Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 02-12-2012, 07:46 AM

How can you are argue that the epistles all came after the gospels and assume that the epistle writers knew of the Luke gospel but nothing of the sources of that Luke gospel, i.e. GMatt and GMark? Who told you this? And if the epistles DID know about some gospel source(s) they would not have found any opportunity to mention a single aphorism in the name of the Christ before he was resurrected?

aa5874 · 02-12-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How can you are argue that the epistles all came after the gospels and assume that the epistle writers knew of the Luke gospel but nothing of the sources of that Luke gospel, i.e. GMatt and GMark? Who told you this? And if the epistles DID know about some gospel source(s) they would not have found any opportunity to mention a single aphorism in the name of the Christ before he was resurrected?

I cannot use IMAGINATION. I must use sources of antiquity.

How many times must I show or refer to Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" 1 and Eusebius' "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25?

How many times MUST I show or refer you to 1 Cor. 11.24-25 and Luke 22.20-21?

Apologetic sources did STATE that Paul was aware of gLuke and there is INDEED passages in 1 Cor. that is ONLY found in gLuke.

Please show or refer to me to a source of antiquity that states Paul was NOT aware of gLuke. I have NO interest in your Imagination.

Duvduv · 02-12-2012, 08:22 AM

You don't ALWAYS use "sources from antiquity." Sometimes you speculate or infer or observe just as I do or others do. Now you call this "imagination" and refer to an ancient church apologist as an obvious piece of "truth."

I already commented about some of those sources, and I already said that it is NOT proven that 1 Corinthians knew GLuke, and in fact that it may have just as easily been obtained elsewhere because the two citations are not identical. Plus you cannot even PROVE that the reference to "commemoration" or "memory" in Corinthians was not interpolated later AFTER GLuke was already disseminated.

But I guess I'll give up here as I did in our discussion of Acts.

aa5874 · 02-12-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You don't ALWAYS use "sources from antiquity." Sometimes you speculate or infer or observe just as I do or others do. Now you call this "imagination" and refer to an ancient church apologist as an obvious piece of "truth."...

Please show exactly where I have used my imagination and speculated and WITHOUT any evidence or written statement from antiquity!!!

I find that you are NOT appearing to be at all credible.

You do not seem to understand the difference between EVIDENCE and TRUTH.

It is the TRUTH that Apologetic sources state that Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

"Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew"

Quote:

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew..... was written first...... The second written was that according to Mark....... And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I already commented about some of those sources, and I already said that it is NOT proven that 1 Corinthians knew GLuke, and in fact that it may have just as easily been obtained elsewhere because the two citations are not identical. Plus you cannot even PROVE that the reference to "commemoration" or "memory" in Corinthians was not interpolated later AFTER GLuke was already disseminated....

So what can you prove when you have NO sources that state Paul was NOT aware of gLuke???

Where is YOUR evidence??? Where can I find YOUR TRUTH???

Please Prove Paul existed in the 1st century!!

Please Prove Paul wrote 1 Corinthians!!!

Please Prove Paul wrote about the Last Supper!!!

You want PROOF from me and Don't have NOTHING but your imagination and speculation.

You yourself can't prove Anything about the Last Supper in 1st Corinthians.

You don't even seem to understand the difference between a "theory", "proof", inferences and "speculation".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duduv

But I guess I'll give up here as I did in our discussion of Acts.

You should have given up a long time ago.

I will NOT ever give up on my theory when I have EVIDENCE from Apologetic sources that state clearly that Paul was aware of gLuke and I have found specific passages about the LAST SUPPER in 1 Cor. that are ONLY found in gLuke.

Solo · 02-12-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have always wondered about the theory that GMark started as a pageant or storyboard for the ideas of the religion of the epistles because of elements of the epistles that are not introduced into GMark, not the least of which is the person of Paul himself.

GMark also does not include the concept of the indwelling of the Christ in the believers, and refers to Jesus as the Son of Man which is never mentioned in the epistles.

If Mark is - as I believe Pauline - allegory, it does not reference the epistles directly, but suggests a veiled narrative context for their moral and theological maxims.

The use of 'son of man' and the accessibility of Christ to 'sinners' look like post-Pauline adaptations, in the intent of Mark's community to expand the believer base by the Nazarene elements inclined to the cross theology. If the idea of 'repentance' is markedly alien to Paul, who thought in terms of purity as a gift from God, it becomes a central conversion tool to Markan believers.

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv · 02-12-2012, 10:03 AM

Your Apologetic sources are just that, if you take them as the "gospel truth". WHO are the apologetic sources? They are church propaganda agents/heresiologists, not external objective sources......You yourself have criticized their reliability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You don't ALWAYS use "sources from antiquity." Sometimes you speculate or infer or observe just as I do or others do. Now you call this "imagination" and refer to an ancient church apologist as an obvious piece of "truth."...

Please show exactly where I have used my imagination and speculated and WITHOUT any evidence or written statement from antiquity!!!

I find that you are NOT appearing to be at all credible.

You do not seem to understand the difference between EVIDENCE and TRUTH.

It is the TRUTH that Apologetic sources state that Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

"Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew"

So what can you prove when you have NO sources that state Paul was NOT aware of gLuke???

Where is YOUR evidence??? Where can I find YOUR TRUTH???

Please Prove Paul existed in the 1st century!!

Please Prove Paul wrote 1 Corinthians!!!

Please Prove Paul wrote about the Last Supper!!!

You want PROOF from me and Don't have NOTHING but your imagination and speculation.

You yourself can't prove Anything about the Last Supper in 1st Corinthians.

You don't even seem to understand the difference between a "theory", "proof", inferences and "speculation".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duduv

But I guess I'll give up here as I did in our discussion of Acts.

You should have given up a long time ago.

I will NOT ever give up on my theory when I have EVIDENCE from Apologetic sources that state clearly that Paul was aware of gLuke and I have found specific passages about the LAST SUPPER in 1 Cor. that are ONLY found in gLuke.

Chili · 02-12-2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I have always wondered about the theory that GMark started as a pageant or storyboard for the ideas of the religion of the epistles because of elements of the epistles that are not introduced into GMark, not the least of which is the person of Paul himself.

GMark also does not include the concept of the indwelling of the Christ in the believers, and refers to Jesus as the Son of Man which is never mentioned in the epistles.

If Mark is - as I believe Pauline - allegory, it does not reference the epistles directly, but suggests a veiled narrative context for their moral and theological maxims.

The use of 'son of man' and the accessibility of Christ to 'sinners' look like post-Pauline adaptations, in the intent of Mark's community to expand the believer base by the Nazarene elements inclined to the cross theology. If the idea of 'repentance' is markedly alien to Paul, who thought in terms of purity as a gift from God, it becomes a central conversion tool to Markan believers.

Best,
Jiri

. . . Paul wants it known that to 'repent and believe' awakens the antichrists as an act of conscious endearment. It is like saying: 'devil come here, I am ready for you' and no longer 'thief in the night.'

aa5874 · 02-12-2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

If Mark is - as I believe Pauline - allegory, it does not reference the epistles directly, but suggests a veiled narrative context for their moral and theological maxims.

The use of 'son of man' and the accessibility of Christ to 'sinners' look like post-Pauline adaptations, in the intent of Mark's community to expand the believer base by the Nazarene elements inclined to the cross theology. If the idea of 'repentance' is markedly alien to Paul, who thought in terms of purity as a gift from God, it becomes a central conversion tool to Markan believers.

Best,
Jiri

The Short-Ending gMark is COMPLETELY NOT compatible with the Pauline writings.

Mark 8

Quote:

27 And Jesus went out , and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am ? 28 And they answered , John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. 29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Mark 16

Quote:

Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way , tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid...

The author of gMark did NOT know of anyone human being, except the disciples, that was told Jesus was Christ and did NOT know of anyone who was told Jesus was raised from the dead, except the visitors, at the time gMark was Composed.

Duvduv · 02-12-2012, 10:29 AM

And of course you could add that since the gospels used Psalms in the mouth of Jesus to deny he was the descendant of David, then how did Jesus get a nativity in Matthew and Luke, and how did he get to be a descendant of David in Romans 1?

Chili · 02-12-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid

The author of gMark did NOT know of anyone human being, except the disciples, that was told Jesus was Christ and did NOT know of anyone who was told Jesus was raised from the dead, except the visitors, at the time gMark was Composed.

You are 100% correct and Mark's Jesus was not the Christ and being raised from the dead is the crisis moment that either sends you to hell of heaven and guess where Mark's Jesus went as final impostor?

. . . and his disciples were not human but were the very condition that made this Jesus human or he would not need to go before them.

And I like the distinction made here "neither said they any thing to any man" to say that they were wrong as the prevailing humanity of Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-12-2012, 07:46 AM	#11
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	How can you are argue that the epistles all came after the gospels and assume that the epistle writers knew of the Luke gospel but nothing of the sources of that Luke gospel, i.e. GMatt and GMark? Who told you this? And if the epistles DID know about some gospel source(s) they would not have found any opportunity to mention a single aphorism in the name of the Christ before he was resurrected?

02-12-2012, 08:22 AM	#13
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	You don't ALWAYS use "sources from antiquity." Sometimes you speculate or infer or observe just as I do or others do. Now you call this "imagination" and refer to an ancient church apologist as an obvious piece of "truth." I already commented about some of those sources, and I already said that it is NOT proven that 1 Corinthians knew GLuke, and in fact that it may have just as easily been obtained elsewhere because the two citations are not identical. Plus you cannot even PROVE that the reference to "commemoration" or "memory" in Corinthians was not interpolated later AFTER GLuke was already disseminated. But I guess I'll give up here as I did in our discussion of Acts.

02-12-2012, 10:29 AM	#19
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And of course you could add that since the gospels used Psalms in the mouth of Jesus to deny he was the descendant of David, then how did Jesus get a nativity in Matthew and Luke, and how did he get to be a descendant of David in Romans 1?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.