Duvduv

Yes, it's a phrase by itself after the end of the previous phrase with a semi-colon. It's only 6 words. Perhaps it was added in to Corinthians or vice versa years later. What's the big deal? It doesn't prove anything.

aa5874

Your imagination does NOT prove anything. It is evidence from antiquity that MUST be used to DEVELOP a theory.

That is basic.

The evidence, the written statement, in gLuke 22 supports the theory that the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke and Gospel material.

1. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

2. The Pauline writer stated Jesus died for OUR SINS, was buried and was RESURRECTED on the THIRD day according to WRITTEN sources.

3. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Betrayed in the NIGHT AFTER he had supped and that a ritual should be done in remembrance of him.

4. Only gLuke contain the information that the ritual of the Eucharist should done in Remembrance of Jesus.

Examine gMatthew and gMark, the phrase "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" is not found.

Matthew 26Mark 14 Now, if you can't prove anything why are you arguing with me about proof??

It is a complete waste of time time to say "it doesn't prove anything" when you have ZERO ability to prove what you say is true.

Based on Evidence from antiquity, the written statements of apologetic sources from antiquity, it can be proven WITHIN reason that the Pauline writer was LAST and was AWARE of gLuke.

Duvduv

I already said that it is possible that those 6 words were inserted into one or the other years later, and that is as much a possibility as what you propose. You know these texts were worked on and changed as time progressed.

aa5874

So, how are you going to prove it??

You show me ZERO evidence for your claims and want me to accept them.

When I show you ACTUAL written evidence and written statements of antiquity you claim "it proves nothing".

I don't deal with speculation. Anything is possible when you DON'T have proof, evidence and written statements of antiquity.

Please state the evidence, the written statements from antiquity that support your claims.

The evidence SUPPORT My position.

1. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke. Church History 3.4.8 and 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew 1

2. The Pauline writer stated Jesus died for OUR SINS, was buried and was RESURRECTED on the THIRD day according to WRITTEN sources. 1 Cor.15

3. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Betrayed in the NIGHT AFTER he had supped and that a ritual should be done in remembrance of him. 1 Cor.11

4. Only gLuke contain the information that the ritual of the Eucharist should done in Remembrance of Jesus. Luke 22

5. Examine gMatthew and gMark, the phrase "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" is not found.

You MUST provide the sources for your claims or else you are just using your IMAGINATION and will NOT ever be able to develop a proper theory about the Pauline writer.

My theory that Paul was AWARE of gLuke is supported by the WRITTEN statements of antiquity.

You speculations are supported by your imagination.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Here you accept as historical fact claims from apologetic sources but in other cases you reject what come from Christian sources because you declare them apologetic.
Always using double standards. You accept apologetic sources when they are in favor of your theories, but reject any Christian sources when they go against you.

Obviously you did not check if these written statements are strictly apologetic and biased, therefore not trustworthy, like for your point 1.

For good cause: they did not get interpolated as for gLuke.

aa5874

What a big joke. You do what you accuse me of. You argue that parts of the Pauline writings were INTERPOLATED when they don't agree with your position.

You are in double standard mode.

You have ZERO evidence for claims of your interpolations and when I show you the EVIDENCE, the WRITTEN statements, of antiquity that apologetic sources did claim Paul was AWARE of gLuke you are now screaming "double standard".

Presenting the WRITTEN statements of antiquity canot ever be double standard.

On the other hand, PRESENTING speculation and imagination as history and accusing others of not presenting evidence is always double standard.

You are in double standard mode. Please tell me how you checked that the Pauline writer was trustworthy?? Why do you trust Paul when the author of Acts contradicts the Pauline writer???

I don't trust the Pauline writer but I can SHOW his WRITTEN statements in the Canon.

You very well know that the WRITTEN statements of a defendant can be USED Against him/her whether or not someone believes the statement contain false information.

You very well know that a Witness may make statements or WRITTEN statements can contain Contradictory information.

You ought to know that there is such a thing as a "Hostile Witness".

It is the EVIDENCE, the WRITTEN statements of antiquity, the very written statements of the Pauline writers that MUST be used to EXPOSE that Paul was a FRAUD.

I do Not use my imagination and speculation just Evidence, Evidence, Evidence...sources, sources, sources of antiquity.

Your response is a PERFECT example of Double standard. You trust your own imagination for history and claim passages were interpolated but have NO way to corroborate your Pauline interpolations.

Bernard Muller

I had these interpolations with explanations on my website for many years. I did not fabricate them to defend myself against your theory.
You are just not presenting them, but you are using late apologetic claims for supporting your theory. And what so big about WRITTEN. Do you think because they are WRITTEN it is true.
That attitude is OK for anti-Christian propaganda, but not for historical research. I think you are confusing the two.
But I did that already, including indicating Lk22:19b-20 is missing on some ancient manuscripts, and in others the order in Lk22:17-20 is changed. You'll find a few websites just discussing these disputed 22:19b-20.

aa5874

You have ZERO evidence for your interpolations. You USED your IMAGINATION to explain the interpolations apparently for years.

Well, you can erase your "explanations" because they are products of speculation and imagination.

Every single argument that you have made has been pulverised
Your Double standard again. You BELIEVE the Pauline writer ins TRUTHFUL and vehemently argue that Pauline writings are authentic WITHOUT a shred of corroborative evidence from non-apologetic sources.

I do NOT at all argue that the Pauline writings are credible. I STATE that Paul is a Fraud and lived in some other century and under a different name giving the False Impression that he Lived in the before c 70 CE.

Again, I use the Pauline writings to show that Paul was a FRAUD just like a Prosecutor use the Written statements of Defendants AGAINST them.
No way!!!You are confused. You are claiming that parts of 1 Cor. 15 are forgeries or interpolated yet you still TRUST Pauline writings.

The same source you discredit is the same source you use as credible. It is just a big joke that Pauline sources claimed to be authentic are also claimed to contain forgeries without evidence.

Without non-aplogetic corroboration I will NOT accept the Pauline writings as historically accurate.

I don't trust the Pauline writings and state that Paul is a Fraud based on the Hostile Evidence from Apologetic sources.
No trial is based on missing evidence--it is based on the EXISTING evidence that is presented.

We have gLuke 22 . and there is a Word-for-Word phrase Found ONLY in 1 Cor. 11.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Here are your double standards again: you are using blatantly apologetic sources (i.e. declaring Paul knew about gLuke) for your evidence but I should use only non-apologetic ones for my corroborating evidence!
And then you are confused about the meaning of apologetic, that is you assume all Christian texts (or all parts of any Christian texts) are apologetic. A mention of Paul writing a letter in 1Clement is not necessarily apologetic. But Paul knowing about gLuke, from a very late source, is apologetic, because that was used to "prove" Paul knew about the gospel Jesus and preached him in his gospel.
Don't you discredit 'Against Heresies' then use a part of it to make a point, that is Irenaeus the heretic existed?
And what corroborating evidence do you have for Irenaeus the heretic?
And, why are you so much against the possiblity of interpolations when you assume that 'Against Heresies' was written by a heretic with masses of interpolations (mentioning the NT) added later?
Double standards again.

aa5874

Please, please, please. I use Apologetic sources to EXPOSE fraud, fiction and forgeries just like a Prosecutor uses WRITTEN statements of a defendant AGAINST him/her and use Witnesses for the defendant as Hostile Witnesses.

Paul is a Hostile Witness AGAINST the so-called History of the Church and his statements can be USED to show he was a LIAR and that he lived AFTER c 70 CE.

Based on your absurd notion, it would be a double standard to use Hostile Witnesses in court trials.


What a load of BS. The claims in AH 2.22 that Jesus was NOT baptized at the age of 30 years and was crucified at about 50 years are contrary to all apologetic sources of the Church.

I show that "Against Heresies" is NOT credible in order to LOGICALLY deduce that Against Heresies is a Massive forgery.

I show that in Against Heresies there are contradictory statements that could NOT have been or was most unlikely to have been made by the same author.

1. In AH 2.22.1 it is claimed ]Jesus was NOT baptized when he was 30 years old but in the very same AH 2.22.4 it is claimed Jesus was baptized when he was 30 years old.

2. In AH 3.14.3 it is claimed that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius and that gLuke contains the number of years when he was baptized.