated to match the Jesus found in the letters of Paul.

If the leters of Paul were first, then there would have been no reason to amend the gospels, they would have reflect the theology of the Pauline letters from their inception.

And it would appear that the theology, the Jesus of Paul has not metamorphosed at all.

Eusebius in Church History tried to harmonise many of the problems found in the Gospels, but no harmonisation of the letters of Paul was needed.

It is inconceivable that if the letters of Paul were written before the gospels that they would have been in no need of harmonisation to match the later gospels.


Galations 1:8 - Ga 1:9 - These are not the words of the first writer, but perhaps the last.

gMark was amended, interpolated, to make Jesus preach the same gospel as Paul.

It is clear that the letters of Paul were written after the gospels and was an integral part of the theology of the 4th century Roman Church.

arnoldo

According to the following source Marcion (85-160) knew both the gospels and the writings of Paul.

Amaleq13

You need to read more carefully. Your confusion about his point does not constitute an error, inconsistency or shifting of goal posts on his part.

Emphasis mine
Do you see what you completely missed with your reference to Galatians? It is not similar, let alone "very", to anything Jesus said in the Gospels.

Paul makes statements similar to statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels but does not provide that attribution. If he had read the Gospels and knew that they depicted Jesus saying these things, why would he fail to mention that what he was saying was actually said by Jesus?

If you think logically about the above, comprehension should ensue.