jakejonesiv

Hi Tanya, you are a voice of reason!

aa5874

Why do you persist in making assertions without supplying the evidence from antiquity?

It is completely unsubstantiated that there was a Marcionite Reccension of the Pauline Epistles and there was a Marcionite Recension of the Pauline Epistles that preceeded Acts of the Apostles.

The opinion of John Knox is NOT evidence from antiquity. Please present the sources of antiquity that show the author of Acts suppressed mentioned of the espistles to domesticate Paul.
It is completely illogical to argue that Pauline letters existed when there is no mention of their existence.

It is completely illogical to argue the Pauline letters were suppressed when there is NO evidence that they existed.

The fundamental criteria for non-existing things is no mention of existence.

Your chronology of Peter and Paul is upside down and back to front.

You do not grasp that Jesus was a Torah Observant character and it is Peter was his disciple in the NT Canon.

It was Jesus in the Canon who claimed that one must OBEY the Commandments when in the earliest story.

Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day in gLuke.

Jesus did NOT at all teach Peter that the Torah was abolished in the Gospels.

It was the Pauline writer who claimed he received revelations from the DEAD Jesus [in a resurrected state] to usurp the supposed authority of Peter.

Acts of the Apostles is compatible with the Synoptics.

The Pauline letters are Contrary to the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels and Acts.

The Pauline letters were UNKNOWN when Acts was composed.

The Pauline writer is NOT credible. Pauline authority was fabricated because he could NOT have received any revelations from the DEAD if Jesus did live.

In Corinthians 1, the Pauline writer admitted that there were writings about Jesus which must have been or most likely was from the Gospels.

Only New Testament Scripture show that Jesus DIED for our Sins and was Resurrected on the THIRD Day.

The story in Acts was composed without any knowledge of the Pauline letters so there was NO need to suppress Paul's claims in the Epistles.

In fact, Peter was completely ignored--completely suppressed--from Acts 16 to Acts 28. Peter was NOT mentioned one single time but Paul was over 100 times.

Paul and his group became the leading evangelistic team for the Roman Empire and was corroborated by the very author of Acts.

Peter vanished without a trace after Acts 15--never ever to be heard of in Acts.

You have merely PRESUMED Acts of the Apostles was composed After the Pauline letters. You have not yet produced a single piece of corroborative evidence from antiquity.
Your imagination has gone wild. Your stories are far worse than Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters because you know that we know you have no actual evidence from antiquity.

Your imagination history of Peter and Paul is based on blank pages of antiquity.

You have not identified any corroborative sources of antiquity for what you have imagined.

What corroborative source of antiquity can show that Marcion had 10 Pauline Epistles and an early version of gLuke?

Please, Apologetic writers claimed Marcion preached Another God and Another Son and that he used the writings of Empedocles.

See Justin's First Apology.

See Ephraim's Against Marcion

See Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies

Bernard Muller

That's going to infuriate aa and some others, but here it goes:

1) By far, the best evidence is about the Last Supper:

1 Corinthians:
... the Lord Jesus the same night in which he
was delivered took bread: [11:23b] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, this is my body, [11:24a]
which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [11:24b]
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, [11:25a]
this cup is the new testament in my blood; [11:25b]

gMark:
And as they did eat, [14:22a]
[Jesus] [He] took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take this is my body. [14:22b]
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. [14:23]
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the testament, [14:24a]

Note: the Greek word for "testament" ('diathēkē') is only used here in the whole gospel. However it appears eight times in the Pauline epistles.

2) The divorce law (a divorced woman should not remarry):

1 Corinthians:
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband [7:10]
(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce his wife. [7:11]

gMark:
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; [10:11]
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." [10:12]

3) Jesus' coming in the clouds to gather his elects:

1 Thessalonians:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; [4:16]
then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. [4:17]

gMark:
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. [13:26]
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. [13:27]

4) Conclusion:

Out of the four "revelations" in the Pauline epistles, three of them reappear, albeit considerably rewritten, in gMark (dated 70-71). That's remarkable and most likely not the product of chance.

What about the fourth one? This one (2 Corinthians 12:1-9a) is about Paul's ministry and could not be fitted into the timeline of the gospel.

For the ones (myself included) who think these revelations from above were "imagined" (which means those could only be known through the epistles), and the corresponding parallels in gMark being not historical, then "Mark" knowing about Paul's letters is the only plausible solution (for the ones, like me, who think the epistles came before the gospels).

Cordially, Bernard

tanya

Thanks for these three illustrations. I am addressing only the third, but I believe that all three require an answer.

I appreciate your input.

I will acknowledge, at the outset, here, that I do not share your opinion, and will argue, that your data suggests just the contrary, i.e. that Paul borrowed from Mark.

Jiri I believe, shares your view on this point, you may wish to search the archives for his input--very talented guy. spin, Roger and Andrew also agree with you, so far as I am aware.

Let's look at part of both passages to better understand my point of view, i.e. why I disagree with your assessment.
Mark 13:26
και τοτε οψονται τον υιον του ανθρωπου
"and then will they see the son of man...."

Paul 1 Thessalonians 4:16
οτι αυτος ο κυριος
"because himself the Lord..."

So, what have we got, here, in this illustration, Bernard?

It looks to me, as though we have two, parallel passages, and now, we seek to address the question, WHICH CAME FIRST?

I am willing to acknowledge that one text appears to have been known, at least in part, by the author of the second text. The two texts seem to me, reasonably similar, so, it is not too difficult to concede that one author may have employed some of the ideas from the other author.

The question is, which author copied the other?

To my way of thinking, "son of man" is less "christological" than "Lord". That may be completely wrong, I don't claim to know the literature, perhaps someone who does, will offer a stunning rebuttal of my point of view, by demonstrating that 431 biblical scholars believe that "son of man" is evidence of a MORE ADVANCED christology, than "Lord".

Thanks again, Bernard, for your interesting submission to the forum.

jakejonesiv

Dear Bernard,

Not to interrupt your thought (which is quite in keeping with the OP), but I wanted to mention something about 1 Thess. 4:16-17.


Here is what John Chrysostom wrote on the passage.

"But in saying 'we,' he does not speak of himself, for he was not about to remain until the Resurrection, but he speaks of the faithful. On this account he has added, 'We that are left unto the coming of the Lord shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep.' As if he had said, Think not that there is any difficulty. It is God that does it. They who are then alive shall not anticipate those who are dissolved, who are rotted, who have been dead ten thousand years. But as it is easy to bring those who are entire, so is it also those who are dissolved" (John Chrysostom, Homily 7 on 1 Thessalonians).

jakejonesiv

The Apostle Paul of Galatians declares that he went to Jerusalem as the consequence of divine revelation (Gal 2:1).
But in Acts, Paul is sent to the Jerusalem Apostles by the Antioch church, along with Barnabas and some other believers. (Acts 15:2 ff).

Quite a difference.

Jake Jones IV

MrMacSon

Yes, Acts refers to an established church¹, as does Galatians 1²; though Gal 2:1 (NIV) does say "again" -

"Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas"

1 "I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.
I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain." Gal 2:2

2 Gal 1:2 - "To the churches in Galatia ..."

.

aa5874

I am not disturbed at all. I am extremely delighted that you mentioned the Last Supper in gMark.

There is NO mandate at all by the Markan Jesus for the Ritual of the Last Supper to be carried out and no mandate by the Markan Jesus for the Ritual of the Last Supper to be carried in his remembrance.

When the short gLuke was written there was no such thing as a Ritual of the Last Supper--there was NO Jesus cult in the first place.

The Last Supper is the BEST example that the short gMark [Sinaiticus gMark] was not derived from the Pauline letters and that the Pauline letters are compatible with the LATE FAKE gMark [long gMark]

Examine the earliest gMark [Sinaiticus gMark]

Sinaiticus gMark 14 It was the LATER author of gLuke and Pauline writers who manipulated the short gMark.

1. Please, do you not ever forget that Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

2. Please, do not ever forget that an Apologetic source claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

Examine gLuke.

Luke 22 KJV1 Corinthians 11:24 KJV " this do in remembrance of me " can Only be found in gLuke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 in the Entire Canon.

The Pauline writer was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed. The Pauline letters are compatible with the Later Gospels.

Examine Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1.
The abundance of evidence show that the earliest story in the short gMark about the Last Supper in gMark is NOT from the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

Just can't help but notice how uncritically one could accept that statement attributed to "Origen." A gospel attributed to Luke commended by PAUL when the GLuke makes not even the slightest hint of a person named Paul OR his ideas presented in the SET of letters attributed to Paul. How preposterous to accept these claims uncritically in terms of content and context.
Origen is suggesting there were first Mark and Matthew, and then Paul, and then Luke, and then John. Never even hinting at the contextual problems staring us in the face.
Of course this Origen might also simply be hinting at how the imperially-sponsored scribes put everything together for the set known as a canon......

DCHindley

1 Corinthians 11:23 πανέθααμκ ἀπὸ ημῦ ηονίμο
1 Corinthians 11:23 παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου

Galatians 1:12 πανέθααμκ αὐηὸ μὔηε ἐδζδάπεδκ ἀθθὰ δζ᾽ ἀπμηαθύρεςξ Ἰδζμῦ Χνζζημῦ
Galatians 1:12 παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

If you ran a proprietary font through a Unicode converter, it was not set up properly.

DCH