Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-10-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

....Of course "Luke" knew Corinthians. Are you looking for an AfS for Acts 6, or for an argument from why your request makes no sense?

The usual signs that the author of Luke knew the Pauline writings are virtually missing.

In fact the Synoptics are very good material to help to identify when an author may be aware of or may know of some previous source.

One of the indications that an author maybe aware of some writing is wholesale copying of passages from the suspected source.

Another indication is sequence of passages or phrases from the suspected writing.

In gLuke and Acts of the Aposles, there are wholesale copying of passages from Hebrew Scripture, there are over 50 passages from Hebrew scriptures, but there is only one passage where there appears to be copying either from gLuke to the Epistle or the reverse from the Epistle to gLuke.

And the Pauline writer will say how he got his information.

This is the so-called Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 -

The Pauline writer's explanation is not likely to be true. He most likely got his information about the Last Supper from some human source, not a heavenly source.

The Pauline writer may have read gLuke.

Another indication that the Pauline writer was after the author of Acts can be found in Galatians where Paul appears to be correcting the author of Acts about his travels to Jerusalem.

This is the Pauline writer claiming he is not a liar in Galatians.1.15-20

Quote:

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

The Pauline writer was likely to have read Acts of the Apostles where the author, commonly called Luke, claimed he did leave Damascus and went to Jerusalem to see the apostles. There is no mention at all of Paul in Arabia in Acts. See Acts 9.

There are indications that the Pauline writings were after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles and he most likely got his information about the Last Supper from a human source.

Two obvious interpolations.

aa5874 · 11-10-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The usual signs that the author of Luke knew the Pauline writings are virtually missing.

In fact the Synoptics are very good material to help to identify when an author may be aware of or may know of some previous source.

One of the indications that an author maybe aware of some writing is wholesale copying of passages from the suspected source.

Another indication is sequence of passages or phrases from the suspected writing.

In gLuke and Acts of the Aposles, there are wholesale copying of passages from Hebrew Scripture, there are over 50 passages from Hebrew scriptures, but there is only one passage where there appears to be copying either from gLuke to the Epistle or the reverse from the Epistle to gLuke.

And the Pauline writer will say how he got his information.

This is the so-called Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 -

The Pauline writer's explanation is not likely to be true. He most likely got his information about the Last Supper from some human source, not a heavenly source.

The Pauline writer may have read gLuke.

Another indication that the Pauline writer was after the author of Acts can be found in Galatians where Paul appears to be correcting the author of Acts about his travels to Jerusalem.

This is the Pauline writer claiming he is not a liar in Galatians.1.15-20

The Pauline writer was likely to have read Acts of the Apostles where the author, commonly called Luke, claimed he did leave Damascus and went to Jerusalem to see the apostles. There is no mention at all of Paul in Arabia in Acts. See Acts 9.

There are indications that the Pauline writings were after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles and he most likely got his information about the Last Supper from a human source.

Two obvious interpolations.

What are obvious interpolations?

You cannot establish that the Pauline writer could not have written 1 Corinthians or could not have amended his own writing.

In order to claim interpolations you must show that:

1. The original author could not have written the passage under question.

2. The original author had established some other or opposing view to the passage under scrutiny.

3. There are writings by the original author where the passage is missing.

These basic parameters must be established before one can claim that passages were interpolated. I get the impression that you consider passages to be interpolations once they do not help your theory.

dog-on · 11-10-2009, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Two obvious interpolations.

What are obvious interpolations?

You cannot establish that the Pauline writer could not have written 1 Corinthians or could not have amended his own writing.

In order to claim interpolations you must show that:

1. The original author could not have written the passage under question.

2. The original author had established some other or opposing view to the passage under scrutiny.

3. There are writings by the original author where the passage is missing.

These basic parameters must be established before one can claim that passages were interpolated. I get the impression that you consider passages to be interpolations once they do not help your theory.

Nah, these simply are anachronistic.

aa5874 · 11-10-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What are obvious interpolations?

You cannot establish that the Pauline writer could not have written 1 Corinthians or could not have amended his own writing.

In order to claim interpolations you must show that:

1. The original author could not have written the passage under question.

2. The original author had established some other or opposing view to the passage under scrutiny.

3. There are writings by the original author where the passage is missing.

These basic parameters must be established before one can claim that passages were interpolated. I get the impression that you consider passages to be interpolations once they do not help your theory.

Nah, these simply are anachronistic.

What are NOT anachronistic in the entire NT? The entire NT writings may indeed be totally anachronistic.

The dates of writing given by the Church for many of the writings in the NT have been deduced to be erroneous and as more information become available more errors are discovered.

The Gospels are in effect anachronisms where Jesus was placed in Judaea at about the beginning of the 1st century to around 33 CE when Jesus was probably fabricated or invented after the Fall of the Temple.

It should be noted that Paul died before Jesus was even invented.

PAUL claimed there were people in Christ before him. Paul admits he is not the first to know Jesus Christ. Paul was converted by a lightning bolt after he had already persecuted Jesus believers.

Jesus believers were after the Fall of the Temple.

GLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are all ANACHRONISMS.

dog-on · 11-10-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Nah, these simply are anachronistic.

What are NOT anachronistic in the entire NT? The entire NT writings may indeed be totally anachronistic.

The dates of writing given by the Church for many of the writings in the NT have been deduced to be erroneous and as more information become available more errors are discovered.

The Gospels are in effect anachronisms where Jesus was placed in Judaea at about the beginning of the 1st century to around 33 CE when Jesus was probably fabricated or invented after the Fall of the Temple.

It should be noted that Paul died before Jesus was even invented.

PAUL claimed there were people in Christ before him. Paul admits he is not the first to know Jesus Christ. Paul was converted by a lightning bolt after he had already persecuted Jesus believers.

Jesus believers were after the Fall of the Temple.

GLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are all ANACHRONISMS.

There are anachronisms and then there are, of course, anachronisms.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.