aa5874

Absolute nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you have not read all that have been written.

The writer Paul already attributed his gospel to Jesus. There is no need for him to repeat the name Jesus every time in a passage.

And it has already been shown that the writer Paul did attribute the wotds of the Last Supper to Jesus Christ.

The writer Paul, it would appear, has done everything to show attribution of his teachings to Jesus Christ.

1. The writer Paul did write that his gospel was from Jesus Christ [Galatians 1.1-12].

2. The writer Paul appear to have quoted Jesus directly [1Corinthians 11.24-25]

It is absolutely clear that the writer called Paul appeared to know of the Jesus story and at least the words of Jesus in the Last Supper before his betrayal as found in gLuke.

Amaleq13

You apparently do not understand the irrelevance of that observation to the current discussion. I doubt you want to.

Paul disagrees with you as he appears to think it is important to differentiate between his own statements and those which came from the Lord. I'll take Paul's own words over your confusion.

But from a revelation, not the Gospels. This example contradicts your belief rather than support it.

And that is why we can conclude he has not read the Gospels because he not only fails to provide that attribution several times but writes as though the statement is his own. :banghead:

Which is irrelevant to discussion at hand (ie whether Paul knew the Gospels).

And offers it as a revelation to him rather than something he had read in the Gospels.

No doubt about it. That you think this is germane only confirms your apparent confusion.

You believe the contents of Luke were divinely revealed to Paul? :rolling:

aa5874

I think that you don't understand the current discussion. I doubt that you want to.

Clivedurdle

As I started it may I chip in?

I am trying to work out what Paul understood as salvation. He had not seen the gospels and he said he heard it all from Yahweh Joshua Annointer - (why have I written it like that?) - by revelation.

Maybe Paul was not starting xianity - he was creating a Judaism plus acceptable to Greeks without the superstitions of circumcision. Xians later found these works and built their theology and stories around them.

The Lord's Supper stuff is attributable to Zarathustra, other parts have been recognised as hymns.

Ellegard thinks xianity is much older because of the references to church structures, deacons etc. What if these are Greek Judaic structures?

There is this background assumption that the diaspora started with the destruction of the Temple. What if the majority of Jews were actually in the Roman, Greek and Persian Empires and found the war in Jerusalem an embarrassment by nutters?

How many Jews really cared about circumcision and temple sacrifice? I thought Maccabeees was about a group who wanted to turn the tables back - these extremists are not necessarily the true Judaism just because they assert they are. The reality of the synagogues says Judaism has always had different groups. Paul makes far more sense as a Greek Diaspora Jew from Tarsus attempting to wrest Judaism from the zealots. James Jerusalem group also sound like another sect of Jews, a mix of Essenes and Pharisees perhaps?

And the tem xian may only be a confusion of annointers - which again explains why outsiders had very great difficulty differentiating xians and jews and the dearth of archaeology - it is all Jewish until a new god Joshua appears at Megiddo.

aa5874

The letters of Paul indicate that the writer had some knowledge of the Jesus story and that his audience or the readers knew about Jesus.

The writer Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night.

Where did the writer get this information from?

He quoted what appears to be the words of Jesus as found in gLuke.

But, Jesus of the NT did not exist in the 1st century.

And, He did not get the information about the betrayal from heaven.

The writer Paul claimed Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose on the third day according to the scriptures.

The only scriptures that have information that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose on the third day are the Gospels.

1Cor15.3-4Mr 9:31 - Now, Jesus of the NT did not exist in the 1st century.

Even if Jesus of the NT existed, he could not have been raised from the dead.

Where did the writer Paul get his information about the betrayal in the night, death and resurrection,on the third day of Jesus Christ?

He didn't get the information from heaven.

The writer Paul in his letters did not claim he was the first to preach Christ. He claim there were apostles before him and even went to Jerusalem about three yearsafter his so-called conversion to see Peter and the Lord's brother.

One major problem.

Jesus of the NT did not exist.

Where did the writer Paul get his information about Peter and the Lord's brother from?

He did not get the information from heaven.

The writer Paul claimed he got his gospel of uncircumcision from the resurrected Jesus.

Jesus of the NT did not exist in the 1st century.

How did a letter writer who wrote no books, just wrote some letters, his conversion is highly suspect, manage to have those letters canonised as sacred scriptures that visited Jerusalem only twice in 17 years to see the apostles.

And why do these letters show no sign of theological harmonisation or manipulation like the Gospels? The Jesus of gMatthew is different to the Jesus in gJohn.

Did not the authors of gMatthew, gMark, Luke or John see the letters of Paul before they wrote their stories and why were they modified later to be compatible with the letters of Paul?


One simple solution is that the letters of Paul are later than the Gospels.

Paul's salvation was the solution for the Roman Church.

Clivedurdle

That one is from Jonah! The Gospels were not scriptures at that time!

And on the night etc why do you think I referred to hymns?

aa5874

In the book of Jonah nowhere does it say that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose on the third day.

And in fact, it was Jesus in gMatthew who made an analogy or connection to Jonah.

And, Paul claimed he got his gospel from Jesus.

This is the so-called Jesus in Matthew 12.38-40
But, Jesus did not exist.

Paul did not get any information from heaven, yet it is claimed that his letters were regarded as sacred scripture as early as the 1st century.

The gospels believed by some to be written afterwards are manipulated and amended, yet the Pauline letters are left untouched and canonised as is.

How did this happen? According to Tertullian in Against Marcion it is expected that the earlier writing to become corrupted later.

By the fourth century, it would be expected that there would have been many variants of the Pauline letters, just as we see four variants of the Jesus stories.

Amaleq13

At least you are consistent in your flawed thinking.

arnoldo

Would you kindly provide a source which leads you to this conclusion? The only thing I was able to find about this stuff was the following. . .

sugarhitman

is this poster saying that although Paul said things Jesus said, but didn't attribute them to Jesus vocally proves that he was not aware of the Gospel? Was he not a contemporary with the Gospel writers? OHHH what an insult to common sense.