aa5874

Well, give me the names on the PAUL 500 list first.

Now, look under M.

The gospel of John is considered to have been written after the Synoptics, explain why the author omitted the birth narrative and the ascension?

Loomis

The 500 does nothing more to support your claim that Paul was familiar with Matthew than it does to support my claim that he may not have been familiar with Matthew. You’re stalling.

Where does Paul depend on Matthew?

Where does Paul depend on Luke?

Where does Paul depend on John?

Show us.

aa5874

You have already admitted that Paul may have been aware of the gospels by claiming gMark preceeded Paul.

And again based on Justin Martyr, the writer Paul did not write his fiction about the letters to the churches yet.

Justin Martyr wrote about the memoirs of the apostles called gospels, the Acts of Pilate, a Revelation written by John but never once mentioned a single verse from Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline letters.

The letters were written after the gospel and gospels stories were already known and believed to be true.

Paul was absolutely aware of the gospels, only in the gospels was a character Simon called Peter or Cephas.

Simon Peter or Cephas did not exist.

Now, in the Pauline letters, the writer Paul refers to Simon Peter the apostle as Cephas, only in gJohn was "Cephas" used to refer to "Peter". The Synoptics did not used "Cephas" at all for the apostle Peter.

Paul was absolutely aware of the gospels, only in the gospels Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had supped. And only in gLuke did Jesus use the words "Do this in remembrance of me". No other author of the gospel used those words.

In the Pauline letters, Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night after he had supped and that Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me", but those are the words of the author of gLuke. Jesus did not exist.

Paul was absolutely aware of the gospels, only in the gospels Jesus promised his disciples they would speak in tongues.

Jesus did not exist, yet Paul claimed he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. The story of the day of Pentecost when Peter speaking in tongues was fiction, it is obvious that by the time Paul wrote that he may have thought the tongue talking story was true.

How did Paul get a fictitious tongue talking gift promised by the fiction Jesus? Because the non-event was believed to have happened when Paul was writing his own fiction about the seven churches that did not exist.

Loomis

But that doesn’t establish that Paul depends on Luke. It could mean that Luke was barrowing from Paul, or that they were both barrowing from an earlier collection of Jesus sayings.

mountainman

One must not forget that the provision of erroneous information about the very existence of Jesus the same God/man that the church writers themselves claim to worship, was not restricted to "church writers".

If we are to go by the academic analyses of Constantine's "Oration at Antioch" then we would see that the Roman emperor Constantine also contributed novel false data. For example, stuff like the following via Lane-Fox .....

"A dove, said Constantine, had alighted on the virgin mary,
like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark."

aa5874

Well, Paul claimed he received the chronology of events from Jesus which is total fiction. Paul must have gotten the information from some other source.

Paul has never claimed to be with Jesus on the night he was betrayed, or claimed he asked anyone about the night of the betrayal, he received his information from the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
In the NT, gLuke is the only source that used the words " this do in remembrance of me.

Luke 22.19 And further Paul placed himself after Jesus had left the earth, the author of Luke could not borrow information about the betrayal from Paul when Paul himself had to borrow his information from Jesus who art in heaven.

kcdad

This is a favorite line of yours.... does it bring you solace?

kcdad

Based on Fred Flintstone there is little or no evidence of George Washington, either.
NO indication that Jesus existed? ok.

He was not executed for blasphemy, he was executed for treason against Rome.

kcdad

Don't try to pin Hebrews on Paul... he most likely did not write it.

show_no_mercy

So wait, when was Mark written according to this timeline? More specifically, do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original (which includes the actual resurrection appearances, ascension, and talking in tongues), even though Justin Martyr seems to be unaware of it?