aa5874

But, let us NOT get side-tracked with your PRESUMPTIONS about Paul.

Please find a corroborative non-apologetic source for the Pauline writer. I make NO presumptions about Paul since the NT is historically unreliable.

Toto

I am not assuming that Paul existed. I only describe the literary character Paul of the epistles.

aa5874

Of course you are assuming that Paul is a 1st century character who wrote letters before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE since you have NO credible apologetic sources and none outside the Bible and Church writings.

You very well know that the Church and its writers gave false and contradictory information about Paul when it was claimed Paul died under Nero but was AWARE of gLuke.

It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that Paul could have died under Nero and still be aware of gLuke.

gLuke is considered to have been written after 94 CE or after the writings of Josephus.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Aristides, the Short-Ending gMark, the Long-Ending gMark, gMatthew, gJohn, Revelation, Celsus and Municius Felix support a NON-historical 1st century Paul.

Bingo the Clown-O

Well put. It seems simple to me - but evidently a lot of people have trouble understanding that idea.

It looks to me like New Testament belongs to a literary tradition where the practice of re-writing (adding new details and taking away old details) was accepted, encouraged, and thrived.

The Pauline letters seem to be no exception. They appear to be a continuation of that tradition. They look like midrash on the Gospels.

Duvduv

How could they be midrash on the gospels if they don't contain anything of the storyline or aphorisms of the gospels?
For that matter, WHAT does the word GOSPEL actually refer to? Is it a STORY or is it a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE?

Bingo the Clown-O

They can be midrash on the gospels because I am using the words ‘gospels’ and ‘midrash’ liberally. Get over it.

Here’s an example:

1 Corinthians 4:8
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!

Compare …

Gospel of Thomas 81
Jesus said, "Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce."

See?

The members of "God’s church at Corinth" were acting out a passage from the Gospel of Thomas.

How peculiar. The actions of the characters are driven by scripture.

Duvduv

What do you mean "get over it"? Is that a reasonable response to an observation by someone to your assertion?

I commented before that all the similarity between GThomas and Corinthians means is that some popular sayings were floating around at the time. It does not prove that Corinthians was midrashing or using anything from GThomas. And besides, the Corinthians version only corresponds to the first half of the GThomas one.

Bingo the Clown-O

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-over-it.html

It may not prove anything to you – but you are not the one who I am trying to convince. The issue of if is proof (or not proof) is determined by the person(s) I am trying to convince.

So get over it.

Now answer me this: Will you at least admit that it is circumstantial evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Because it certainly is. And if you deny it (and I bet you will) then we will all enjoy a good laugh (and I enjoy making people laugh).

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
About oral tradition:
I came to conclude that "Luke" had a copy of gMark with a big chunk missing:
Mk6:47 to Mk8:27a. From that, one would think, if there were oral traditions floating by, some similar to any of the pericopes in Mk6:47-8:27a, "Luke" would have captured them and put them at different places in her gospel. There is none of that. Zero. So much for oral tradition paralleling the differents parts of gMark.
If, as I think, gLuke & gMatthew were written at about the same time (85-90) and not knowing each other, then we would expect more Q and less L & M material, if there were common oral traditions available to them.
My view is, what I consider authentic about early Christianity characters (including Jesus and Paul) was heard from eyewitness(es) by the gospelers and his/her community, then remembered somewhat at the time of the writing of the gospel (or Acts), some 20 to 30 years later (by that time, those eyewitness(es) were dead or not heard of, which allowed the gospelers to embellish, invent fiction, resequence, modify on what they recalled, just to push their agenda).
That goes for parts of gMark, Q and Acts, but not for gLuke, gMatthew or gJohn.

Duvduv

Do you preclude the possibility of oral stories floating around with different versions emerging in different locales and at different times?