Toto

The gospels were written about a generation or two after Paul's letters are commonly dated, so, no Paul was not a contemporary with the Gospel writers.

Clivedurdle

He attributed his gospel to various visions, including one where he was taken up to is it the seventh heaven where he met something/ someone that can reasonably be translated as Yahweh Saviour Annointer.

I also do not see any lies but actually a Judaism for the Gentiles - but that is a thought provoking matter as Judaism is probably a Greek Persian cult.

sugarhitman

even if that is true, the Acts have Paul and the Apostles preaching the Gospel. How can you preach something that isnt yet in existence? Unless the Gospel originated with Paul.

show_no_mercy

Yeah, it is weird to write it like that.

YHWH, if read aloud, Jews wouldn't say "Yahweh". They would say either Adonai (LORD) or HaShem (the Name). When they translated the Hebrew Bible into the LXX, they never wrote "YHWH" but the word LORD (kurios). No one in the NT calls Jesus "Yahweh Yeshua". They call him Lord Jesus Christ. Two different names. The confusion arises when reading the LXX because there's only one word in Greek for "lord", but two words in Hebrew for "lord".

"Yahweh Yeshua (Joshua)" is kinda redundant. "Yeshua" (or Yehoshua)means "Yah(weh) Saves".

Toto

There are two different uses of the word "gospel." Paul preached a gospel - a message of good news. Much later, other people wrote what are referred to as "gospels" - stories about the life of Jesus. Four of those were canonized.

Acts was written after these stories. It can't be used to show anything about the Paul who wrote the letters.

sugarhitman

at the core of these "Gospels" was The Gospel so how could Paul preach something not yet in existence? I see where this is leading, if Paul was preaching the Gospel, then the much later date for the Gospels is not valid.

Clivedurdle

I think a chinese whispers thing happened and Paul was only attempting to create a new holier more comprehensive series of titles for his god - but the translation between languages did not help so we get an adonai saviour annointer.

A further series of chinese whispers results in our current godman "Lord Jesus Christ" sat at the right hand of himself with either two or one natures or a mixture or whatever.

Clivedurdle

Look precisely at the various permutations in the NT, who writes them and where. Why might that be?

Why does Paul switch between Christ, Christ Jesus and Lord Jesus Christ freely? Because it wasn't a name but titles?

show_no_mercy

It actually makes sense. Every time (as far as I can remember) Paul references the divinity of Jesus "according to the Scriptures", he refers to a "kurios" (lord) in the LXX without the qualifier "theos" (god). When that qualifier "theos" is attached to "kurios", Paul thinks this is the "Father". So the Greek speaking Paul's erroneous idea that there are two "lords" being talked about in the LXX with similar powers, but one seems to be of higher status than the other.

He seems to be unaware of YHWH and that Hebrew literate Jews would pronounce it LORD instead of Yahweh.

razlyubleno

I'm really confused where you're getting these titles from. Paul is pretty consistent with: κυριος ιησος χριστος, Kurios Iesos Christos, or some variously declined version thereof. Do we have reason to believe that Paul ever associated the word "adonai" with anyone but God? He didn't speak Hebrew, so if he knew the word at all, it would have only been through liturgical use as a title to be said in place of the tetragrammaton.

... and doesn't christ/messiah mean "anointed one," rather than "anointer"?

razly