Layman

Right. You admit its a tangent and fail to defend its relevant to this thread, but somehow you were not picking a fight?

Whether there were one or two authors is irrelevant to this thread. As I said, you were simply picking a fight.

The assumption you have identified--that Luke/Acts--had one author, is irrelevant to this thread. So nothing about the OP is "based on" that assumption. Therefore, if you want to prove that Luke/Acts had two authors, please start a thread and discuss it there. If I have the time or the interest I'll join such a discussion.

The only reason for you to bring it up here is to pick a fight about something unrelated to this thread.

spin

Crystal ball.

When you saw the post with the "incidentally" you suddenly dropped the comment I posted immediately before it to develop the tangent.

I can see where your heart is.


spin

Layman

Finally, an admission that it has nothing to do with this thread. Thank you!

And BTW, I responded point by point ot the post "immediately before it." It is you who dropped that line of argument and focused on the distinctily-minority position that Luke/Acts had multiple authors.

NOGO

My point was not based on the premise that the HJ did not exist.

My point was based on the premise that Paul looked at the OT to find information on future events related to the messiah. You cannot deny that this was an activity (and still is) among believers.

You cannot refute this by simply giving more of the same OT quotes which are used to interpret current events.

Specifically Paul believes in the imminent coming of the Christ.

You also accuse other of things that you yourself do.

You assume that Paul is talking about historical events and then conclude that that is what he is talking about.

Why is Paul talking about the "coming" of the Lord and not his return?

Why does Paul never quote Jesus?

Please explain this Layman:

God incarnates to deliver a message and one of his apostles never quotes him prefering to quote from the OT. Wasn't there anything that Jesus said worth preserving as far as Paul is concerned?

We are not just talking about impersonal events which must be interpreted and one such as Paul choses to interpret with OT in hand. We are talking about God made man, flesh and blood with the power of speech.

Why does Paul claim that what he knows he did not get it from any man? ... but has been revealed through scriptures.

Layman

You sure fooled the rest of us.

So you simply assume some other premise to refute mine. At least I proved mine up.

What I have shown is that Jews and Christians felt obliged to explain current events in OT language and themes. Therefore, the finding of such similarities is not proof of ahistoricity.

Paul believed in the possibility of the immindent second coming of Christ. So what? Nothing about this seems to suggest that therefore Paul invented stuff out of the OT.

I'm not really worried about your opinion on this.

I only assumed Paul was talking about historical events when he was referring to his conversion and call to the Gentiles, as well as his escape from Damascas. Both of which have strong parrallels to OT themes and language.

Simply dragging other Doherty fluff into the debate does nothing to refute the premise of this thread. Similarities to OT themes and language is irrelevant to the question of historicity.

He does explictily twice. And in several other places he alludes to Jesus' teaching. Paul was not writing a gospel, but a letter. He had already done his preaching.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with this thread. Similarities to OT themes and language is irrelevant to the question of historicity.

Paul does quote Jesus and alludes to his teachings several times. The premise is flawed.

Sure and Paul refers to it quite often, including Jesus' teaching on divorce and the payment of pastors.

Yes, that is exactly what Paul was talking about.

I've dealt with this elsewhere. Paul claimed apostolic authority because of Jesus' appearance to him. But he still was preaching the same message that the Church was already preaching before him. He still felt obligated to submit his message to the Jerusalem authorities, who approved it. He still used rabbinic language to indicate he was passing on oral tradition. He still passed on several psalms, hyms, and creeds that were already established in the church.

NONE OF WHICH is relevant to this thread. Can you do nothing but parrot bullet points from Doherty's Jesus Puzzle?

I guess not. But I'd be glad if you could prove me wrong.

spin

You have difficulties in understanding things written simply: what does "incidentally" mean do you think? Perhaps, "by the way, parenthetically, as a digression"? Duh.

You're an arithmetician, aren't you? As long as enough people accept something, so will you.



spin

Layman

This is pretty crude posting.

And how about admitting I responded to your "before" post point by point, though you accused me of ignoring it?


Nope, but on issues such as the original Greek I do appreicate expert opinion. The focus of my studies has been Paul and Luke/Acts. I've read a wide range of opinion, including the extremists like John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, whose theory about Luke/Acts being a reaction to Marcion's earlier version is about the best argument on the issue. Entirely unconvincing, however, especially given the stack of scholars who find no evidence of two authors.

If you want to pursue this in another thread feel free to state your case. But as for here, it is irrelevant whether Luke/Acts had one author or ten.

spin

Sorry, I didn't see it at the time. Do you want a response?


Hopefully only for secondary purposes. You can't let them do the work for you.

Well, logically another solution is that it is a reworking of Marcion's "original" gospel. That's what I think Irenaeus intimates.

You have to do your own work.

I wouldn't assume two authors. Luke is obviously a redaction of earlier work with the combination of elements also found in Matthew, often in the same order but located differently, indicating a separate written source for that material, So just for Luke we build up the notion that there are at least three inputs, without considering scribal interventions. Acts is also quite complex, indicating a number of sources. What we have are two texts with a preface to relate them. What layer do these prefaces belong to?


spin

Vorkosigan

Perhaps. But there are key differences between Paul's story and the Gospel fictions. Paul's letters do not appear to be constructions on every level, the way the Gospels do. For example, at their shallowest level, the gospels do not give the kind of detail we expect of reality (among other things); instead, the narrative appears created to give life to the sayings. At the intermediate level the pericopes appear to be modular and arrange in larger structures that are obviously constructed, such as the fivefold miracle structure in Mark identified by Achtemier. At the deepest level, the gospels appear to be created as fictions to tell the story of the life and death of Jesus, and for other functions, such as evangelical and educational, as Loisy identified. On every level, from every angle, the gospels scream fiction. Crossan identifies this trifold fictionality of the Passion Narrative in The Birth of Christianity and takes it as evidence the PN is fiction.

On the other hand, Paul's letters do not appear to have this multilevel, deliberate structure that the Gospels do. This does not mean they are not fictions; we must be careful not to confuse authenticity of authorship with authenticity of content. Rather, unlike the gospels, which give numerous internal structural markers of fiction, Paul's letters apparently do not.

That is why this argument Layman has offered won't fly. Certainly Paul compared his experiences to those in the OT. However, nowhere does there appear to be evidence on all levels that he constructed his adventures out of the OT.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

Are you saying that my premise is untenable?
I will come back to this when I have more time.


I do not question this. I have stated that there was another activity just as present and common among Jews and Christians which have to do with prophecy. You cannot deny this.
There the issue is which activity is Paul engaged in?
If you believe that he is talking about an historic Jesus then the examples are fit your story. On the other hand if there is no HJ then it fits mine. You have not demonstrated that your point of view is any way better than mine.


This is more a statement of faith than reason.
He did not invent stuff out the OT. He believed to have found God's plan for humanity and a way to salvation. If this information came to him from an HJ then it would have been the main focus of his teaching with the OT interpretation as a backup. The cart is before the horse.


Frankly, the feeling is certainly mutual. I am not trying to convince you. There is too much at stake for you to be convinced by anybody. There is not need to mention this. It goes without saying.


You could have fooled the rest of us.
It never occurred to you that perhaps Paul embellished these stories because he had murdered people and felt guilty and was looking for a way out. A way to be forgiven by giving himself a mission on behalf of the sect.


Right and simply by refusing to answer you do not help your cause.

It has everything to do with this thread.
Twice! Where?
and is that all that Paul has retained from Jesus teachings.

Please provide us with all that Paul retained from Jesus' teachings.

Thin! Very thin.
Tell me where did Paul get this idea of original sin?
Jesus never mentioned a word of it.
Jesus did not claim to be here to buy back the original sin.

Paul says that Jesus created the universe.
Where does Jesus say this and where is this stated in the OT?


As usual you avoid the questions that you cannot answer.
Paul did not have to interpret what Jesus say with the OT in hand. On can assume that Jesus provided these interpretations himself.


Come come. You are tied to a faith and call me a parrot.
You parrot what you have been told from birth.

I do not believe that you would be glad to be proved wrong.