Juststeve

Avi:

How does Eusebius claim to know that Paul praised the Gospel of Luke? He couldn't have known him personally and there is no extant Pauline writing in which he praises the Gospel of Luke, or quotes from it or even hints he has read it. Is this another example of a myther crediting whatever qadvances his thesis?

Steve

blastula

avi, did aa5874 cite anything other than the laughable Eusebius reference? Is Eusebius (or "they" of "they say") an authoritative mindreader of Paul? Everything else was mere assertions from comparing text quotes, that could just as easily have been asserted the opposite way.

avi

Thanks Steve. Thank you blastula.

Here is the quote from post 122 by aa5874:

(Sorry, only English, apologies, I don't know the proper link for a version in Greek, perhaps Peter Kirby's site would have it?)

Seems clear enough to me....Now, as to the question of whether or not this is a fairy tale invented by Eusebius, that I wouldn't know.....

It is data. Is it corrupt? Maybe. Is it accurate? I have no idea. My point is, not that I accept Eusebius' testimony on anything, but that when one is dying of thirst in the desert, and one happens upon a muddy oasis, one does not worry too much about parasitoses.

I have absolutely no idea how accurate this comment is. I just know that it exists. Can you refute it? Alternatively, can you offer some other evidence, perhaps contradicting it?

Right now, red letters or not, aa5874 at least has offered some kind of clue. Maybe it does not meet our standards of what genuine evidence ought to look like, I won't disagree with that, but it is apparently all that we have on the subject, or at least, I don't know anything else that addresses this issue, i.e. when were Paul's letters written?

avi

Vivisector

Of course not. It would be a patentently untenable position to take.

Some parts, yes. Some parts, perhaps. Some parts, I sincerely doubt.

I have a well-fed skepticism as regards Eusebius, regardless of whether you and/or I would evaluate him as helpful to our respective position(s). I consider it safe to say he had an agenda.

Nor do I. But I daresay I would find myself quickly and encompassingly beset by alternative viewpoints if I put a substantial proportion of my "eggs" in the basket of Eusebius's veracity.


Verily, perhaps just so, somewhat, maybe.

Or for him, as the case could conceivably evolve.

Mayhap yes, mayhap no. Eusebius could have been interpolated.

Sorry for that. I assume that he did. But I don't assume that he was correct.

As you absolutely should, and I sincerely hope you continue. When we stop "sharpening our knives" against one another's arguments, we will begin to nod at everything the other says, and we will stop learning.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

Well, why don't you OBJECT to all the ASSERTIONS of Eusebius ? Why don't you DISREGARD Eusebius when he claimed "Paul" wrote Epistles BEFORE the Fall of the Temple?

You seem to have a problem with Eusebius if he makes statements that do NOT agree with your position.

aa5874

I have ALREADY stated that I use OTHER CHRISTIAN writers. See post #138.

Now, I have not claimed Eusebius was truthful only that he claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke. In fact, the claim by Eusebius that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke tends to decrease the veracity of "Church History" if gLuke was written AFTER "Paul" was supposed to be dead.

I use "Church History" to EXPOSE FRAUD and FICTION, NOT history nor veracity.

I will SHOW that ALL supposed early writings of Paul, (and Eusebius claimed "Paul" died BEFORE the Fall of the Temple), were UNKNOWN to Justin Martyr and that up to the middle of the 2nd century and beyond that there were CHRISTIANS writers, (Aristides and Arnobius), who were UNAWARE of an Apostle called Paul who preached to the Gentiles all over the Roman Empire.

Toto

Paul's persecution of Christians has been split off here.

If something was missed, PM me.

If you want the topic of whether Paul wrote before, during, or after the gospels split off, let me know.

Sheshbazzar

My post was brief, and perhaps did make my position entirely clear.
I thoroughly -agree - with your statement that 'the JC story did not come from 'Paul'. 'Paul' is the developer of the JC story not it's originator.'

My recent post HERE will further present my position, to which for purposes of this thread, I will add that the original 'Paul' in my opinion was a 'messianic Jew' who lived sometime prior to the time of the alleged NT events.
As a messianic Jew he dealt in midrashim (meaning "that which is explained") explaining the 'Christ' of the 'messianic' texts as found within the TaNaKa.
(no 'earthly' flesh and blood Y'shua/Jebus or messiah/christos yet present, thus no flesh and blood details of any human messiah/christos)
Following the events of 70 AD and destruction of the Temple, messianic hopes ran high, and it was natural that old Saul/Paul's messianic musings would grow in importance and authority.
But as they were, they did not exactly fit the situation, but nothing that couldn't be remedied with a bit of editing and a whole lot of interpolation, and additional writings composed under the pseudonym of 'Paul'.

blastula

aa5874, I've never said anything one way or the other about that. I don't even have a "position" on the HJ issue other than that people should support what they say, and they shouldn't pretend that clearly questionable evidence is conclusive (e.g., the thread OP) .

aa5874

Well, you MUST ALSO admit the EARLY PAUL is questionable evidence.

Now, Please do NOT divert from the issue. You appear to have a problem with Eusebius when he makes statements that do NOT agree that with the claim that "Paul" wrote BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Well, Eusebius did claim "Paul" wrote Epistles before he DIED under NERO and that the same "Paul" WAS aware of gLuke.

But, there is a MASSIVE problem, it has been deduced by Scholars that gLuke was WRITTEN AFTER the the death of NERO.

It must be REASONABLE to deduce that it may be true that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke and that it may be false that "Paul" wrote Epistles BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.