aa5874

The story of the writer Paul is that he got his gospel from the resurrected Jesus. He wants the reader to believe that he did not need either to have heard Jesus personally on earth or the apostles who was supposedly with Jesus on earth.

That is why Paul does not appear to be quoting any passages from other gospels except gLuke who was supposed to be a disciple of Paul himself.

According to church writers the author of Luke did get information from "Paul".

Galatians 1.15-24. The writer Paul was in Arabia three years before he even met any apostles in Jerusalem and that time does not even take into account the amount of time before his supposed conversion while he was persecuting the church.

Both the author of Acts of the Apostles and the writer places himself in Damascus in a basket during the time of Aretas, possibly sometime no later than or around 41 CE.


2 Cor 11.32-33Acts 9:23-25 - It is clear that the writer Paul places himself after the apostles and as a persecutor of the church.

razlyubleno

But they are stories that may have existed prior to the gospels themselves.

Oral tradition! What on earth is your problem with oral tradition?! Why do you need a written source for everything?

You don't know this. Where is your proof that there was no oral tradition? Where is your proof that written sources didn't exist, ones that we no longer have?

Romans xiii. 1:
Why would Paul have said this, and yet not have mentioned that Jesus said (Matt. xxii. 21):
Paul had no knowledge of the gospels. He had plenty of reason and opportunity to quote from them, and yet he didn't. Simple.

razly

aa5874

So, Paul may have heard of these gospels stories.

Next, there may have existed written information about Jesus before Paul. The gospels themselves may have been written prior to Paul.

Paul may have gotten his information about the betrayal, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension from written texts, from the gospels.


Well, explain why you want to claim Paul wrote anything when you cannot even prove there was an oral tradition of Jesus prior to Paul?


So, where is your proof that Paul wrote anything first? To claim Paul wrote things first, you must have proof.

Romans xiii. 1:
(Matt. xxii. 21):
Again you cannot prove that Paul had no knowledge of the gospels, I have shown you information in the epistles that are consistent with the gospel stories. The very passage you quoted from Romans may very well indicate that the author was aware of the traditional view of the supposed Jesus with respect to governments.

The writer Paul can answer you himself. He has written an explanation. He got his information from Jesus who was in a resurrected state in heaven.

After his conversion, it took him three years before he went to see the apostles in Jerusalem, and after only fifteen days, he left for another fourteen years. Paul seemed not even interested in the place where Jesus supposedly lived on earth.

The writer wants his readers to believe that he does not need the apostles or their memoirs, his gospel is not from any man, but from the resurrected Jesus.

Now, if the resurrected Jesus can talk directly from heaven to Paul why does he need to quote a passage from Matthew when Jesus had already told him everything he wanted to know.

razlyubleno

I just did. And you completely ignored my proof. Once again I ask you, in Romans xiii. 1, why didn't Paul quote Jesus ("Render unto Caesar...") from Matt. xxii. 21? It would've been the most glaringly sensible thing to do, yet he didn't do it. And it's not the only time when Paul could've helped his case mightily, if only he'd bothered to quote from the gospels. The clear explanation for why he didn't do so, is that he simply didn't know of them. QED.

Consistency is not the same thing as knowledge. You can write something that is consistent with a story that hasn't been written yet. In this case, Paul wrote something that was consistent with the gospels, which were written later. Consistency doesn't say anything about the order of dependence.

razly

aa5874

You prove did not prove Paul had no knowledge of the Gospels at all. You may have shown the complete opposite.

Now, I have shown you that words found only in gLuke are found are also found in Corinthians, why do you ignore the evidence that shows that Paul may have had knowledge of the gospels?

1 Cor.11.24-25Luke 22.19-20 Why is not this QED?

razlyubleno

Because it doesn't indicate order of dependence. What makes you think that Luke didn't read 1 Corinthians?

And what's Paul's excuse for not quoting Matt. xxii. 21?

razly

aa5874

So, how did you prove that Paul did not use Luke or how did you prove the order of dependence?

All you are doing is showing that you cannot look at evidence objectively.

Once a passage is found that may indicate the writer Paul had some knowledge of the gospels, then it is futile or just time wasting to continue to say Paul had no knowledge of the gospels.

The writer Paul wrote about the gifts of the Holy Ghost and talking in tongues. The writer even claimed that he talked in tongues. The interpolated ending of Mark mentioned that the disiples of Jesus would talk in tongues as happened in Acts of the Apostles, these are indications that the writer Paul had knowlegde of the gospels.

And further nowhere in Hebrew scriptures is there any mention of a specific character called Jesus being betrayed, crucified, resurrected, ascended and coming back a second time.

All these events are found in the gospels and also found in the letters with the name Paul.

The statement that Paul had no knowledge of the gospels is completely without support.

razlyubleno

I gave strong evidence that Paul could not have known any of the gospels. Let's make the evidence clear as clear itself. Here is my logic:

• Jesus' teachings would have been considered authoritative in the early church;
• Paul often said things very similar to what Jesus said in the gospels;
• The fact that Paul never attributed any of these things to Jesus himself, is proof negative that Paul knew the gospels.

I think this is very reasonable. Let's apply the logic to an example:

In Matthew xxii. 39, Jesus says that the second greatest commandment is, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." This would have been authoritative, because Jesus himself said it.

In Galatians v. 4, Paul says,
This is incredibly similar to what Jesus said, and yet Paul does not attribute any such pronouncement to Jesus, even though it would have added weight to his argument if he had done so. I consider this to be one of many cases where Paul would have done well to mention Jesus. And since it would have added so much extra weight to his argument, the only conceivable explanation for his not attributing such things to Jesus, is that he didn't realize Jesus had said any such things; which is to say, Paul had not read the gospel accounts.

I also gave you the case of Romans xiii. 1, wherein Paul should have mentioned Jesus' words, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." (from Matthew xxii. 21). The only conceivable reason for Paul's silence, as per the logic I have already put forth, is that he was unaware of any such pronouncement of Jesus', and therefore had not read any of the gospel accounts.

And again, in Mark ix. 50, Jesus says to be at peace with one another. In 1 Thessalonians v. 13, Paul says to live in peace with one another, but does not attribute this to Jesus. Why not? It seems clear, once again, that Paul simply had never read the gospels.

There are just so many examples of this.

And that's all I have to say on the matter, since I cannot possibly get more pedantic.

razly

Doug Shaver

If you can read Paul and then read the gospels, and still believe that Paul knew the gospels, then no amount or kind of proof is going to affect your thinking.

aa5874

But it is completely erroneous to claim that Paul never attributed his teachings to Jesus when [b]Paul did indeed claimed he got his gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

Look at the writer Paul claiming that his teachings are from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1.1 Galatians 1. 11-12 Why are you ignoring the evidence? It is absolutely clear that the writer Paul attributed his gospel to Jesus Christ.

You quoted Galatians 5.14 and claimed in error that Paul did not attribute the passage to Jesus Christ when the writer Paul gave credit to the resurrected Jesus Christ from the very first verse for all of Galatians and his gospel in general.