kcdad

"My position is solid."

Sounds like your "heart is hardened".

aa5874

But you have not provided one single iota of information or evidence to contradict that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

It is false to claim Paul was not aware of the Gospels when the Church claimed he was. There are even passages found in the Epistles that are found only in the Gospels.

It is virtually impossible to show that Paul was not aware of the Gospels simply because there is no evidence at all extant today to corroborate or maintain such a position.

The authors of the Gospels, if the Pauline Churches did exist, [b]should have attended these Pauline churches and be influenced by the Pauline doctrine, yet all the authors of the Gospels show no Pauline influence at all or did not rely on the Pauline writings to fabricate their Jesus stories.

The writer called Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after resurrection, if this information was known to the author of gMatthew, he would not have to make up a story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.


The Pauline writer wrote as though his readers were already familiar with the entity called Jesus Christ.

The Pauline letters are primarily about the post-ascension revelations of a character called Paul, the readers of the Pauline letters [b]must have known, like Paul, the origin of Jesus and the way he left the earth.

If a person only reads the epistles, such a person would realise that in order to fully understand Paul, there must have been some other source or sources about Jesus Christ.

The Pauline letters do not make much sense if you do not read Acts of the Apostles or the Gospels. And further just like Jesus Christ, Paul did not even write much about himself or his own whereabouts, the bulk of the information about Paul is found in a book called Acts of the Apostles.

Paul did not write in any detail about his own miraculous conversion, this so-called conversion of Paul is found three times in Acts.

The Pauline writer did not even tell his readers that he was once named Saul, but in Acts, Jesus Christ did not ever use the name Paul at all, Jesus Christ talked to Saul.

Paul is late even unto himself, he wrote when he had changed his name.


Now, what and where is the evidence that Paul was not aware of the Gospels?

Please get the evidence on the boards.

Even, if you think the Church gave erroneous information about Paul, you must provide evidence or information to support your position.

My position is solid.

No-one can produce any information from any source of antiquity to show that the Paul wrote before the Gospels.

I repeat NO-ONE.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

aa5874

The theory that Paul wrote before the Gospels cannot be maintained using the extant information provided by the Church.

All the information about Paul comes from the Church.

It is claimed by the Church that Paul was aware of gLuke and was an inseparable companion of the the very same author of gLuke.

There is information found in the letters of Paul that is only found in gLuke.

There are some who have the view that since the Pauline writer gave no information about the birth of Jesus, the mother of Jesus, about his miracles on earth or the life of the earthly Jesus , then these omission are indications that the earthly Jesus was not yet established or known.

But, there are seven other epistles, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude, they also have virtually no details about Jesus on earth., and further, these letters from the so-called James, Peter, John and Jude are believed to have been written after the Gospels.

These seven non-Pauline epistles have destroyed the theory that the Pauline author could not have known or was not aware of the Gospel, since there are seven non-Pauline letters considered to be written after the Gospels with very little details about Jesus on earth.

All the epistles are fundamentally doctrinal or theological and were written with the expectation the readers were already familiar with the Jesus story.

The non-Pauline Epistles do NOT make reference to a single passage from the Gospels. There are no direct words of Jesus found in the non-Pauline epistles, yet Peter, James, John and Jude should have known Jesus and were either his brothers or disciples.

If it is supposed that Paul wrote letters to recent converts and that the letters from Paul were the only information about Jesus until the Gospels were written, then, it is very difficult to understand why the authors of the Gospels copied each other or from some non-Pauline source.

Now, it must never be forgotten that all the information about Paul comes from the Church, therefore when the words of the so-called Paul, as found in the letters or Acts of the Apostles, are used to contradict the words of the Church, then an untenable position arises, the Church has contradicted itself, the Church is against the Church.

And, this is the position of the Church: Paul was absolutely aware of gLuke.

My position is solid.

There is no extant information that can show the Pauline writer was not aware of the Gospels.

The evidence extant today supports my position that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Doug Shaver

And we know that that's an untenable position because we know that the church would never, ever, never in a million years, ever contradict itself, right?

kcdad

Here is a good example of your false premises...

If Paul were aware of The Gospels, he would have known about Jesus birth stories. If his only encounter with Jesus was a spiritual awakening on the road to Damascus or conversations with Peter and James, he might not know anything about Jesus birth stories.

Stick to one side of the argument... you are arguing both sides.

aa5874

Well, just show that the Church contradicted itself when it propagated that Paul was aware of gLuke.


This is Jerome on gLuke in De Viris Illustribus This is Eusebius on gLuke in Church History

aa5874

You are not making sense.

You have not shown any false premises at all.

Where did Paul get the name Jesus from? Who told Paul Jesus was betrayed in the night?

The Church has already claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels based on extant information.

kcdad

Do you understand what the word GOSPEL means and how it was used in the first century CE?

(It did not mean written narrative or biography of Jesus.)

aa5874

Again, you are not making much sense.

Do you not understand that the Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke?

This is Jerome on gLuke in De Viris Illustribus
Jerome is claiming that Paul was aware of a written Gospel according to an author called Luke.

This is Eusebius on gLuke in Church History
Eusebius wrote that his sources were claiming Paul was aware of Luke's Gospel as if it were his own.

What is your claim and what sources of antiquity do you intend to use to support your claim?

People use the writings of Homer to support the claim that Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess.

I use the writings of the Church to support my claim that the NT's[B ]Paul, was absolutely aware of the Gospel or the Jesus story.[/b]

kcdad

That is YOUR interpretation... I read it differently.
" he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, “We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches” .... "

The same Paul (as referred to before) praise in the gospel (praise in the good news of Jesus ) NOT praise in THE GOSPEL that Luke wrote.


Eusebius wrote in in the 4th century!

My claim is that your premises are directed at proving your presumption and not at getting to any truth.

HUH? Fiction.

NON-Fiction. If you believe, as I suppose you do that the NT is fiction, why bother with this argument. It is irrelevant.