Duvduv

I was thinking about the citation from the Justin Martyr Apology 39 mentioned in Bernard's posting: "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him."

It suggested that Justin was acquainted with the ideas found in Matthew 28 and or Luke 24:
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
GLuke 24:
"47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Whenever these verses were inserted into the two gospels to show the universal nature of the mission of the Christ figure to gentiles and Jews, it must have happened AFTER the orthodox accepted the epistles, as an unsatisfactory attempt to eliminate discrepancies between the two sets of texts, since in Galatians 2 Paul explains his mission to the gentiles accepted by the Jerusalem group based on his unique revelation.

But if Galatians and Matthew had been accepted into the religion at the same time, surely it would have still been obvious that they didn't need the mission of Paul at all, since Christ himself already directed his followers to preach to the gentiles! Or if Paul's mission was the divinely directed one, then the directive in the gospels would be superfluous since a revelation from the risen Christ to Paul was as good as the directive to the apostles in the gospel.

So instead of eliminating this discrepancy, it enhances it. Apparently the church writers were satisfied to show that Christ was for the gentiles as reflected in both texts, and were unconcerned about the nagging contradiction.

aa5874

Who do you think you are???

la70119

Allow me to butt in and rephrase: Again, if the Acts writings were written AFTER the Gospels and Pauline writings why are they NOT harmonized with the activities and doctrine of the Gospels and Pauline writings???? Which themselves are NOT harmonized with each other????

aa5874

It is the opposite. The Epistles of supposed Pauline were written AFTER the Jesus story was already known and circulated.

It is most remarkable that the Pauline writer ADMITTED that he persecuted the Faith and apologetic sources also made the same claim and that he was aware of gLuke but people still attempt to place Paul as someone who initiated the Jesus cult.

Galatians 1:23 NIV`

There is NO story from antiquity that Paul started any new religion under the name of Christ.

The chronology of the Pauline character based on apologetic sources is extremely easy to follow.

The supposed Acts of Jesus in the Gospels followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the activities and letters from the Pauline writer.

aa5874

The claim By Bernard Muller that later writings in the Canon should be found harmonized with earlier ones is in error since the very Gospels and the Pauline writings show blatant discrepancies.

1. The Pauline writings are before Acts---why did not the author of Acts harmonize with the Pauline writings???

2. The Acts of the Apostles is BEFORE the Pauline letters---why did not the Pauline writer harmonize with Acts???

3. The very same thing applies to gMark and gJohn--one was written before the other---so why are they Not harmonize???

It is obvious that details were added to later stories in order to make changes and that is PRECISELY how it can be logically deduced that gJohn was written After gMark and the Pauline letters were LAST.

Paul wrote about the revealed AFTER-LIFE of the resurrected Jesus with SIX post Resurrection visits and the earliest Jesus story is about the supposed life of Jesus up to the resurrection or the Empty Tomb and NO visits of the resurrected.

Duvduv

If you say that the gospels came before the epistles in the context of this issue of preaching to the gentiles, then why don't the epistles mention anything of the aphorisms and storyline of the gospels??

AND why would Galatians have to explain that Paul was appointed to the gentiles when it was already done as a directive by Jesus in the gospel stories (at least Matthew and Luke), and the people in Jerusalem would have known it from the beginning, and would have been involved in preaching to the gentiles all along themselves??

la70119

And NONE of them agree with each other that were written prior to or at the same time. It's like NO ONE was paying attention to what the others were writing or had written before, unless they were plaigarizing, and decided to embellish his own material.

aa5874

If you think about it each later author was paying attention to the earlier story and attempted to either give more fantastic details or even tried to eliminate earlier passages that were problematic.

1. The later author of the Long-Ending gMark used virtually all of the earlier Short-Ending gMark and added a post-resurrection visit.

2. The later author of gMatthew, again used virtually all of gMark and added a birth narrative and the sermon on the Mount.

3. The later author of gLuke used gMatthew and gMark but revised the birth narative and genealogy.

4. The later author of gJohn almost completely revised the Synoptic Jesus and made Jesus a God and Creator and a Universal Savior by through his Sacrificial death.

5. The later Pauline writer discarded the Synoptic Jesus, the miracle worker, and claimed the resurrection was the most significant act--without the resurrection there would be NO Salvation and NO Christian Faith.

We see the complete EVOLUTION of the Jesus story from gMark without any resurrection visits to the Pauline writings where the resurrection is the MOST significant act and OVER 500 people was visited.

Mark 9:31 KJV The Markan Jesus did NOT know of the Pauline gospel. The Markan Jesus only claimed he would resurrect.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJVRomans 10:9 KJV In the Pauline gospel Salvation was obtained by the resurrection but was UNKNOWN by the Markan Jesus.

The Pauline gospel of Salvation through the resurrection is the Last gospel in the NT Canon.

Duvduv

AA, in order for the epistle writers to discard the gospel Jesus (including GJohn ), he would have to know about them. What evidence can you tangibly present that the epistle writers knew the gospel stories and discarded them? Why and what is the evidence that is more persuasive than the evidence that they didn't know about them in the first place?
And how did several epistle writes come to a consensus on discarding?

aa5874

Again and again, the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Christian Faith.

In order to PERSECUTE the FAITH, the Pauline writer is expected to know the Jesus story and IDENTIFY those who believe it.

The Pauline writer also claim Jesus DIED for OUR SINS, was buried and was raised on the THIRD day according to the Scriptures.

The Pauline writer also claimed he met Apostles BEFORE him in Jerusalem that are mentioned in the Gospels and claimed he was the LAST to be visited by the resurrrected Jesus.

Even Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

There is ZERO evidence that the Pauline writer was NOT aware of the Jesus story.