ripley

He didn't mention Paul in Volume 1 (the Gospel). But he did so in Volume 2 (Acts). It doesn't seem likely that Luke learned of Paul between volumes, so it's reasonable to say the gospel was written with knowledge of Paul.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Loomis,

Good men must not obey the laws too well.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is no man so good, who, were he to submit all his thoughts and actions to the laws would not deserve hanging tem times in his life.
- Michel de Montaigne,

Who loves law, dies either mad or poor.
- Thomas Middleton

The good need fear no law; it is his safety, and the bad man's awe.
- Ben Jonson

It is only rogues who feel the restraints of law.
- Josiah Gilbert Holland (used pseudonym Timothy Titcomb)

Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear that charter of his own and his children's liberty.
- Abraham Lincoln
I do not believe that any of these men were responding to the views of any of the others.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Well, if you claim that Luke wrote the gospel as volume 1 and Acts as volume 2 then Paul was after Jesus ascended to heaven. Paul was after the day of Pentecost. Paul was after Stephen was stoned to death.

The gospel story preceeded Paul.

Now by the time Paul was converted in volume 2, he had persecuted people who had knowledge of the gospels and were already talking in tongues filled with the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus in volume 1.

Later, after persecuting those who knew the gospel story, Paul himself began to preach the very same gospel and began to talk in tongues, having the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as promised in volume 1.


Volume 2 naturally is after volume 1.
Paul is only in volume 2.
Paul is naturally after volume 1.
The gospel is in volume 1.

Paul is naturally after the gospel.

ripley

This is true.

And this is where it all falls apart. It's a problem of hazy language.

A few points of chronology:

• The events surrounding Jesus were first.
• With Jesus came the gospel about him, spoken.
• Then came Paul, who wrote letters about the gospel of Jesus.
• Then came the written accounts of Jesus, referred to as Gospels.
• Then came the Acts of the Apostles, which described Paul.

Paul is naturally before Volume 1 of Luke-Acts, but is after the spoken gospel.

Loomis

Hi PhilosopherJay. :wave:



Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s just a coincidence. But one of the things I think about is this: If the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plane are both based on the same source then that means either Matthew added the part about “teaches others to do the same” and “shall be called least” or else Luke deleted it. In either case it would require a conscious effort to make a change, and thus was driven by some sort of motive.

And so what was the motive?

Loomis

Btw, what do you think about aa5874’s claim (actually – it’s from Irenaeus) that Paul and Luke were inseparable?

aa5874

Your chronology has a serious problem. You cannot show that gMatthew or gMark has any Pauline influence whatsoever.

Even the words of Jesus in gMatthew are pre-Pauline.

Look at the words of Jesus supplied by the author of gMatthew and look at the Pauline words concerning the Law.

Paul:Matthew: The words of Jesus in gMatthew are pre-Pauline, these words are compatible to the gospel to the circumcision.

But, Paul has a later version of Jesus, the post ascension revelation version, the new gospel of the uncircumcision.

According to gLuke, Jesus himself was circumcised on the eight day.
Lu 2:21 - Now look at the new post-ascension Jesus, this is his revelation to Paul.

Ga 5:2 - Even the gospel Jesus is pre-Pauline and obsolete. Jesus himself did not even have to be circumcised.

Paul was the last. He made even the angels obsolete.

Ga 1:8 - The Jesus of the gospels show no Pauline influence.. The written gospel or memoirs were first.

dog-on

We are dealing with multiple "camps".

Paul was a product of the "Marcionite" camp, along with Marcion's gospel.

Later, a competing sect rewrote Paul (Epistles) and Marcion's gospel (Luke), added a book that tied them together (Acts) and the rest is Catholic history...

ripley

I happen to agree with Loomis (before he changed his mind) that Matthew's gospel is a reaction to and refutation of Paulinism. I don't know if you count that as "influence," but there it is.

Well no, you can't do that. You're begging the question. See, I don't believe it was the "new" gospel of the uncircumcision, so you can't use that to prove Paul has a later version of Jesus.

Jesus is a special case obviously. Paul's advice wasn't exactly directed at the Son of God.

Loomis

Loomis hasn’t changed his mind. I’m undecided - I have an open mind. I read about this issue on another forum and I think it’s interesting. I responded to this thread as soon as a saw it because I wanted to get that info out where everyone could see it; and hopefully attract a stimulating reply. But it looks like it ain’t gonna happen.

Btw, Jesus never existed.