andrewcriddle

Note I said "some of which seems in line with Luke's own emphases".

I quite agree that Luke would have omitted parts of the Matthean material, even if he had known Matthew. However other parts seem less likely to have been omitted. For example given the generally positive viewpoint towards Peter found particularly in Acts why did Luke omit the passage from Matthew about Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, the the author of gLuke showed no Pauline influence. If you think he removed anti-Pauline quips from gMatthew, please show where he added or placed Pauline theology within his own Gospel.

It is extremely clear that the author of gLuke did not know anything about any Pauline theology. This author appeared to have used all-non-Pauline sources.

Examine the resurrection. 1Co 15:17 - If the Pauline writer had already taught, wrote and propagated throughout the Roman Empire that Jesus was raised from the dead to save mankind from sin why did not the Lucan Jesus teach that to his disciples?

The Lucan Jesus appear to be oblivious to the reason for his own resurrection as stated by Paul. The Lucan Jesus repeats the words found in the Synoptics or similar sources.


Mt 16:21 - Mt 17:23 - Lu 9:22 - The Synoptics Jesus appear to be unaware of the Jesus from the Pauline writers.

In gMark, the visitors to the tomb were frightened and ran away, in gMatthew, it was claimed that the disciples stole the body, and in gLuke, Jesus was initially unrecognizable after his resurrection, yet a Pauline writer claimed, and supposedly propagated in advance, by word and writing, that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in resurrected state, but such vital information cannot be found anywhere in the Synoptics.

There appears to be no indication that the Lucan author was aware of the Pauline writer.

We see an abundance of word for word copying from sources within the Synoptics, literally hundreds of similar words and phrases, so it would be expected that word for word copying would be ALSO found in the Synoptics from the Pauline writers as well, however there is not one single verse in the entire canonised Gospels where word for word copying can be found from the Pauline writings.

Even the Pauline writers used word for word copying when they used scriptures found in Hebrew writings.

It would appear that there were no Pauline writings when the Gospels were written.

spamandham

What is meant by 'independent' in this context?

dog-on

No cribbing, or even paraphrasing .

biblethumping

You are forgetting the most important independant source is that which is found in your heart. Jesus lives inside you and does his work thru you (it's like having a trusted friend with you at all times). You atheists are always asking for empirical evidence where only love can be found.

dog-on

Nah, we just love emprical evidence...

spamandham

Ok. Suppose then that there are indeed many independent sources, but that none of these sources are primary.

What conclusion is valid to be drawn from that?

spamandham

I think your idea of Jesus closely resembles Paul's Jesus, and is the only Jesus that there ever was. The magic dude from Nazareth idea seems to me a later contrivance.

dog-on

That they were based on something else entirely, no longer extant. Perhaps even HJ himself...

aa5874

Paul's Jesus was the magic dude. The Pauline writings can be found in the canonised books about the MAGIC DUDE OF NAZARETH.