Chili

Not problematic but certainly not word for word either but in essence they are the same and Paul just fleshed the concept out to make it consecreated as not just a snack but transubstantional with the body of Christ to be taken only while sanctimoniously qualified.

Chili

Maybe in appearance but if you compare the Herod massacre with the Cana event they sure do not match while yet they point at the same image with the only difference that one preludes a tragedy and the other a comedy.

Duvduv

Note also that in Corinthians the commemoration is stated for the bread and the wine, butin GLuke the commemoration is on the bread only.

Chili

Wine is very local as RNA that so validates 'Infallibilty' as tradition in motion.

aa5874

You have NOT presented any evidence at all that gLuke was after 1 Corinthians.

I have made references to Apologetic sources that INSISTED that the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke and made references to Apologetic sources that show NO awareness of Paul and his Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.

I have also EXPOSED the fact that Canonised writings, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude and the book of Revelation, SHOW no awareness of the Pauline Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings were COMPOSED LAST and AFTER all the Canonised books of the NT.

No Scholar can refute my position using evidence from antiquity.

The Pauline writer was AWARE of the JESUS story and could NOT have gotten any revelation about the LAST Supper from a character that did NOT ever exist.

Duvduv

I wasn't presenting evidence but I was hypothesizing based on the context exactly as you were hypothesizing based on context. Please reread my posting. It is of no importance for this what the apologists said. The same apologists said that Jesus was a historical figure in the first century, so what?
Now you are suggesting that the Paulines were authored LAST despite the absence in those letters about any aphorisms or stories of the gospels which we have all discussed here ad nauseum?

Duvduv

It is interesting that the homilies of St. Ephraim chose the version of Luke with some additions for his description of the event. It almost seems as if different sources favored different versions even when all the text were ostensibly held in veneration and consideration true.

St. Ephraim Homilies [4,6] A.D. 338-373:
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith they had eaten of Christ's body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out . . . Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: `This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen me do, do you also in My memory. whenever you gather together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My body, and drink My Blood.

Duvduv

In the Gospel of John in the sixth chapter we see an allusion to the idea of the eucharist last supper in a totally different context where the body of Christ is "eaten" as the Manna of the desert, and the blood is drunk though it is not described as wine.
So the question here is how did the author of GJohn get this idea without from the description of the last supper/eucharist itself ?
It is interesting to ponder why the metaphor is much more direct than in the synoptics.

aa5874

Which apologist claimed Jesus was historical?

Please, examine apologetic sources of antiquity. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and a woman and that is NOT an historical Jesus.

You don't seem to understand the HJ argument at all.

The HJ argument is NOT SIMPLY ABOUT belief of existence it is an argument to show that Jesus was ENTIRELY HUMAN.

It is COMPLETELY erroneous that apologists argued that Jesus was ENTIRELY human with a human father and was a product of sexual union of a man and a woman.
You have mostly asked a lot of question ad nausem with very little discussion.

Now, the Pauline writings BEGIN where the Gospels END.
The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus and that he received his Gospel from the Resurrected One.

Paul is the ONLY writer to claim that Jesus had post-resurrection VISITS with over 500 people at ONCE.

No Gospel writer used the post-resurrection visit of the Pauline 500 and NO author of the Entire Canon mentioned the Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul.

The Gospels are about the supposed life of Jesus up to the resurrection.

The Pauline revelation story is about the post-resurrected Jesus.

Paul ONLY witnessed the resurrected Jesus and was the LAST to do so.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Paul claimed he Persecuted the FAITH he NOW preached.

It is NOT rocket science.

The Pauline writings ARE LAST.

Why do people want to claim Paul was first when Paul claimed he was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus.

Amazingly, Paul gave his position.

He was at least in the 500th place from being first. See 1 Cor. 15.3

mountainman

It is interesting to note the comments of Nestorius, the ex-Arch-Bishop of the City of Constantine from the 5th century, who describes the reaction of some of the HEARERS of the WORDS from John ....

I will speak the words too of offence.
Of His own Flesh was the Lord Christ discoursing to them;
Except ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you:
the hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said,
they imagined of their unlearning
that He was bringing in cannibalism."

Nestorius was simply reporting some of the reactions to the "Last Supper Idea" in John, and it is quite obvious that these common reactions were treated as being heretical.


If you read Nestorius writings about such various heresies, you will see perhaps the motive that drove the malevolent arch-heresiologist Bishop Cyril of Alexandria to strenuously anathemetize (i.e. POLITICALLY CENSOR) Nestorius and his abominable writings. Cyril was attempting to try and bury the evidence of the masses of heretics at that time.

The orthodoxy was preserved by presenting only the ONE TRUE side of history - the victory of the heresiologists over the heretics. Our histories of Christian origins are all the same in this respect. They are just one side of a struggle which had (at least) two sides. The history and the identity of the gnostic heretics was "lost" because it was suppressed - along with the Greek intellectual tradition (according to the thesis of Freeman).