spamandham

A list of irrelevant crap is not the same as a case. You have to have salient points on the list *first*. It isn't that I'm picking one or two points and attacking them in exclusion of others, it's that none of the points infer the conclusions you've drawn without first applying a slew of unjustified assumptions.

I have declared my position as being agnostic on the matter. You are not willing to accept my statement at face value that I am agnostic on the matter? If not, how could I possibly prove to you that I am agnostic on the matter? Please at least try to make a little sense.

Good lord. Do you even read what you reference? Where in the passage you quoted, does it state *how* the revelation was made?

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Now look at the following:

Galatians 3:8
The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

Galatians 3:22
But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

So we know that the Pauline author is quote mining the old testament and claiming that as revelation.


Your ignorance of the texts you seem to think you have mastered is simply amazing:

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

Let's see if you can figure out what man the author is talking about.

...for fuck's sake, we're having an exchange and it's just few posts back. Do you really expect me to keep repeating the same thing over and over?

Why would you expect me to show that Paul was aware of the Gospels? :huh:

aa5874

Again, this shows you do not understand how a case is built. Every little piece of evidence that supports my position when accumalated will prove with reason that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Now look at your dilemma.

Just imagine that a client goes to the doctor and it is noticed that he has the symptoms of being HIV positive.

The doctor may say that even though the client has the symptoms he may not be HIV positive. It is possible that the client has some other problem that is manifested by similar symptoms of HIV.

Next the doctor may ask the client to do an HIV test. The test
result was positive.

The client was declared HIV positive by the doctor.
1. There are symptoms of HIV.
2. The test was positive.

Now, no test is 100% accurate, even if the test is positive, it is possible that the test was a false positive.

So, based on your logics or method of analysis, "analysis by isolation," you can claim that the doctor's declaration is totally flawed because the symptoms proves nothing and the test may not be 100% accurate.

You may then claim that the doctor was illogical or should be agnostic about the client's HIV status.

Let's look at a possible approach by a quack.

1. There are symptoms of HIV.
The quack: Symptoms prove nothing.

2.The test is positive for HIV.
The quack: No test is 100% accurate.

The quack: I don't know what is wrong with you, maybe it is just in your head. You look fine to me.

The quack has ignored all the evidence because each isolated piece of information did not prove the client had the HIV.

I have to prove that you really don't know anything about Paul first, I just can't take your word without you first providing some evidence.

And you are actually really proving that you virtually do not know anything about Paul.

But Jesus Christ is not the Hebrew Scripture or the LXX, the Pauline author clearly stated that he got his revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3.8 and 3.22 is about faith in Jesus Christ, not about revelations.

Justin Martyr wrote about Abraham being justified by faith without making any reference to revelations from Jesus Christ.

Dialogue with Trypho 11 by Justin Martyr

I know Paul as a fiction writer. Go figure.

But, there you go again, why don't you just put forward the evidence and stop wasting time. If it was a few posts back you be able to find it.

I will repeat myself, and have repeated myself many times just to make my position pellucidly clear.

Very good question!

I claimed Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

What was your position?

You don't know enough about Paul?

spamandham

This is nonsense. You have to show that the evidence leads to your conclusions, not merely list irrelevant tidbits and then claim that on whole they add up to a case. This is the same bullshit the apologists try to pull.

Circumstantial evidence only accumulaters weight if each piece individually adds something. All you've done is to start with your conclusion and look for things that don't contradict it.

Have you even *attempted* to falsify your own position? That's how honest inquiry works.

Nothing you've presented leads to the conclusion you've drawn (or perhaps I should say, started with), so this is a false analogy. If I have the symptoms of AIDS, that's enough to form a weak case. By the way, I think you have a weak case.

But with Paul, we don't have anything within even 2 orders of magnitude (being generous here) of an AIDs test. Effectively, all we have is something substantialy worse than (1) ...nothing.

Did you not notice I adressed every one of your points and explained why they are compatible with the idea that Paul wrote prior to Acts? This is analysis on the whole, not on parts in isolation. None of your points result in your conclusion unless you start with your conclusion....typical cart before the horse.

The proper analogy is

"Dr., I think I have AIDS"
...."Why do you think that?"

"I feel tired all the time"

..."are you getting enough sleep?"

"I'm not sure, but I know AIDS causes tiredness, so it must be AIDS. Also, I don't have much appetite, and I heard that's a sign of AIDS too."

...."let's run some tests and see what's wrong"

"Look, if you don't agree that I have AIDS, then you don't understand how medical diagnosis works."

How do you know that? You have no idea what the author of the Pauline corpus was thinking, but you authoritatively interject the gospels and Acts into his mind nonetheless.

Does he mention *how* he received this revelation? You appear to projecting ideas from the gospels and Acts onto Paul.

You weren't paying attention the first time. I'm neither a masochist, nor insane. If you're interested in an intellectual discussion rather than simply promotion of fringe ideas as if they were fact, you'll invest the minimal effort it takes to either pay attention the first time, or make up for your own inattention.

spamandham

To save you the effort of a rubuttal, aa, I've decided to add you to my ignore list. It's something I've been debating with myself for several months, as I don't take the action lightly.

kcdad

I think is a very good question. I hear people all the time that God told them to do something or Jesus led them to make this decision or whatever...

The truth is they read something in The Bible, heard a preacher suggest something, or they just thought about it and meditated (prayed) about it and came to a decision... all rational ways to come to a decision or form an opinion, but hardly "divine revelation" in the way we think of it. But that may be EXACTLY what Paul was thinking.

aa5874

You have demonstrated your inability to defend your position with credible information so you put on blindfolds and earmuffs.

You may have an ostrich problem.

During our discussion on the OP I have shown where you have provided erroneous and mis-leading information.

There is just no information of antiquity anywhere that can show the Pauline writer was not aware of the Gospels.

None whatsoever.

The Pauline writer himself claimed he was last to see Jesus, that he used to persecute the faith, and that there were apostles before him.

The church writers claimed Paul was aware of the Gospel according to Luke and the Pauline writer even quoted passages found only in gLuke which is therefore consistent with the church writers.

Also, according to church writers, the Gospel according to Matthew was written first, not the Pauline letters.

Now, even if the church writers fabricated their story about Paul, their chronology is the only chronology and there is no other evidence that can confirm or established that the Pauline writer was not aware of the Gospels.

The existing evidence clearly supports the OP that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and not only that but he was very likely to have written after Justin Martyr or after Acts of the Apostles.

kcdad

and you are talking to yourself... no one is listening...

aa5874

This is one of the most incredible absurd statement I have come across for some time now.

You respond to my post and claim NO-ONE is listening.

Oh my God, it must be an ostrich, something got its head buried deep, with earmuffs and blindfolds on.

arnoldo

According to ACTS Paul didn't read the gospels then decided to become a believer. On the Road to Damascus Paul had a revelation from the risen Lord. Later Paul met with the Apostles and IIRC, actually rebuked Peter for not following the "gospel" with respect to treatment towards the gentiles. Later Marcion perhaps twisted this passage to suggest that the Apostles didn't have the full revelation of the gospel which Paul had. Of course this is absurd as both the Gospels and Paul's letters are in absolute agreement.

aa5874

Actually it is not known what Saul/Paul may have read before he was blinded to reality by a bright light.

Based on Acts, Saul persecuted Jesus believers before he himself was converted, but in order to persecute Jesus believers Saul/Paul must have had some prior knowledge of the doctrine of Jesus believers.

In order to identify Jesus believers, it is mandatory that you know the doctrine or belief of Jesus believers.

Examine the stoning of Stephen as found in Acts of the Apostles, it was after Stephen made an apparent blasphemous statement about Jesus, the Son of man, that he was taken out of the city and stoned.

Ironically, the last words of Stephen were similar to the words of Jesus when he was supposedly on trial.

Acts 7.55-60
Now based on Acts 7, Saul/Paul must have been aware of the doctrine of Jesus believers, he was present at the stoning of Stephen.

But look at Acts 9.1-2, Saul/Paul desired permission to go into the synagogues to listen to, identify and bound those who were Jesus believers.

Saul/Paul was fully aware of the gospel stories, he could identify Jesus believers based on their teachings.

Acts 9:1- - Now, if Jesus believers were teaching the doctrine of Jesus in the synagogues, this would imply they already had a written Jesus story that Saul/Paul must have heard about.

But, having said all that, it is likely that Stephen was a 1st century fiction character and was stoned by fictitious people under the watchful eye of Saul/Paul.


In any event, the fabricated 1st century setting for Saul/Paul was one where the character was aware of the doctrine of Jesus believers.