James Brown

Much is made of the fact that Paul has very little to say of the events of the Gospels. And everyone knows that Paul wrote before the Gospels.

Which makes me ask the logical question: Did any of the Gospel writers show a knowledge of Paul's ministry and epistles?

After all, Paul was converted, preached, and martyred, what, a decade before Mark picked up a pen? Is there any knowledge in any of the Gospels about Paul and his arguments?

bacht

Luke, if the author of Acts, would be the one who combined the Jesus of the gospels with Paul the apostle.

Loomis

There are passages from the Sermon on the Mount that appear to be directed against Paulism.

Loomis

Paul:

we have been released from the law

a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Matthew:

not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished

whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Loomis

Matthew 5:19:

Whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

This might be an 'inside joke' directed against Paul - because Paul means "small" or "least" in Greek.

Loomis

Here’s Paul:

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes

And here’s Matthew:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them

Here’s Paul:

Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved

And here’s Matthew:

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven

Here’s Paul:

if your gift is prophecy, use your gift in proportion to your faith.

And here’s Matthew:

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name

Does anyone else but me see a pattern here?

aa5874

It is a fact that not one single author of the gospels mentioned the name Paul or Timothy, Barnabas,Titus as found in the Pauline letters or any event about Paul as found in Acts of the apostles.

These are indications that indications the gospels were written before the stories of Saul/Paul.

On the other hand, the Pauline letters contain characters like Peter, James, John that are found in the gospels.

These are indications that Pauline letters were late.

Every-one who reads the church writings would know that in the writings atrributed to Paul that the Pauline writer did mention the author of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

Further based on the church writings the Pauline author and Luke were inseparable as found in Irenaeus.

The church writers clearly indicate that it was said Paul referred to the gospel of Luke as "my gospel".

Now, according to the church writers the author of gMark picked up his pen before "Paul" was martyred, he got his gospel from Peter.

Everyone who read the church writings knows all the chronology are erroneous and that includes every single book from gMatthew to Revelation.

Every one knows they were wrong with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Every one knows they were wrong with the epistles of Peter, John, James, Jude and Revelation.

Every one knows they were wrong with the epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Every one knows that they must have gotten ALL OF Paul wrong.

They did not get anything else right.

ripley

Acts of the Apostles was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. This has been known for quite some time.

show_no_mercy

I don't think the gospel writers are aware of Paul. Or if they are, they're not aware of every single one of his epistles. The first person who seems to go out of his way to collect and cite the Pauline epistles in any sort of canon or argument is Marcion. Just like the gospels, there doesn't seem to be any orthodox user of Paul's letters prior to Marcion. But writers like Clement and Ignatius (AFIAK) write a word or two about Paul.

aa5874

The author of gLuke did not mention Paul or any event with Paul anywhere in his gospels.