Duvduv

AA, so you want to believe that the GC was there even when "Paul" was identified in Galatians (and Acts) as being the apostle to the gentiles while all disciples were instructed to preach to all nations in the GC? What gives?! Why would the author of Galatians do that when all disciples were given the responsibility of preaching to the nations?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

At least if the GC was added later into the gospels one could say that the gospels were EXPANDING the preaching from Paul (+Barnabas) to all disciples.

aa5874

Again, I do not deal with Imagination.

There are STORIES from antiquity about Paul so there is NO need to invent anymore today.

In Acts, Saul/Paul PREACHED the Jesus story AFTER the Ascension of Jesus, AFTER the Day of Pentecost and AFTER 3000 people were converted by the preaching of PETER.

In Galatians, the Pauline writer claimed there were Apostles BEFORE him and that he Persecuted the same FAITH he presently preached.

Why can't you understand Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters???

Paul was DEAD LAST.

Paul died in the 2nd century or later.

No Pauline writings have ever been recovered from the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Duvduv

AA, what does that have to do with the directive to Paul to preach to the nations in Galatians versus the Great Commission in the gospels for all disciples to preach to the nations?!
Why would the authors of the GC in the gospels have a calling which contradicts the calling of Paul in Galatians or vice versa?

aa5874

Again, I do NOT deal with imagination. Why this and why that???

Don't you have any answers for your own questions???

Why is the NT full of contradictions???

We have stories of Saul/Paul in Acts and he Heard from Jesus AFTER he ASCENDED.

Is NOT the Ascension AFTER the Great Commission in the Gospels???

Please, imagination and speculation will get you nowhere.

In the Canon, Paul was LAST. At least 500 people had REVELATIONS of the Resurrected Jesus BEFORE Paul.

It was the Revealed Resurrected Jesus that COMMISSIONED people.

1 Cor. 15 There is NO story that Paul was FIRST or started the Church of God.

Paul PERSECUTED the Church of God in Galatians.

The Church of God did NOT need Paul.

The Church of God NEEDED the Resurrected Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, and his Father the Holy Ghost.

Duvduv

Maybe someone else will have more to say about this subject of Paul's instructions to preach to the gentiles versus the Great Commission ans why the contradiction goes unnoticed among the church spokesmen.

angelo

On this weak foundation was the church of god started. No different to the foundation of most cults, yet this one has survived and doesn't look as if it will go away any time soon.

Sheshbazzar

Yes, according to the narratives of Matthew 28:16-28, Mark 16:16-20, and Luke 24:46-48 The Ascension came AFTER the Great Commission.
'The Gospel which is According to John' however, gets a little weird, in that 20:17 has Jebus forbidding Mary to touch him because he 'has not as yet ascended to his Father'... but by verse 27 (some 8 days latter, per v.26) he is inviting doubting Thomas to not only to touch him, but to stuff his whole hand into his guts. ???
Does that mean that John intends to imply that The Ascension to the Father had already taken place and that Jebus had just returned from being with his Father in heaven?
I don't claim to know, but that certainly seems to be what the 20th chapter of John is attempting to imply.
It is noteworthy here that John's is the only one of the Gospels that does not contain any specific ascension scene.

But still each of these Great Commission scenes tell us that it was a dead man resurrected, a zombie, still bearing his unhealed death wounds, a living dead ghost that materialized within a locked room to deliver this Great Commission to the eleven Apostles.
Is this scenario any more credible than the claim that he was latter observed Ascending into the sky???

aa I understand your position is that 'Paul', and the Pauline epistles are LATTER, and AFTER the Gospels.
I do wonder however, how you would account for the fact that 'Paul' (or his ghost writers) seem to be totally unaware of, or willfully ignore that Great Commission which had been given to the ELEVEN Apostles, and evidently acted upon, establishing Christian churches at least as far as Damascus, years before 'Paul's' conversion?

Duvduv

deleted

Duvduv

When a person is resurrected, he's not going to be resurrected with the wounds that killed or injured him. In fact, a resurrected person is supposed to be completely healed and in perfect health. So how could it be that this tale of resurrection of Jesus would include the nail holes and hole from the spear? In fact, wouldn't the spear hole have killed him even before the results of the crucifixion itself?

And why on earth would the writer expect that the crowd would not believe Jesus was resurrected without such signs? Everyone who knew him 3 or 4 days earlier would know him now even if he didn't have any signs of wounds.And how many people could sit down and eat and drink when they had a spear hole in their side and nail holes in their hands?!

What kind of resurrection is this?!

Parenthetically, wasn't Lazarus resurrected himself without any signs of his sickness?!!
The sisters said that they knew he would be resurrected at the end of days, and then Jesus says "I AM the resurrection." IF that's the case, then apparently the author of GJohn did not believe people needed a physical resurrection if they believed in Jesus, or alternatively, that only those who believed in him would be resurrected.

Sheshbazzar

I noticed that in my final sentence I presented an inadvertent anachronism.
I should have said; 'Jesus as being the promised Christ' believing believers at least as far as Damascus,.....' as according to the NT account the actual word 'Christian' did not come into usage until much latter, and with 'Saul' in the foreign city of Antioch (Acts 11:26)





.