LogicandReason

So aa, are these "Gospels" ( a rather ambiguous word) the teachings that become Matthew, Mark Luke and John? Why do the letter writers never quote them if Paul traveled to Jerusalem twice?

aa5874

So are you saying that the letters writers lied to the readers when they claimed that there were apostles before them preaching the gospel in Jerusalem and that they perecuted those who believe the gospel in Judaea?

And why did not any of the gospel writers mention the letter writers called Paul, if these letter writers went to Jerusalem before the gospels were written?

Not a single writing from the writer called John mentioned any letter writers called Paul.

bacht

Right, the only citation in a canonical epistle is 2 Peter (?), which is considered late ie. long after they were both dead

LogicandReason

No. I think there were bits and pieces of information floating around without any particular organization, one being the sayings document now known as "Q." Works, like the Gospel of John, look like the corpus of an entire community and not a single writer and developed over time. What I glean form history and other biblical scholars is that while Peter and others associated to the HJ were organized into some type of church with some teachings, the canonized gospels come much later. I don't think any of the earlier Peter crowd had the smarts to tie Jesus' death back to Jewish scripture - Paul (not really the other writers of later Paul) makes that leap. In his letters he never mentions the content of "Peter's" gospels.

I think the gospels were written for two reasons: to tie HJ to a history through the apostles, and to explain the present condition of the church (after fall of Jerusalem, death of Jesus, and battling the diaspora Jewish synagogues). The gospels are more anti-Semitic than they are instructional. Mark seems to bash the Peter crowd as dullards and Matthew seems to be written to discredit "the writers." Maybe they just did not want the competition. Maybe only the Gnostics have "Paul." It is a great question.

And John is completely a separate work compared to the synoptics. John, to me, was the compromise gnostic document - thrown in with the others in 325 to appease the "non-orthodox." Another great question. Are you saying it was an early document? Why do so many scholars date this (if you can) after 90 C.E.?

aa5874

Where is the history book of the letter writers called Paul?

"Q" is just a theory. There are statements from the letter writers called Paul.

The letter writers called Paul made claims that the apostles of Jesus were already preaching the gospel in Judaea, that churches were already developed in Judaea, that there were believers of Jesus, and that the writers called Paul persecuted the Jesus believers before the writers were converted by Jesus himself from heaven.

The letter writers called Paul contradict you.

Peter was preaching the gospel to the Jews. Peter had already made the connection, he had the "smarts", according to the letter writer.

The letter writers acknowledge they are after the apostles, after the gospel of Peter, they are last.

Regardless of the bashing or anti-semiticism, the letter writers,Paul, claimed Peter preached the gospel in Judaea before them.

Well, if John, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke and James wrote after the letter writers called Paul, why did they not mention that there were letter writers called Paul?

It should be noted that the letter writers called Paul mentioned Mark and Luke. Eusebius in Church History claimed Mark and Luke are persons who were disciples of Peter and the letter writers called Paul respectively.

And further Justin Martyr ,around the middle of the 2nd century, mentioned that some John wrote a "Revelation" and never made reference to any revelations from any letter writers named Paul.

LogicandReason

They attest to themselves

None that report what Peter is teaching specifically. No direct quotes (the liturgy of the Last Supper could have originated anywhere or may have been copied from the Mithra Cult). You can find Paul in Mark but not the reverse.

I'm not disputing this...but there is no reference to written gospels.

None of this is disputed.

Hyperbole! Are you a former Christian? If so, you would know that Christians play a game in church where each tries to one up the others with stories of how evil they were before conversion. This game is called "Testifying." Paul, in order to anchor his "revelation" from the "Spirit" Jesus tells us that he is out persecuting Christians for the state. Here is the historical problem: He also says he is a Pharisee yet the Pharisees were not part of the Temple structure, the Saducees were and would have had that authority.

Only you contradict me (with good arguments). The letter writers never refer to written Gospels by authors named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

All the letter writer tells us about Peter is that he is preaching in Jerusalem, he has priority as an apostle, he is a pillar and he preaches to the Jews (circumcised). Paul only refers to Peter to promote himself. After two trips to visit Peter, Paul knows nothing about HJ. He never quotes from Peter's gospel.

For the "n"th time, this is not disputed as to who came first. The word Gospel can simply refer to the "Good News." You are speculating that Peter's gospel is the same as the later canonized gospels (they came much later).

But the claim is not to written "Gospels."

For the same reason you do not find Martin Luther references in Catholic teachings...competition. Paul only mentions the Pillars to strengthen his case.

With zero references to either writing a gospel. Both are coincidental and minor references.


It was Eusebius' job to unite the history and doxology for his boss, Constantine. He was two centuries removed.

Which only verifies that the church is divided. Marcion certainly knew Paul.

aa5874

This statement defines your entire fatally flawed argument.

The letters of the writers called Paul just CANNOT be used to corroborate the veracity or attest the veracity of the the very same letters.

It is absurd to think that the letters MUST be true in every respect, when there are multiple statements (letters) from multiple persons who were posing as the same person (Paul).

The credibility of the letters and letter writers have been seriously compromised.

Your claim that the letter writers did not say what Peter was preaching is not really true, they claim Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision and the letter writers were preaching the gospel of uncircumcision.


Well, it is not just not logical to say such a thing. The fact that Justin never mentioned the letter writers, Paul, and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, or Jude may indicate that Justin did not know of them, they did not exist, or their names were added to existing writings after Justin.

But, the omission certainly do NOT verify that the church is divided.

LogicandReason

The Aeneid is a history as is the Iliad, neither can be used to corroborate the veracity of the stories they contain. I never said that Pauls letters are corroboration. But they don't have the same polemical intentions of the latter written gospels. They are just letter. They have the same cosmic, mythical features of many Hellenistic myth/cults and are not attempt to tie Paul back to the historical Jesus.

The same is true of the entire bible.

You are arguing with yourself because that is not my understanding. What is true about a fiction?

Compared to what? This is like saying that the credibility of "The Satanic Verses" have been seriously compromised. Paul and Rushdie both write fiction (but Paul and the other writers may not know it).

Which only delineates between the Jews in Jerusalem versus the Jews and synagogues in the Diaspora. Why all the stories in the Gospels where in Matthew 10 Jesus is saying that the laws all apply and then later he defends working on Sunday and breaking piety rules? Christianity defines itself versus Judaism. Gentile interest in the Diaspora synagogues was a phenomenon dating back to the middle of the second century B.C.E. The question of circumcision was hotly debated in Asia Minor. Paul, representing the orthodox voice at first wants circumcision...later, it is not important. The movement represented by Paul, and in some respects by the Jerusalem Christians adds to Judaism the ingredient it needs to be universal by breaking the racial aspects of Judaism. This may answer for why one nearly kills off the other. You are arguing a minor point that hardly constitutes a gospel. If Peter had a Gospel and it was anything like what is later represented in the canonized gospels, Paul's Mythical "Logos" would have been sharply criticized.

This was a business! I will never buy that these folks were all zealots. Paul reports going to Jerusalem in Galatians 1-2 to negotiate his franchise.

Those are all possible conclusions.

Nor do I posit that conclusion. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" tells us all we need to know about how divided this church was. Clement's admonitions to the church in Corinth does that same. Then then there are the Heretics themselves: Marcion, Valentinus, Julius Cassianus, Nicolaus, Noetus of Smyrna, Montanus, and Arius.

So many ideas until Constantine forced an orthodox faith. When one reads the apologist, no two apologist have the same theology.

I stick to my original posit, the gospels that are named in the late 2nd century were written after the letter writers. The original letter writer, called Paul, did the heavy work of creating the keyrgma that was later installed into the gospels. maybe, just maybe, the community of John was already writing some of the materials that became Paul's outline for his theology (the cosmic/Logos aspects are there). There is no proof that anyone wrote anything before the letter writers and I don't find dating any of the canonized gospels before the fall of Jerusalem to be substantiated.

aa5874

You are the one who claimed the letters attest to themselves. Look at your previous post.

The Pauline letters as they are right now appear to have been manipulated, their veracity cannot be vouched for, the letter writers do not appear intent on presenting a clear and concise chronology of events and to have themselves identified.

I cannot accept the letters as credible without any external corroboration.

You seem not to ever take into account that the entire Pauline letters may be a package of deliberate fraud to distort history.

Do you realise that no known writer of antiquity ever claimed they actually saw the letter writers called Paul? Philo and Josephus never wrote a single word about them. The Pauls had no influence or impact on them.

The characters called Paul or Peter were just not known or written about in the 1st century by any external source, yet they started churches all over the Empire.

Paul had an impact on Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, late 2nd century, but this influence should have been felt over a hundred years before. This is an indication that the letter writers are late, they are after the so-called apostles, after the gospels, and after Justin.

Do you read your own post? You are the one who made the conclusion.

Loomis

I see indicators that suggest that (parts of) Matthew may have been written after (parts of) Romans.

Consider the Sermon on the Mount. Several phrases look like polemics directed against Paulism. For example Matthew 5:19 appears to be taking a jab at the name ‘Paul’ which means ‘small’ in Greek.

Whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

“called least” = “called small” = “called Paul”.

Do you see what I mean? It's a polemic. An 'inside joke'.