aa5874

It is NOT necessary to know the amount of supposed converts, saints, bishops and deacons.

The letters themselves claimed there were Saints, Bishops and Deacons and even named people like Aquilla and Priscilla, Andronicus and Junia, Stephanas, Timothy, Cephas, John, James, and others that show the Churches were DEVELOPED Before any letter was written.

The Pauline NEVER claimed he was the author of the Jesus story.
The Churches of the Jesus cult were started and developed WITHOUT Paul and his letter.

NOW, in the very Pauline letters, Paul claimed he WASTED and Persecuted the Church of God.

Astonishingly it was the Jesus story from the EARLY Church that INFLUENCED Paul and the Pauline writings.

Bronzeage

I will not avoid rhetoric. It is the tools of rational discussion.

Since we appear to agree that Christian Churches existed before Paul wrote his letters, please share the significance of this, as it applies to this discussion.

aeebee50

Interesting, but can you go farther than the so called myths. Can you go from the Cambrian time to just before Jesus of Nazareth? I am not Catholic so I do not know or care about Canons.

To me at this point of study, Peter is a disciple of Jesus who was handy with a sword cutting off an ear. I am not at the same stage of study to know gMark, but I am learning.

aeebee50

It still boils down to what a person wants to believe.

aa5874

I am surprised that you do not understand the significance of the fact that it is claimed that there were Churches Before any Pauline letters were composed.

It means that the Pauline letters had ZERO influence on the START of the Jesus cult of Christians and that by the time of the Pauline letters a system of Bishopric had ALREADY been established in the Romam Empire.

So, in the Churches, NO Pauline letters were being read, No Pauline teachings from the letters were circulated in the Churches.

The Churches FUNCTIONED without a Pauline letter.

The Churches were Operating with a Non-Pauline Jesus story.

The Churches FUNCTIONED on Non-Pauline theology.

Now, Justin Martyr's "First Apology" corroborates such a scenario.

Justin Martyr did write that it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that was READ in the Churches up to the mid 2nd century and mentioned NOTHING of Paul and his letters.

[u]First Apology" Stories about Jesus have been found and DATED to the 2nd century and NONE from Paul in the 1st century which corroborates the writings of Justin.

Up to the mid 2nd century the Pauline letters were NOT yet received by the Churches.

ALL the "Postmen" with the Pauline letters must have DROWNED before they delievered them or the Churches burnt them up.

Yellum Notnef

Maybe that's good enough for you.
The facts should be more important than what you want to believe.

Keith&Co.

Yes, if the letters are taken at face value.
And the reason we can do that would be.....? joseph Smith never claimed to be the author of the golden plates, just the translator. Should we take him at face value? Yes, if the letters are taken at face value.
And the reason we can do that would be.....?

Bronzeage

You keep stating things which are accepted as fact by the Christian Community and act as if this should be startling.

The Church existed before Paul
Pauline letters were written after the Church was founded
The Pauline letters had no influence before they were written.

In the letters, Paul refers to himself as an apostle of Christ several times. Does this exclude him from the memoirs of the apostles? Are other Apostles mentioned by name and Paul excluded?

Are you claiming that Paul did not exist, the letters did not exist, or something else is revealed by the fact that churches existed before Paul wrote his letters?

steve_bnk

I believe Paul references a congregation which he claims to not be authentic.

tanya

Hi Bronzeage;

Yes, I interpret aa5874's observation as startling, in that, so far as I am aware, nearly everyone assumes that:

a. Paul's epistles preceded the Gospels;

b. Paul personally created the church in modern day Turkey/Syria/Lebanon.

evidence, please....The issue really at the heart of this discussion is simple: When were Paul's epistles composed, and more importantly, how do we establish this date?

? Is the intention here to belittle? Didn't work, if so.....

Then, what is "an apostle of Christ"? Is that a title that any old person can attain? Were not all the other "apostles" appointed by Jesus, according to the gospels? So, by what right does "Paul" appoint himself apostle? Are there other self-appointed apostles out there? If not, why should we regard Paul's writing as legitimate?

Is it not odd, that the concept of "apostle" is only found in two places: the gospels, and Paul's letters? Does it help us, hinder us, or represent meaningless observation, to inquire which came first: the gospels or Paul's letters, based upon this notion of an "apostle of Christ"? Did any other Greek religious community employ this word αποστολος before Paul's epistles?

Romans 1:1
παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου

I am unaware of any extant copy of Memoirs of the Apostles. So far as I know, it is only a title of a text claimed to have been read in churches, by Justin Martyr. I have no idea if it identified Paul, or his epistles. Marcion's text is thought to have existed about the same time, middle of the second century, but, again, where's the beef? I don't see any wound....
Again, maybe I err, here, aa5874 will address the points himself. From my point of view, the significance of his comments regarding Paul's epistles, is to illustrate the extent to which the notion that Paul's epistles predate the gospels, is tenuous and faith driven, not based on evidence.

Indeed, I argue, that 1 Corinthians 15:3 demonstrates, to my satisfaction, if no one else's, that Paul had a copy of at least one of the four gospels, in his hands, as he wrote his epistles:

παρεδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρωτοις ο και παρελαβον οτι χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας

Else, if not, then to what does γραφας refer?