Loomis

I agree completely. That's my point.See?

aa5874

You have got your chronology all messed up.

GMatthew's Jesus was supposedly on earth when he uttered the words in gMatthew, long before he was even crucified.

Paul's revelations from Jesus occurred after Jesus was ascended, after the day of Pentecost.

And further Paul's revelations superseded the statement from gMatthew, the gospel of uncircumcision is the final doctrine of the Church.

The words of Jesus in gMatthew have been squashed, down away with.

Paul has revealed the new dispensation.

Paul has bashed Matthew.

Ga 1:9 - And now Paul bashes everyone who preaches any other gospel.

Solo

I would really be interested to know on what evidence you base your precedence of proto-Mark over the Paulines. I have noted you apparently believe that that the two passages that aa mentioned sustain your theory. But 1 Cor 11:23-25 is closer textually to gLuke that to gMark and 1 Cor 15:3-11 has nothing in it that draws on the shorter Mark (ending at 16:8). In fact, it contradicts it. Both passages are suspected interpolations.

Anything else that you think establishes that portions of Mark are earlier than Paul's letters ?

Jiri

delusional

On grounds of literary style alone it is beyond reasonable doubt that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, so at least one of the gospel writers knew of Paul.

aa5874

The literary style of Luke is irrelevant since it cannot determine when gLuke was actually written.

The gospel of Luke appears to have been dependent upon the writings of Josephus namely Antiquities of the Jews, this would mean that gLuke was written sometime after 92 CE.

However, the very first time an author named Luke is mentioned was by Irenaeus sometime around the end of the second century.

The very first time Acts of the Apostles was mentioned was also by Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr at the middle of the second century did write notabout Luke, Acts of the Apostles or Paul.

If Paul died before Nero, and Acts was written after Luke, why did not the author of Acts include the matyrdom of Paul in Acts?

It must not be forgotten that the author of Acts inplied that he wrote gLuke before Acts. gLuke was written after the death of Nero, Acts was written after gLuke and yet the most glorious event, the most shining moment of Paul was omitted from Acts, the matrydom of St.Paul.

The canonised writings of the NT are chronologically erroneous with respect to Jesus, Peter and Paul. There are all 1st century fiction.

delusional

Luke explicitly refers to Paul, therefore Luke knew of Paul. QED.

aa5874

In which century did Luke know Paul?

delusional

Luke formed part of Marcion's stripped down canon, and you probably need to allow a couple of decades for it to become sufficiently widely known for Marcion to know of it (no printing presses). Also, something written yesterday wouldn't immediately achieve canonical status (even for Marcion), so that means Luke must have been in existence by ca 120 at the latest.

aa5874

There is no evidence external of the church writings that can show Marcion used a gospel known to have been written by Luke.

The present situation, even by scholars today, is that there may have been no person named Luke who wrote gLuke.

The authorship of gLuke is unknown.

Do you really really understand what this implies?

If no person called Luke wrote gLuke, then the church writers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius who wrote that Marcion used Luke wrote fiction about Marcion and Luke.

It must be noted that Tertullian claimed the writing he atrributed to Marcion was actually anonymous.

But Tertullian will also claim that the gospel was in existence before Paul.

Against Marcion 4.2

delusional

I don't know of many scholars who think it is a big deal whether the author's name was Luke, Henry Kissenger, or something else.


It doesn't imply anything very interesting.


Your arguments are as fallacious as always. When Tertullian, Iraeneus, Origen and Eusebius wrote that Marcion used Luke they were doing no more than using the conventional appellation for that gospel.



You make the elemental mistake of thinking that "gospel" must mean written gospel. That is certainly not what it meant in the first decades of Christianity before any of the written gospels had made their appearance. The word "gospel" was a term used to refer to the central tenets of Christianity.