aa5874

The Pauline Epistles came AFTER ACTS of the Apostles.

You must have noticed that the name Saul was changed to Paul and that in the Pauline writings the author Paul did NOT claim he was called Saul.

The Pauline Epistles were written to Historicize the resurrection of Jesus.

Paul will claim that he was ACTIVELY in contact with the resurrected Jesus and that the Resurrected one did give him the Gospel that he preached.

Chili

I do not agree with that, and you actually make that clear yourself here with just 2 differences between Mark and John. My opinion here is that those difference are not made by accident but on purpose to show the difference between heaven and hell and so they are not contradictions but are compliments to make this truth know. These two gospels are full of such contradictions that really are enforcements and regardles of what carbon dating has to say on this, when Mark was written John was already his counterpart, and I dare say by the same author but maybe not published just yet (for whatever reason they have had not to publish just yet). This same is true with Matthew and Luke who also compliment each other for the same reason.

These 4 gospels are like one work of art and belong together to make this known (in its proper tanslation, of course).

Duvduv

But if the writer of Acts wrote the epistles then why don't the epistles reflect the Jesus of NAZARETH of Peter??
By the way, Origen's history is filled with stuff about the gospels and epistles in the mid third century. Who forged that? Was it the same group as who forged Tertullian??

aa5874

It is documented in the Pauline writings that Paul claimed he received information about the Last Supper which is mentioned in gMark.

Mark 14 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 - There is ZERO indication that the Pauline wriiter did NOT know the Jesus story when he was a PERSECUTOR of the Faith and was aware of written sources that stated Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and was resurrected on the THIRD day. See 1 Cor 15.

Chili

You cannot make that statement like that since 'that Jesus' may have been dead, but it can be said that Paul walked the same walk and drank of the same cup that Gospel Jesus drank and so got it first hand as Christian himself. He so was a 'brother' of Jesus, yes, and may even have been the very life after which Gospel Jesus journey was fashioned and Joseph here now was fiction too . . . which really does not matter simply because the 'follow me' makes it clear that it can happen to anyone including you and me (with all respect to good old Joseph as Patron Saint).

I think the point here is that the story is real for both Matthew/Mark and Luke/John and the Church (TM) just thought that the time had come for Judaism to become a Dominion on the planet earth, and Catholicism would be the grafted branch of Judaism to present that (and please note that we share the same heaven on earth simply because we share the same Genesis where we come full circle in life).

Chili

And the word persecutor just means that he was taxing religion for what it is worth = faith seeking understanding.

Duvduv

This is not accurate. Earl Doherty has shown that the word betray is not a correct translation from Greek, and the correct word is "given up" or "given over" (I forget which). He has an extensive discussion about this. Anyway, you can see that the rendition in Mark is not the same as in Corinthians. Meaning that both texts had a shared but different tradition about it (IF we wish to argue that Acts and Mark had NO relationship between them).

But what you are also arguing is that the fictitious story of "Paul" persecuting the "Christians" is not a later invention. If it was not a later addition, that compounds the already existing question as to WHY the writers needed to build a personality named PAUL BEFORE the epistles ever appeared. Any thoughts on this?

aa5874

I am not claiming that they are identical at all. I am showing you that the Pauline writer made a claim that he RECEIVED information about the Last Supper on the night Jesus was BETRAYED which is also found in KJV gMark.

You will hardly find the Gospels to be identical or that a copy of the same gospel to be identical.

You seem not to understand that I am showing you that Paul claimed he persecuted the Faith in Galatians and that he was AWARE of written sources that stated Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day in 1 Cor.

You cannot show that Paul did NOT know the Jesus story of gMark.

And further, Apologetic sources claimed Paul knew of and Commended gLuke. There are claims that the author of gLuke used gMark.

"Commentary on Matthew 1

Duvduv

This is totally unclear. First of all, there was never anyone named Paul in the first place, remember?
So how could "he" command "Luke" or anybody else?

Secondly, the entire story of the persecution in Galatians does not have to have anything at all to do with a community devoted to a physical Jesus figure as opposed to a celestial Christ.

So back to the first point - WHY did these authors decided to create a Paul story in Acts BEFORE epistles were even produced (i.e. the "authentic" epistles plus the rest)??

DCHindley

Duv,

I think you have to make a distinction between the writing of them individually and the presentation of them as a package.

What I recommend is that you read through David Trobisch Paul's Letter Collection (or via: amazon.co.uk).

In his opinion, resulting from review of thousands of manuscripts, is that the NT Pauline corpus consists of three smaller collections. The first two (written to churches) were Romans to Galatians (the collection most clearly showing internal evidence for having undergone an earlier redaction history), and also Ephesians to 2 Thessalonians. Finally the third collection were the Pastorals (to individuals).

The package of 12 (Hebrews was obviously a later addition to this package) in the NT seems to have dominated above all other editions, provided of course any of these three enjoyed prior publication, as there is relatively little evidence of these earlier editions influencing the manuscript tradition.

DCH