aa5874

The writer Paul absolutely wrote as though he was aware of the Jesus stories as found in the Gospels today, once all the writings with name Paul are considered as stated by church writers.

The writer "Paul" wrote about the following.


1. Jesus was called the Christ.
2. Jesus was called son of God.
3.Jesus was the offspring of David according to the flesh.
4.Jesus had his last supper, the Eucharist, in the night.
5. Jesus was betrayed.
6.Jesus was crucified.
7.Jesus died and rose on the third day.
8.Jesus ascended to heaven.
8.Jesus was coming back a second time.
9. Paul had the gifts of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.
10. Paul wrote about the apostle Peter implied there were other apostles.
11. Paul wrote that there were apostles before him.

The writer Paul did write about Jesus as though he was aware of or had information about the Jesus stories.

Amaleq13

Do you genuinely not understand that none those even suggest, let alone establish "absolutely", that Paul knew the Gospels?

The closest to what you need is his reference to the "Lord's supper" and he claims it was revealed to him by the Lord rather than being from a story everyone had read.

Why an alleged mythicist would repeatedly use the same flawed arguments as fundamentalist Christians continues to be a mystery.

aa5874

You must understand that when the writer Paul claimed Jesus Christ was born of a woman, was betrayed in the night after his last supper, was crucified, died, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven, and is coming back a second time for dead believers, that the writer is displaying familiarity of the Jesus story as found in the memoirs or the gospels.

The writer Paul claimed Peter was an apostle before him and that he saw James the Lord's brother. It is without doubt that Peter, as an apostle, or James the Lord's brother are not in Hebrew scriptures or Zechariah 3.

And this in turn finally makes Paul place himself after the apostles of Jesus Christ.



Galatians 1:17-19 - Fundamentalist christians believe, perhaps like you, that Paul got revelations from the Lord.

I ,on the other hand, believe such a claim is fundamentally false, based on the evidence supplied by the church writers.

The writer Paul got his information about his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ either orally from Jesus believers or from the memoirs of the apostles or the gospels coupled with Hebrew scriptures no earlier than the second century.


Now, why don't you present your position, present your information or evidence to show that Paul did not know about the Jesus story or the gospels?

Amaleq13

...without mentioning her name or the miraculous conception?

Why would that suggest he read the Gospels?

First, it is my understanding that the actual word Paul uses should be translated as "handed over" without any necessary connotation of betrayal so that doesn't suggest Gospel knowledge. Second, I've already explained why this doesn't help you establish Gospel knowledge. Paul tells us where he learned of the "Lord's supper" and it was not the Gospels.

Without providing any of the details from the Gospels, why would you think he obtained any of that from them?

And that suggests he read the Gospels how?

Same question as above. Have you switched topics without notice?

He says he did and I have no reason to doubt that he believed it.

Do you?

The church writers provide evidence that Jesus didn't really appear to Paul or that Paul didn't really believe that Jesus appeared to him?

That's the impression I get from his letters.

I see no credible indication of such a source and you seem to be having difficulty providing one.

As I'm sure you know, the logical course is to seek evidence in support of the positive assertion. I don't know of any and you don't seem to have any.
Guess we've got no reason to believe that Paul knew the Gospels. :thumbs:

aa5874

That's is your evidence. You just guess. That's it.

I provide written statements not just mere guesses.

It is my view that the writer Paul was aware of the Jesus stories.

In the Synoptics, Peter, James and John are often found together, when Jesus transfigured ,according to the Synoptics, he only took Peter, James and John.

Mt 17:1 - Mr 5:37 - Lu 8:51 - Now, the writer Paul, too has Cephas, James and John together.

Ga 2:9 - Now, one may wonder why Paul used the name Cephas instead of Peter, well Paul appears to be aware of the gospel of John, the only gospel where the name Cephas is used for Peter.


John 1:42 -
Paul appeasr to be aware of the gospel stories, he placed Cephas, James and John together. Cephas, James and John cannot be found together in Hebrew scriptures or Zechariah 3.


Now, it must be realised that every single strand of a rope is by itself far weaker in strenght than the rope itself, so by merely saying that each point or strand is weak is of little consequence.

My position like a rope has many points or strands.

Your position is to say what is already known, the strongest rope in the world is made from weaker strands.

You need to get a rope together.

Paul was aware of the gospels. I can add somemore strands to my rope.

Clivedurdle

And aa. why cannot it be the other way round - as I thought Jesus Puzzle argues - Paul makes general statements about a visionary god he found in his bible translation, mixed with his classic Greek upbringing and a personal tendency to have visions, helps kick start another of the various xianities that are really Greco Jewish gnostic messiah cults spread throughout the ane and west, and this later gets transposed into stories about this god through the medium of plays to explain these ideas.

The above in fact is just about a complete explanation!

sugarhitman

To say that Paul was not aware of the Gospel, is the most absurd claim yet. I sense that this claim has been manufactured to support a later date for the Gospels. Because if Paul's epistles were in the hand of the churches certainly these letters did not precede the Gospels...that would have been backwards. So what Paul didn't go into details about Mary, and other accounts in his epistles....but neither did Peter, Jude, or James in theirs....why should they seeing the churches already had the Gospels.

Amaleq13

No, that is my conclusion based on the evidence you have presented. None of it actually supports your belief so I "guess" that you have nothing better.

And I have already demonstrated how those statements are inadequate to establish your claim. You have provided no defense. That suggests you either don't understand the nature of the problems or you are unable to provide a credible defense. Either way, we are left with no good reason to believe your claim.

You've made that quite clear. You've also made it quite clear that you have no evidence that actually supports that belief. So there appears to be no good reason to join you in believing it.

That doesn't even suggest, let alone establish "absolutely", that Paul read the Gospels. :huh:

Perhaps but you certainly need more than that weak connection to establish the claim.

That agreement doesn't even provide a hint that he had read the Gospels.

So the only possible answer is that he read the Gospels and ignored everything else? No, that is not a logical conclusion.

But you don't even have a strand. You have a couple threads that might suggest the possibility of a strand but might just be the result of shared history or shared oral tradition from which both Paul's gospel and the Gospels derived.

In order to establish your claim, logic requires that you eliminate those other possibilities or provide enough specifically supporting evidence that your conclusion becomes the most likely. You aren't even close to either of those with what you have offered.

Your position is a belief in a rope without any credible strands.

My position is that there is no credible evidence Paul read the Gospels and you have offered nothing to alter that position.

Amaleq13

While you are certainly an expert on absurd claims, you do not appear to understand what is logically required to establish that claim.

You might want to read rather than "sense" since the contents of this thread would disabuse you of your confusion. It is a conclusion based on the absence of any credible evidence to support the claim. Dating the writings is another question, entirely.

aa5874

There is a major problem with the above theory.

The writer Paul wrote [b]one single letter to each church except to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, each letter on it's own cannot support a Jesus story. Each letter on its own tend to show that the assumed recipients knew about Jesus Christ before they received the letter.

Examine the letter to the Colossians alone, or any letter on its own, it will soon be realised that the readers must have known of the Jesus story in advance for the isolated letter to have significance.

Now, it is not expected that the writer Paul would have sent all of his nine letters to the Colossians, so to fully understand "Paul's Jesus the Colossians would have wait for Paul to write one letter at a time, possibly over a period of years and then hope that they would get a copy while not even knowing if Paul would have written a letter to any other church or that they would have recived a copy.

In the first century pagan worship was prevalent, a single letter by itself to a congregation of former pagans must mean that the congregation was aware of the Jesus story. Remember Paul simply wrote a letter, not a book, about Jesus Christ.

It is my view that the letters from Paul were the last to have been written in the canonised NT. That is why the writer was able to write the following.
Galatians 1:8 -9 Paul's gospel as revealed from the resurrected Jesus Christ was final.

And, look. Paul's gospel is indeed final. No other gospel has been preached by the Church.

Paul's gospel was written last.