aa5874

The writings attributed to Eusebius are EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT and cannot be ignored.

The writings of Eusebius are NOT problems at all.

They are fundamentally part of the PROOF that the history of the Church with respect to the dating, chronology, authorship and even contents of the Gospels and NT Canon are BOGUS.

Every single word of Eusebius MUST be taken SERIOUSLY and EXAMINED after all he claimed he was the FIRST to write the "History" of the Church.

No investigator DISCARDS the written statement of a Suspect even if it is KNOWN BLATANT LIES.

The written statement of a Suspect is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT.

Examine the written statement of the SUSPECT, Eusebius.

"Church History" 1 "Church History" attributed to Eusebius is the FUNDAMENTAL written evidence of antiquity that PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that the Gospels and the entire Canon (including ALL the Pauline writings) were written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

An investigator NEVER, NEVER EVER DISCARDS the written statement of a SUSPECT even if it is KNOWN BLATANT LIES.

Iskander

The Bible in Basic English and Young’s literal translation bible both translate ‘graphas’ as writings. Some English translations interpret ‘writings’ as in the word ketuvim [writings] which is part of the Tanach and hence as scriptures.


Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the early writings Paul is referring to in 1 Cor 15:3 must have used the equivalent word for ketuvim that is writings; a very early writing of the Christian gospel.


Paul was speaking of a written record of the life and teaching of Jesus and I agree totally with you when you say that ‘writings’ is more accurate and closer to the intended meaning as used by Paul: the life and teaching of Jesus

Vivisector

Avi,

I think you might be on a potentially more fruitful track.

What seems to be the present topic is that of forumulaic references to scripture. There are a couple of very well-known ones, which I will render in English (since I haven't figured out how to get Greek characters to appear in my postings - pure laziness). One is, "according to the writings," which is under discussion. Another stock reference is, "as it is written." You might, if I infer correctly, be interested in when such stock phrases came to be applied to the Christian Scriptures. I've found Metzger and Lee McDonald (I actually prefer McDonald; he gives a fuller treatment of when these formulaic phrases came to be applied to the Christian scriptures, I think) helpful in this regard. Enjoy, if you wish.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

That is ALL speculation. You have NO idea what MUST have been used.

The same NT Canon which claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth also claimed he was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost.

There is NO credible sources of antiquity that can show Jesus did live and SPOKE a single word in any language.

avi

Thank you Vivisector, for a stimulating post: well done.

I appreciate the reference to Metzger and McDonald (or via: amazon.co.uk).

avi

Iskander

Why do you ask questions if you know all the answers?

avi

Thanks for this reply, Iskander, I don't know anything about what Jesus or anyone else living, or reputed to have been living, may, or may not have said, even one year ago, let alone 2000 years ago.....

In other words, in trying to focus on the questions posed, it is to me not significant what this person, or that person says. What is important to me, is to learn what has been written, or carved in stone. Paul's epistles were written. When were they written? I have no idea. Who wrote them? Again, I have no information. The principal issue of this thread was to raise a series of questions, for which I possess no answers, but perhaps some other forum member knows instantly exactly when, where, what, why, and how.

Most English translations of Paul's epistles, translate "graphas" from 1 Corinthians 15:3 & 4 as "scriptures", and accordingly, most forum members regard these words, "scriptures" as describing the "old testament" , yet, we know now, i.e. I have learned during this past week, that "graphas" does not correspond to "scriptures", at all. This Greek word, used by Paul, represents "writings", not "scripture".

So, now, we have several other, unanswered questions before us:

2. Is there another word, in Greek, that represents "sacred texts", as opposed to graphas, which simply means "writings", as far as I can determine.

3. How do the Gospel writers refer to the "old testament" texts? Do they write "graphas", or use some other word?

4. How did the neoplatonists, e.g. the Alexandrian school--> Clement, Origen, refer to the "old testament"?

In addition, it is still unknown when, and who, changed the meaning of graphas, from writings, to "scriptures".

So, what do these four questions have to do with anything? Why should they be questions worth answering?

I think that Paul's writings date from after the appearance of the gospels. Most forum members dispute this.

I am waiting for someone to explain which written source provided Paul with the information needed to write, as he did, in 1 Corinthians 15: 5 "Cephas and the twelve". Some forum members are content to imagine that Paul relied upon oral tradition to add that bit of information. I am a tad wary of accepting such a facile response on this issue, because of "graphas" in verses preceding, i.e. 3 & 4. In other words, if "Cephas and the twelve" represents oral tradition, why not rely upon that method of transmission for the "facts" presented in verses 3, and 4? Paul seems, to my thinking many centuries after the fact, to be concerned to communicate to the intended recipients of his letters, that these "facts" are genuine, and the "genuineness" is assured by their having been written, i.e. that he, Paul, has read these facts, and not relied simply on oral tradition. Where did he read them? I claim that Paul read them in the Gospels.

In my opinion, based solely on supposition, not evidence, Paul intended to convey to the recipients of his correspondence complete confidence in the validity of his message of "good news". The best way, Paul thought, in my opinion, to assuage any doubts those receiving Paul's epistle may have had, was to cite "graphas", to emphasize that his "good news" was not just some rumor, sloshing about from the gossip of big city Jerusalem.

"Cephas and the twelve" is juxtaposed to "graphas", (written twice, in the preceding two verses,) in my opinion, to lend support to the validity of Paul's claim. Perhaps Paul learned of "Cephas and the twelve", precisely from gossip, or, from having met "Cephas" in person!!!! Alternatively, maybe he read about them in the Gospels (cited in John), or, read about them in some other document, like "Memoirs of the Apostles", or "Diatessaron"....

avi

jakejonesiv

The orignal question should be if Paul (or someone writing in his name) actually wrote 'according to the scriptures' or if this was interpolated by a proto-orthodox redactor.

Best Regeard,
Jake Jones IV

avi

Hi Jake,
Sorry, I don't quite follow your post.

Kata tas grafas means, "according to the writings", not "according to the scriptures".

Paul never wrote: "according to the scriptures". Paul wrote: "according to the writings." It is unclear, at least to me, why most English versions contain "scriptures", instead of "writings".

The question remains unanswered, to which writings Paul was referring.

Most forum members disagree with my point, i.e. that Paul's words do not refer to the ancient "old testament" and prophecy contained therein.

I claim that Paul refers to the gospels, rather than the old testament. I have no idea about possible interpolation of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5....

avi

aa5874

Why do you IMPLY that I know ALL the answers when I NEVER EVER made such a statement?

The ANSWERS about the "4 gospels" can be found in the writings of antiquity if they are NOT mis-interpreted.

We have the writings of Justin Martyr and he claimed that the MEMOIRS of the Apostles" were read in the Churches on Sundays but Justin did NOT write that he had "4 Gospels" or knew about Gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Remarkably the first mention of the dating, chronology, authorship and even some contents of the "4 Gospels" as given by Irenaeus have been REJECTED by Scholars so Justin Martyr's writings appear to be credible.

It is MORE likely that it was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which was the first writing to be regarded as scripture.