Tyro

"Now look at gJohn [KJV], this is the only author that used "Cephas" and it was Jesus according to John who called Simon the name Cephas. It could not be or it is highly unlikely for Paul to receive such information by revelation, it is more likely he was aware of gJohn's rendition of how Simon was named Cephas." - The Christian translators of course regard Cephas the same as Simon Peter, but as a critical reader I don't see any reason to. Paul does not connect Cephas with the name Peter or Simon, and thus your argument does not hold any water. Cephas and Petros means the same, rock/stone. It is like saying that if I am talking about a Rocky, it has to be about Sylvester "Rocky" Stallone, and could not be about Rocky Johnson or Rocky Votolato. Who Cephas was, we cannot know for sure. Christians today identify him with Peter of the Gospels, but Paul did not. If you regard Peter of the Gospels and Acts to be fictous, there is no need for you to do so. If so, Paul's mention of a Cephas in Jerusalem does not support any knowledge of the Gospel of John.

"Now, where did Paul get the name Jesus, Peter and Cephas from? Paul never claimed he was the first to write about Jesus, Peter, or Cephas." I didn't say he was the first to write about these people or entities. Apparently the readers of the Pauline epistles knew who this Cephas was. Jesus means "God saves" and is the same name as Joshua, in Greek. Christ is the English form of the Greek Christos, meaning annointed. It is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament as well: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered themselves together, against the Lord, and against his Christ" - Psalms 2:2-3 (Brenton's translation of the Septuagint) Why would Paul need the Gospels to write about Christ Jesus? And more importantly: why is Paul's mention of Christ Jesus proving Paul even knew of Jesus of Nazareth?

"You are making counter-claims." - I don't see I have. I am still waiting for your study of the Pauline epistles and comparision between them and the Gospels. Perhaps I've missed something. If Paul is using the Gospels - enlighten me!

"You have no evidence. You must assume." - We deal in probabilities. You seem to have no evidence of Paul using the Gospels either. You assume this, since you assume Paul is late and back-dated, and that Eusebius and Hieronymus are right when saying that Paul knew Luke.

"No church writer ever claimed Paul's Jesus was only heavenly, Paul did not claim his Jesus was only spiritual." - I still refer you to the excellent web page of Earl Doherty concerning the heavenly Christ theory. Perhaps Paul did not outright claim his Christ Jesus was "only spiritual", but he surely did not claim this Christ Jesus was a human being from Nazareth, living in the days of Pilate and Tiberius.

"Tertullian used Paul's writings to counter Marcion's phantom Jesus." - And the same verses in the Pauline epistles have been used to support and to protest against slavery. It is not a matter of later usage (Tertullian is writing nearly ~200 CE), but only a matter of what Paul actually wrote.

"Who told Paul Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died and resurrected on the third day when Jesus did not even exist in the 1st century and who told Paul that Simon was called Cephas and also Peter?" - Paul does still not claim Jesus was betrayed. Paul also did not claim any Simon was called Cephas and also Peter.

"Now, how on earth are you going to prove or show that Paul did not know the written Gospels when his letters have information about Jesus that is found in the written Gospels?" - I do not see your argument. If two people have the same information in their writings, does that neccessarily imply that these two people have read eachother's works? An example: Suetonius and Tacitus both write that Nero punished the Christiani/Chrestiani. Does this automatically mean that Suetonius read Tacitus, and took the information from him? Of course not. They could have used a common source, as could Paul and the Gospel writers, if you do not accept that the Gospel writers used Paul. Two people knowing the same thing, which is written in a certain book, does not mean that they both have read this very book, of course.

"But, no author of the Gospels wrote about Paul or Saul." - Ever heard of the Acts of the Apostles?

"Paul never claimed he wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written." - How on earth could he have claimed such a thing? Saying to the Corinthians e.g. "Hey guys. In about 30 years from now some unknown persons will write stories about Jesus Christ. I haven't read them, since they haven't been written yet."? The only thing to do is to look for actual traces of the Gospels inside the Pauline corpus. If you find any passage in the Pauline epistles where Paul is citing or quoting the Gospels, and saying this, please let me know. For me the case is still closed, since you have not shown the writer of the Pauline epistles knew anything else than common elements of the belief in Christ Jesus.

IamJoseph

The issue of resurrection came centuries later, in graduated elevations of ever increasing status of Jesus. This was not a belief till after 174 CE, nor was the terms 'christ and christian' used here. This was later promoted by force and mandated 'belief'. The early Nazerites, who did follow Yehoshua as a potential Jewish savier - did not believe in Resurrection, nor did anyone but the Greeks because of their previous existing beliefs.

The Nazerites expelled Saul of Tarsus for inferring such, who is said to have stormed out of Jerusalem in a fury after his beliefs were rejected. Resuurection was a Greek belief, with a host of Hellenist-Jewish wars since 250 BCE, following Alexander's sudden and controversial death. Alexander, a Myceanean, had much esteem in the Hebrew beliefs, which the Greeks and their preists were affronted by.


The best proof is that the pre-Islamic arabs, a peoples not of Europe and in the same area at the same time - totally rejected the later resurrection belief from Europe. Later, Rome killed off the Nazerites and the Essenes, even though they moved away from Judea during the war of 70 CE.

IamJoseph

The entire writings was made later, and has no bearing on history via evidential factors. Paul and Jesus never met, and none of these beliefs were held in the times subscribed to them. The Gospel doctrines emerged much later, artfully constructed as if all this occured. It is akin to a Shakespearean story of Hamlet.

Tyro

Which writings do you mean? Do you agree with aa that Paul knew of the Gospels?

Tyro

aa5874, please stop fooling around and try to shift the burden of proof. State ONE single reference to the Gospels in a Pauline text. If you cannot, and you are only able to state that Paul and the Gospel writers did believe the same things sometimes (which proves absolutely nothing else than perhaps a common source), I think we can end this disussion. Seventeen pages, and still no single evidence of Paul quoting or citing the written Gospels. Only the Church fathers who you think aren't even generally right. Please stop this, and present evidences for your case. You claimed Paul knew about the written Gospels - not only that he and the Gospel writers knew the same things about Christ Jesus (that he was resurrected e.g.) - so please TRY to prove it, or I will not bother writing anything here. You have got a fixed idea, and do not respond well to reason. Read Doherty. Try to understand. Peace.

aa5874

-

Again, how do you know that Paul did not connect Cephas of Galatians 1.18 with the apostle Peter? You are just making baseless assertions.

In Galatians 1.19, Paul wrote that he met no other apostle but Cephas, and in the church writings, Simon Peter or Simon Cephas was regarded as an apostle.



But in Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul claimed Jesus of Nazareth talked to him from heaven after being blinded by a bright light.
Acts 22.6-8 According to the Church, Paul talked to Jesus of Nazareth.

- Are you not claiming or holding the view that Paul wrote before the Gospels were written? I claim that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels, once you dis-agree, it must be that you have some other position.

But perhaps you are right, you have no real position because you have no evidence or sources of antiquity to support your beliefs about Paul.

- How is it possible to claim Paul probably wrote before the Gospels when Paul did not ever make such a claim. The author of Acts made no such claim. The church writers too claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

What sources of antiquity can show that Paul probably wrote before the Gospels?

- Are you Earl Doherty? Why are you referring me to other people who are not posting at this moment? If you believe Paul wrote before the Gospels then you must have some evidence or sources of antiquity to defend your view.

Just imagine that you are a juror. You must defend your own position.

But, this is the writer called Paul in Romans.
Romans 1:3 - And further, the NT Jesus was both god and man and this is consistent with the Pauline writings.

By the way, no letter writer, called Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude did not include the words "Jesus of Nazareth".

Absence of the words Jesus of Nazareth do not indicate when the Pauline letters were written.

So, what is your point? Are you claiming that if Paul's writings were used to counter Marcion's phantom Jesus, then it is not an indication that the church writers believed or was aware that Paul's Jesus was compatible with the god/man theory?

Paul's letters were canonised and regarded as scripture, these letters must be compatible with the god/man Jesus

So, what about Acts of the Apostles? Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles met Peter in Jerusalem.

It is absurd and illogical when carrying out an investigation about Paul to only rely totally on the words of Paul. Paul is not infallible. The author of Acts wrote about Paul and certain events in Acts are similar to Paul's own account.



-

Well, it is noticed that you still have no clear evidence that Paul wrote before the Gospel.
- Ever heard of Saul or Paul in the Synoptics or gJohn?

Saul or Paul is found in the later writings of Acts of the Apostles, this is another indication that Saul or Paul was developped after the Synoptics and gJohn.

Acts of the Apostle is considered to be written after the Gospels and it contains the history of Saul or Paul.

-

You are right. Paul could not have said that he was first to write about Jesus because he had already said he was last to see Jesus and that there were believers and apostles before him.

And Paul had already claimed he preached the faith he once destroyed.

Why do you think that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels when no-one from the church ever claimed Paul wrote his letters first?

What sources of antiquity do you intend to use? You have nothing but your imagination.

Tyro

"Again, how do you know that Paul did not connect Cephas of Galatians 1.18 with the apostle Peter? You are just making baseless assertions." - I am still not making any statement, or say I "know" anything. You, on the other hand, believe Cephas is Peter, but you have provided no evidence of this. You even believe Peter is fictous, so why is it important for you to say that Peter and Cephas are the same? We do not know if they were. Face it.

"According to the Church, Paul talked to Jesus of Nazareth." - Yes, according to Acts Paul did talk to the risen Christ, who appared in a vision. But Paul does not say he have met Jesus of Nazareth in his letters. No Nazareth is mentioned.

"But perhaps you are right, you have no real position because you have no evidence or sources of antiquity to support your beliefs about Paul." - I am only saying you have not proven "that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels". I need no position on Paul to say that.

"How is it possible to claim Paul probably wrote before the Gospels when Paul did not ever make such a claim." - As I said, it is impossible for someone who cannot fortell the future to make such I claim. Paul could of course not say he wrote "before the Gospels", if the Gospels did not exist during Paul's lifetime. Most scholars believe Paul wrote his first epistle about 51 CE. Please look up their arguments instead of wasting your own and other people's time with saying "You cannot prove a negative!" or "You cannot prove that scholarly consensus is right!". This page is a good start regarding scholarly opinions. You are in a minority position - a fringe one, to say the least. You are all alone. Jerome and Eusebius are dead, and not even you believe in them generally.

"Are you Earl Doherty? Why are you referring me to other people who are not posting at this moment?" - I am not. I am referring you to Doherty, since he has a good web site about the theory. Read it, and become enlightened. There is no need for me to repeat what others have already said, when you can read it yourself.

"By the way, no letter writer, called Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The epistles of Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude did not include the words "Jesus of Nazareth"." - Indeed they do not. And nevertheless you claim they knew of the Gospels? They use no information which has to be from the Gospels, and they are still using it? I see no reason to believe so.

"Acts of the Apostle is considered to be written after the Gospels and it contains the history of Saul or Paul." - Yes. According to Paul he persecuted the early "Christians" and then became one. It is only natural that Paul is mentioned AFTER the stories about Jesus. It is the chronological order. That Suetonius' biography of Nero is after the biography of Caligula, does not mean Nero wasn't born when Caligula was emperor, only that Nero was emperor latter...

"Why do you think that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels when no-one from the church ever claimed Paul wrote his letters first?" - Why is the Church fathers so important for you? Why should they be right regarding this matter, if they are wrong about Peter, the date of Paul, and everything else? I STILL need NO sources to state that you haven't proven that Paul knew any written Gospel.

This discussion is pointless. Show me any passage in the Pauline corpus where Paul is apparently depending on a written Gospel, and also states this. If you cannot, I rest my case.

show_no_mercy

What if Cephas (that's who Paul actually says he met) and Peter are two different people? It seems to be the gospel of John that equates the two. Prior to John, Cephas was the thirteenth apostle apart from "the twelve"

It's entirely possible that "Cephas" and "Simon Peter" were two different people, with Cephas also getting a similar "revelation/Jesus experience" as Paul.

Tyro

Exactly my point! To say Cephas is Simon Peter, and thus conclude that Paul must have read the Gospel of John is a logical fallacy, because one must postulate what is to be proven, i.e. that Cephas is Simon Peter.

aa5874

- In the NT, the disciple called Simon Peter, Simon, Cephas or the apostle Peter is regarded as the same character.

The writers of the Church used these names interchangeably as the same character.

In the epistles, the writer Paul used the name Peter or Cephas as an apostle, another indication that he was aware of the stories where Simon was re-named Peter or Cephas.

If Paul's Jesus was heavenly, where did Paul get information about the character called Peter or Cephas?

- How on earth are you going to do an investigation about the activities of Paul and rely strictly on the words of Paul alone. This is completely absurd and illogical.

No investigation in the history of investigations can be conducted in such a ridiculous fashion. Every single mention of Paul or Saul by any writer of antiquity MUST be taken into consideration.

Examine the NT, the character called Jesus Christ did not menion that his name was Jesus or that he was from Nazareth. Jesus wrote nothing.

However, the information provided by the authors of the NT about Jesus is taken into consideration and never ignored.

You simply cannot ignore information about Saul or Paul from other sources of antiquity because Paul wrote nothing or very little about himself.

And that is all I expected you to say. You have now admitted how easy it is to make assertions. You don't need evidence to make a counter-claim.

Look how easy it is.

1. Paul was aware of the Gospels.

Counter-claim.

2. Paul was not aware of the Gospels.

- Why does Paul have to foretell the future to realise that he was the first to propagate the heavenly Jesus or write his letters?

It was the past and not the future that Paul should have been aware of.

Are you claimng that the truth about any matter can be determined by numbers.

You don't need evidence just numbers.

But, if you know the theory and have read the theory why haven't you been able to give me evidence from sources of antiquity to show that Paul wrote before the Gospels?

- Don't you even realise that the very names James, Peter, John and Jude are charaters found in the Gospels?

And don't you even realise that Paul was the last so-called apostle even in Acts of the Apostles, even Jesus used the name Saul.

And even Paul wrote after his name was changed. In the epistles he never ever told the readers his name was Saul.

This is another indication that Paul wrote after the author of Acts had made the name change from Saul to Paul.

- So, how are you going to prove that Paul wrote his epistles before the Gospels?

The chronology is straight forward. Jesus first and Paul last. The church placed gMathhew first and that Paul was aware of gLuke.

- So, why should the Church fathers be right about the time when Paul lived and died? If the church was wrong about everything else, then it is pontless for you claim Paul preached an heavenly Jesus, because you really don't know what Paul wrote.

As I have told you belore, when I investigate Paul I did not rely only on the words of Paul alone. Paul is not a God or infallible.

It is most absurd, ridiculous and highly illogical to investigate Paul and only read his epistles. Absolute non-sense.

It is most ridiculous, absurd and highly illogical to just imagine that Paul is truthful.

Acts of the Apostles is regarded as sacred sripture by the Church, it must be absolutely extremely important to read about Paul in Acts.

The writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome are extrememly important and necessary to understand the character called Paul.

I use every bit of information I can find from any sources of antiquity.

The author of Acts wrote about the post-conversion history of Paul, and in Acts, Paul is totally aware of the Jesus story.

And further in Acts of the Apostles, Paul met with certain disciples before he began to preach.

Jerome and Eusebius claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Now, did you not claim that you have no evidence or do not need sources of antiquity for your case?

You really have no case to rest. You cannot start.

Based on the church writings, Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.