Loomis

You’ve only pointed out a contradiction. You haven’t established a chronology. If you back up two verses in Matthew you will see that the periscope is a response to those who thought Jesus came to abolish the Law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Well - why would anyone think that Jesus came to abolish the Law?

Who in the heck taught them that?

Where would they ever get that idea?

Why was that verse necessary?

What was the author trying to say?




Admit it: The idea that the Sermon on the Mount is ‘pre-Pauline’ does not provide answers for those questions.

Admit it: The idea that the Sermon on the Mount is post-Pauline does.

Loomis

You either think Paul was converted and persecuted people who had knowledge of the gospels, or you think Paul never existed.

Which is it?

show_no_mercy

And quite possibly, the Ebionites were part of the other camp. The Ebionites added only gMatthew to their Hebrew Bible (without the birth narrative), and they sure had a bone to pick with Paul.

Maybe Loomis is right, and the Ebionites wrote gMatthew as a polemic against Paul/Marcionism.

Doug Shaver

None at all, unless you treat Acts as a continuation of Luke's gospel.

But then, on the supposition that the gospel writers intended to write history, that is not all that anomalous, considering that Paul had no involvement whatever with Jesus during Jesus' purported lifetime.

I think I've heard a few times that Martin Luther King Jr. was strongly influenced by Gandhi, and their lives did overlap. But I suspect that few biographies of Gandhi mention King.

aa5874

I think the writer who used the name Paul lived,

He wrote backdated post-ascension fiction.

The writer who used the name Paul lived after the writings of Justin Martyr, since there is no Pauline influence on his writings.

Whether, the writings of Paul were before or after the gospels, Justin simply did NOT know one single thing about Paul. Nothing.

Justin Matyr appears to know a gospel story that included the virgin birth and the stolen body of Jesus story. He did not write any thing about the day of Pentecost, talking in tongues or the gifts of the Holy Sprit.

Justin Martyr claimed Simon Magus, the magician, went to Rome, and was worshipped as a god, he never mentioned that Peter and Paul were also in Rome and that Simon Magus was converted through Peter at one time, as found in Acts of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr never mentioned that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that both Peter and Paul were martyred or that there were Pauline letters regarded as sacred scriptures.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are post ascension backdated fiction written for the sole purpose to fabricate a false historical harmony for the Roman Church.

Again, the writer Paul lived, he wrote fiction under the assumed name of Paul, possibly some time around the 4th century.

I think the fiction writer called Paul with his inseparable partner, the author of Acts, may have been at the Council of Nicene and may have voted alongside Eusebius.

hefdaddy42

As a Jew, of course Jesus would have been circumcised (as Paul would have been, since he, too, was a Jew). Paul's point was that Gentile converts to Christianity shouldn't be circumcised.

show_no_mercy

Luke's gospel is the only one with an ascension event (unless you count the redacted Mark), it looks like this was done on purpose to segway into Acts of the Apostles, which picks up right after the ascension. So maybe Luke was aware of some of Paul's epistles.

Also, this bolded part is evidence that the redacted portion of Mark is after Justin Martyr.

aa5874

The point is that the authors of the Jesus stories, after all they are just stories, show no influence of the Pauline letters.

If Paul was already preaching and had already wrote about Jesus abolishing the Law, the author of gLuke, who supposedly knew Paul, still wrote that Jesus was circumcised on the eight day.

I would expect if there was Pauline influence authors of the gospels would make an angel appear to Mary or Joseph and forbid them to circumcise Jesus. And when Jesus was preaching he would also tell the Jews that circumcision was totally unnecessary.

That Jesus was circumcised show influence by Hebrew scriptures and not Pauline where the Laws have no effect whether Jew or Gentile.

hefdaddy42

Jesus was still a Jew. There is no contradiction here.

Why? That is a strange thing to expect, since chronologically, Paul came after Jesus. Besides, I agree that there is no Pauline influence on the gospels. Paul and the gospels are largely independent.

They were influenced by Hebrew scriptures insofar as, since Jesus was a Jew, he would have followed the Hebrew scriptures. Again, there is no contradiction here at all.

Loomis

Fine. I’m cool with that. But the fact remains that those passages in Matthew appear to be ridiculing Paulism. And the ridicule does not appear to be limited to the theology – Matthew appears to be ridiculing the specific name ‘Paul.’

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Look at Strong’s G1646:

1) smallest least

a) in size

b) in amount: of management of affairs

c) in importance: what is the least moment

d) in authority: of commandments

e) in the estimation of men: of persons

f) in rank and excellence: of persons

Now look at Strong’s G3972:

Paul or Paulus = "small or little"

1) Paul was the most famous of the apostles and wrote a good part of the NT, the 14 Pauline epistles

2) Paulus was a deputy or pro-consul of Cyprus and is said to be a prudent man, in the management of affairs, as a governor

Do you see what I mean? It looks like Matthew was bashing Paul. It was an ‘inside’ joke.