maryhelena

Toto

It's always a bad idea to try to guess motives. And I think that maryhelena has a unique viewpoint here, so I don't know who her "ilk" would be.

Can we get back to "trying to figure out the way all the pieces fit together"?

stephan huller

Then why does matter if their claims for the idea that Jesus would be raised on or after three days makes any sense? The original question was whether or not 'according to the scriptures' in the Letter to the Corinthians meant 'gospels' or OT. You suddenly take a detour and argue that the way the early Fathers interpreted the OT to support their theological arguments was stupid. I agree. It doesn't make much sense. But to focus on the implausibility of the logic misses the point. The Catholic editor(s) who manufactured our current Apostolikon clearly wanted Paul to subscribe to this understanding. That is all that matters.

aa5874

But, your supposed "CONSENSUS" is NOT based on any credible evidence from antiquity which may be similar to the argument used against Galileo.

It is just not logical that If an UN-EVIDENCED "Consensus" ASSERTS "X" then all who have EVIDENCE for "NOT X" are wrong.

The NT CANON is extremely problematic with respect to authorship, dating, chronology and even contents so one cannot just come to a "CONSENSUS" without any EXTERNAL CREDIBLE CORROBORATIVE SOURCES of Antiquity.

The VERY fact that the Church writers have been DISCREDITED with the chronology of the writings of the Gospel then it cannot be ASSUMED that any writing in the Canon is historically accurate.

We know the Church claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke, See Church History" 3.4.8 and that "PAUL" claimed he was NOT the FIRST in Jesus Christ, See Romans 16.7 and that he persecuted the FAITH that he [color=red] NOW PREACHED, See Galatians 1., so it is REALLY irrelevant whether "PAUL" wrote FIRST since the FAITH was ALREADY PREACHED and PERSECUTED by the very same "PAUL".

Based on the PAULINE writings, It must be OBVIOUS that "PAUL" must have been ABLE to IDENTIFY the FAITH before he COULD PERSECUTE IT.

And "PAUL" has made a most revealing statement to destroy the argument that he was FIRST.

"PAUL" CLAIMED HE WAS LAST.

1Co 15:8 - Over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus BEFORE "PAUL".

The Jesus story, the FAITH was KNOWN BEFORE "PAUL" supposedly wrote a single letter.

avi

Precisely correct.

However, I was wrong, to have posed the question that way.

What I should have written, in retrospect, is this:

When Paul writes kata tas graphas in the two verses, 1Corinthians 15:3 and 4, is he necessarily referring to the old testament, as is popularly believed, particularly by those who imagine that Paul wrote his epistles BEFORE the Gospels,
OR,
does graphas correspond simply to "writings", so that Paul could have been referring to ANY documents, including his own, or someone else's, for example, Memoirs of the Apostles, or Diatessaron, or any one of the four Gospels?

I apologize to everyone for having given insufficient thought to the precise wording of the topic. Much of the confusion that has arisen, is due to my inadequate formulation of the question. Very sorry.

I am uncertain whether or not the fact that verse 5 lacks these three words, indicates that Paul did not consider those data (Cephas and the Twelve) to have been recorded in written form, or whether the conjunction "and", (kai) should indicate that these persons were also mentioned in the "writings"?

Yes, it doesn't make sense, because of the English translation of graphas, as "scriptures", instead of "writings".

Once we acknowledge that the Greek word does NOT necessarily correlate with "scriptures", but instead simply means writings, then, the door is open for Paul to have written his text AFTER some other "gospel" or protogospel.

avi

aa5874

Once we do NOT know when "PAUL" wrote and do NOT know what written sources were available to "Paul" then it cannot be ASSUMED that "Paul" only KNEW of Hebrew Scripture.

And, even more significant, is that the Jesus story was KNOWN before "Paul" was CONVERTED.

But, we can DEDUCE that "Paul" was AWARE of the WRITTEN Jesus story based on what is written 1 Cor.11.

"Paul" claimed he RECEIVED information from the RESURRECTED LORD that he COULD NOT have received.

It is NOT all PLAUSIBLE, even if Jesus did live that he could have given any information at all to "Paul" especially the words of Jesus to the apostles at the LAST Supper.

It is FAR more likely that "Paul" USED some other source for 1 Cor. 11 and not the Resurrected Lord Jesus.


1 Corinthians 11:23-34 - Now, the words " this do in remembrance of me" is ONLY found in gLuke, NO other book in the Entire Canon contain such a phrase.

Lu 22:19 - It is FAR MORE likely that "PAUL" got his information of the supposed BETRAYAL and the words of Jesus from gLuke rather than the Resurrected LORD Jesus who could NOT have been RAISED from the dead.

And the Church claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8.

Iskander

Your interpretation is good but it is not the only one. This one is just as good:

I received from the Lord. In these words he says:
That the lord is speaking through Paul.

He also says:
That he is not inventing what he is transmitting.

He may also say:
That it is by the grace of the lord that he now understands the meaning of Jesus teaching and evaluates correctly the events in the life of Jesus. The same teachings and oral/written history he had known when he was hostile to the followers of Jesus.

aa5874

Please tell me if this is also good.

1. If Jesus did exist he could have ONLY been human.

2. A DEAD man cannot speak through "Paul".

"Paul" either INVENTED the words of Jesus or used some other source about the Betrayal and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper.

Iskander

1- Yes , Jesus was only a man and he may not have existed

2- It means speaking with his authority. It is a literary form signalling accurate transmission of the words of a leader. The leader may have been dead for a long time and he/she need not be a religious leader claiming immortality.

Your interpretation is good but the text admits other interpretations

aa5874

You MUST ADMIT that ERRONEOUS interpretations are NOT really proper interpretations and should be NOT classified as interpretations.

Galatians 1 I MUST ADMIT that the PAULINE Jesus was NOT a man.

Are you going to MIS-INTERPRET GALATIANS?