Doug Shaver

Which means it must be wrong, because the Church is infallible.

Spoken like a true Christian, aa.

aa5874

How on earth can you use the words of Paul to confirm Paul is truthful? You are actually making Paul infallible.

You need external sources to corroborate Paul.

How on earth can you prove that Paul did have revelations about Jesus? Why is Paul truthful?

Now, it is the same church writers who claimed Paul had revelations from Jesus that claimed Paul was aware of gLuke. Why don't you believe the church writer with respect to Paul and gLuke?

Now, there are no direct quotes or citations of the Gospels or Memoirs in Revelations, considered to have been written late, but even more fatal, is that John in Revelation has no direct quotes from any Pauline letter.

Revelations by John shows no Pauline influence.


But, something is wrong with your position. The Gospel writers, if they wrote after Paul, wrote about an eartly Jesus that was betrayed in the night after he had supped with the disciples.

The authors of the Gospels thought Jesus was on earth, that must have been from the Pauline influence if Paul wrote first.

Your position is just untenable, Paul wrote first, but yet, NO NT author or church writer was influenced by Paul's heavenly Jesus, all wrote about a Jesus that was on earth and was betrayed, crucified and resurrected on earth.

The Church writers did the complete opposite, they used the writings of Paul to contradict Marcion's phantom. The church writers completely contradict your heavenly theory.


But what "glasses" are you wearing? When you have your "glasses" on, you don't need to "see" any sources of antiquity, you just imagine that Paul is truthful.

And I have gone beyond "glasses", I am now using "telescopes", perhaps like Galileo, and what I "see" doesn't look good.

Paul was a back-dated fiction writer.

It is absurd and highly illogical to use the words of Paul to corroborate the veracity of the very Paul. This is most ridiculous.

The church writers claimed Paul was aware of gLuke and I can show you passages found in a Pauline epistle that are only found in gLuke.

You just cannot prove at all that Paul was not aware of gLuke using information that comes from the Church itself. You just cannot.

And what about your assertions that contradict the Church? Don't you have an obligation to provide your sources of antiquity that can prove your case against the Church.

According to the Church Paul was absolutely aware of gLuke, now what sources of antiquity will you use to prove the opposite?

Your imagination!

Tyro

"Show me a direct quote in the epistle called James. Not a single citation or direct attribution to any Gospel or Memoir can be found" - indeed it cannot, since the Gospels were not yet written or in circulation when "James" wrote his epistle =)

"The letters of Peter are considered to have been written late, after gMark, Peter was considered to have been a disciple of Jesus, yet there is nothing from the author of the epistles directly fom Jesus or directly from gMark." - Modern scholars do not think the letters of "Peter" are written by Peter. And also here the theory that the Gospels were not written is the best one, since, as you say, "Peter" does not quote any Gospels =)

"The SEVEN LATE epistles, James, Peter 1&2, John 1,2&3 and Jude have no direct quotes or citation from the Gospels." - No they have not, since the writers did not know of any Gospels, or didn't care about them for theological reasons =)

"You just cherry-pick what you believe. You don't care about the evidence, in fact, you claimed earlier that you don't need any sources of antiquity to supprt your position." - No, I don't need any evidence to conclude that the epistle writers seem unaware of any Gospels. As you say yourself, the epistle writers do not quote any Gospels. You have said yourself that no references to Gospels are made. If we do not find anything in the epistles confirming that the Gospels were used, why would the Gospels have been in circulation? The only basis of your assertion that Paul knew the Gospels are Church Fathers you do not even believe is speaking the truth, since you do not believe in Paul. Case closed.

Tyro

"Now, it is the same church writers who claimed Paul had revelations from Jesus that claimed Paul was aware of gLuke. Why don't you believe the church writer with respect to Paul and gLuke?" - For the simple reason that, as you say yourself, no traces of the Gospel of Luke can be found in the Pauline corpus.

"Revelations by John shows no Pauline influence." - Why is that important? Different Christian groups have their own theology. "Peter", Paul, the writer of Hebrews, Jude, "John", etc. had different theological viewpoints. Why would the other epistle writers be Pauline influenced? Not even according to the Standard Historicist Theory, in which these people were different apostles and followers of an earthly man, any Pauline influence in the other epistles is needed or even expected.

If the person who wrote the Pauline letters should be regarded as knowing about the written Gospels, we need some evidence thereof. Just looking at the Pauline corpus itself, and the other epistles, there is no evidence of Gospel knowledge, as you admit yourself. So regardless of the historicity of Paul, the person who wrote the Pauline epistles do not cite or quote the written Gospels, and can thus not be regarded as knowing them, whatever some later Church Father said about the matter. I do not see any reason to believe in an unsubstantiated claim by a Church Father, when the Pauline epistles show no influence from e.g. Luke.

Please read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty before stating more about the "inplausibility" of the "heavenly theory". Perhaps you can start with Richard Carrier's article on the subject. The "historical" view of the Gospels contradict the "heavenly" view of Paul, yes, and later the historical theory "won".

"Paul was a back-dated fiction writer." you say, without any evidence in support of this claim. Most scholars believe Paul was historical and wrote in the first century. Why don't you? Your argument seems to be "Paul lied, and thus he lied about not knowing the Gospels, and thus he knew the Gospels". Of course you see what's wrong here. You cannot just assume Paul is lying. And even if he were, there is still no evidence of the Pauline author/s knowing the written Gospels.

"It is absurd and highly illogical to use the words of Paul to corroborate the veracity of the very Paul." - So Paul automatically lied, and therefore anything you claim about him is true, even if he denies it? Stupid.

"You just cannot prove at all that Paul was not aware of gLuke using information that comes from the Church itself." - I am not. You are the one using the Church Fathers to claim Paul knew of the Gospels. I am only saying that Paul does not use e.g. Luke. Please show me where he is, and show that is not the other way around.

"Don't you have an obligation to provide your sources of antiquity that can prove your case against the Church." - I say as Doug above: "Which means it must be wrong, because the Church is infallible. Spoken like a true Christian, aa." The Church Fathers were NOT infallible. Just because a statement contradicts them, there is no need to present evidence for the statement, unless the counterstatement made by the Church Fathers is susbtantiated. The claim that Paul knew of Luke's Gospel is not.

You use statements from a Church you do not even believe in, and say that I need evidence to contradict the Church. Why would I? Why is the Church always right about Paul, even if you claim Paul did not even exist? You cannot have it both ways. Either Paul did exist, and then the statement that he knew Luke and Luke's Gospel can be even considered, or Paul did NOT exist, and then the statement about him knowing Luke cannot be true.

For me the case is closed. You have no evidence of Paul knowing the Gospels, except unsubstantiated claims by Church Fathers you do not generally agree with.

spamandham

No. The NT is not a single work, it's a compilation of works. It isn't valid to treat it as if it were a cohesive work.

aa5874

Are you Earl Doherty?

I am asking YOU what sources of antiquity support your claim that Paul was not aware of the Gospels?

Is it Ignatius, Clement, Papias, Hyppolytus, Irenaeus, Aristedes, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus or even Suetonius?

Belief does not always require evidence. Now, the same source of antiquity that claimed Paul was historical and wrote in the 1st century is the same source that claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

Why do you cherry-pick the information from the church about Paul?

Paul's letters, like all the other epistles, were not biographical but theological.



So, why do you assume Paul is telling the truth? I once assumed Jesus existed, but it appears that Jesus did not. And if Jesus was non-existant, then Jesus had no disciples, but the writer called Paul wrote that he met Peter, a non-existant disciple.

I think Paul was lying when he said he met Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. Peter did not exist.

And from where did Paul get the name Peter? It was Jesus who changed the name Simon to Peter. But Jesus did not exist.

Paul is a liar and a back-dated fiction writer.

- Well, what have you done when you refuse to accept that Paul was aware of gLuke as stated by the church writers and claim that he was not when you have no evidence whatsoever?

-

But you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. You make baseless assertions without supplying any sources of antiquity to support your claim.

Prove that Paul does not use gLuke. Supply the sources of antiquity that clearly show Paul did not use gLuke.

You cannot.

- So you are only obliged to make baseless and un-evidenced assertions.

Whatever you think or imagine is true and every-one else must provide evidence. You must be joking.

Once you admit the Church is not infallibe, then you must provide evidence for whatever you think is the true with respect to Paul.

Please prove or supply sources of antiquity that clearly show Paul did not use gLuke or was not aware of gLuke.

Your logics is completely flawed.

I do not have to believe in the Church to read and examine the writings of the Church. In "De Viris Illustribus" Jerome wrote that Paul was aware of gLuke and in Church History, Eusebius wrote a similar note.

Now, some-one or some persons wrote the epistles and it is my position that all of them were[b] absolutely aware of the Gospels or the Memoirs, they all wrote after Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr mentioned the Gospels or the Memoirs.

But, it is the same unsubstantited Church Fathers that claimed Paul did exist in the 1st century and died under Nero.

Well, are you then agreeing with me that Paul was an unsubstantiated character as presented by the Church Fathers?

In ther fiction story presented by the Church, the fiction character Paul was aware of gLuke.

Tyro

"And if Jesus was non-existant, then Jesus had no disciples, but the writer called Paul wrote that he met Peter, a non-existant disciple." - No, Paul does not. Paul wrote he met Cephas, not Peter. Paul did NOT say Cephas was a disciple. Even if Jesus did not exist and had no disciples, Paul could still have met a Cephas in Jerusalem. The argument is invalid.

"Well, what have you done when you refuse to accept that Paul was aware of gLuke as stated by the church writers and claim that he was not when you have no evidence whatsoever?" - I have said only that the epistles do not support such a notion, whatever the Church claimed.

"But you are doing exactly what you accuse me of." - I assume nothing. I do not find traces of Luke's Gospel in the Pauline corpus. Do you? No sources are STILL needed for a negative statement.

"Whatever you think or imagine is true and every-one else must provide evidence." - No, that is not the case. Anyone claiming something positive has to provide evidence. I only say you lack support for the theory that the writer of the Pauline epistles knew of the Gospels.

"Once you admit the Church is not infallibe, then you must provide evidence for whatever you think is the true with respect to Paul." - I say the same to you. If the Church is not infallible, why would they be right about Paul using Luke?

"some-one or some persons wrote the epistles and it is my position that all of them were absolutely aware of the Gospels or the Memoirs," - Then, please state your evidence for this notion. Which are your evidence for Paul or the other epistle writers knowing of the Gospels? You said yourself that they do NOT use the Gospels.

"Well, are you then agreeing with me that Paul was an unsubstantiated character as presented by the Church Fathers?" - I only say that if you think the Church fathers were wrong about Paul, it is a flaw in your reasoning to say that they are right about Paul knowing about Luke's Gospel.

Please understand that I do not have to prove either that Paul existed or anything else, to simply state that there are no traces of the Gospels in the Pauline or other epistles. There are no disciples, no Calvary, Mary, no Simon Peter etc. The "seeing" of Jesus by Paul, is not any viewing of the risen Jesus on earth, just by looking at the text. You impose the Gospels on Paul, and thus see parallells. I common source does not mean Paul knew about the Gospels.

Please state where Paul or others are using the Gospels.

aa5874

But look at KJV Galatians 1.18 What makes you so sure that the writer called Paul could have met a Cephas in the 1st century in Jerusalem?

When did Paul write Galatians 1.18?

So, you don't have any evidence for your claims.

I have shown you Jerome in De Viris Illustribus and Eusebius in Church History.

You show me nothing.

But, you must assume when you have no evidence. Did you not assume that there was a person called Paul who wrote epistles before the Gospels?

Paul did not ever claim he wrote his epistles before the Gospels, why did you assume he did?

Your "positive claim" theory is just absurd.

You think you claim is negative and does not need evidence when in actuality you are claiming Paul wrote before he was aware of the Gospels. or Paul wrote before the historical Jesus was established.[/b]

You simply cannot produce any sources of antiquity to support your claim.

-

So, why do you think Paul wrote in the 1st century when it was the Church that provided the information about Paul.

Paul claimed he was in a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas but he may have been wrong about Aretas with respect to Damascus. Paul is not infallible.

Now if Paul is wrong about Aretas, then there is no internal source to date the Pauline epistles.

-

I don't need to provide any evidence. All I HAVE TO DO IS TO MAKE ALL MY CLAIMS NEGATIVE.

This is my negative claim: Paul did NOT write before the Gospels.

Now, I don't need evidence.

But, seriously, Justin Martyr did not write anything about Paul, the letters of Paul, Acts of the Apostles or any gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Based on Justin's writings, the Pauline letters appear not to exist up to the middle of the 2nd century.

-

All that is known about Paul comes from the Church.

Now, you think that Jerome and Eusebius were wrong about Paul's knowledge of gLuke, why do you think the church writers were correct when they claimed Paul lived and died during the 1st century.

But, it is completely false to claim that there is no trace of the Gospels in the Pauline letters when Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven and coming back a second time.

And Paul quoted passages found only in gLuke consistent with the words of Jerome and Eusebius that Paul was aware of gLuke.

See Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Tyro

"But look at KJV Galatians 1.18" - The King James Version is a TRANSLATION, not the Greek text. The text says Cephas (see note in the New International Version).

"So, you don't have any evidence for your claims. I have shown you Jerome in De Viris Illustribus and Eusebius in Church History. You show me nothing." - I do not have to show you anything. I am not making any claims. I am saying you have no evidence Paul used the Gospels. Jerome and Eusebius wrote very late, and you do not even regard them as truthworthy when it comes to Paul.

"Did you not assume that there was a person called Paul who wrote epistles before the Gospels?" - I do not have to assume this to state that you have no evidence for Paul using the Gospels.

"Your 'positive claim' theory is just absurd." - This is no "theory". It is basic science. The one claiming something ought to prove it. We cannot believe in anything based only on an unsubstantiated statement.

"This is my negative claim: Paul did NOT write before the Gospels." - Okay. That is not the important issue here anyway. You claim Paul knew of the Gospels. Even if he did not write before the Gospels were written, where is the evidence of him using the Gospels?

"But, it is completely false to claim that there is no trace of the Gospels in the Pauline letters when Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed, crucified, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven and coming back a second time." - Paul did claim Jesus was crucified and rose on the third day (1 Cor 15:4). Paul does not say Jesus was betrayed by Judas, but that he was handed over. Paul does not either say that Jesus would come back "a second time", but only that Christ would arrive. That Paul believed Christ was cruicified and risen does not in any way imply that he knew of the written Gospels.

"Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν " - Luke 22:19
"Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν" - 1 Cor 11:24
"This is My body given for you" - Luke
"This is My body, which is broken for you." - 1 Corinthians (Amplified Bible)
Close, but no direct quote, and Paul does not say that he got the information from the Gospel of Luke, but that he "received from the Lord Himself" this (1 Corinthians 11:24).

Even if Paul wrote after the Gospels had been written, he does not quote or cite any Gospel. Even if the Gospel writers did not use the Pauline epistles, they could have used a common source for this kind of information. There is still no evidence of Paul being "absolutely aware of the Gospels".

aa5874

-

So, why did the KJV translators write Peter instead of Cephas? Peter and Cephas may have been regarded as the same character.

Now, if the writer called Paul wrote Cephas, then this admission makes it even more likely that Paul wrote after the Gospels.

Examine the Synoptics [KJV], gMatthew, gMark and gLuke, it is noticed that no auhor used the word Cephas as a name for Simon, they all used Peter. It would appear the authors of the Synoptics did not see Paul's "Cephas".

Now look at gJohn [KJV], this is the only author that used "Cephas" and it was Jesus according to John who called Simon the name Cephas.

It could not be or it is highly unlikely for Paul to receive such information by revelation, it is more likely he was aware of gJohn's rendition of how Simon was named Cephas.

JohN 1:42 - Now, where did Paul get the name Jesus, Peter and Cephas from?

Paul never claimed he was the first to write about Jesus, Peter, or Cephas.

Why do you make such a claim without any evidence at all?



You are making counter-claims. But you have admitted that you don't have any evidence, or that you do not have to produce any evidence.

So your counter-claims are worthless.

Now, what source of antiquity can prove Paul wrote early? You have no evidence that Paul wrote early except for Paul's words which are not infallible.

Paul made a claim that he was in a basket in Damascus during the time of Aretas and there seems to be some problem with the statement. Aretas was possibly not in control of Damascus.

Paul does not appear to know who was in control of Damascus when he was in the basket. Perhaps Paul was writing so late, long after the middle of the 2nd century, that he could not get his story straight.


- But, you must have assumed Paul did exist and wrote before the Gospel. Isn't that your fundamental assumption?

You have no evidence. You must assume.


-

But, earlier did you not say or claim Paul's Jesus was heavenly or spritual? How do you intend to prove that? No church writer ever claimed Paul's Jesus was only heavenly, Paul did not claim his Jesus was only spiritual.

Tertullian used Paul's writings to counter Marcion's phantom Jesus.

Your rendition of Paul's Jesus is actually unsubstantiated.

-

Where did Paul get the name Jesus from? Who told Paul Jesus was betrayed, crucified, died and resurrected on the third day when Jesus did not even exist in the 1st century and who told Paul that Simon was called Cephas and also Peter?

It is unlikely that it was by revelations. Jerome and Eusebius claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.


So the Pauline letters do indeed have traces of the Gospel.

Now, how on earth are you going to prove or show that Paul did not know the written Gospels when his letters have information about Jesus that is found in the written Gospels?



But how on earth can you prove that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11 before Luke 22? Paul never claimed he wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written.

But, no author of the Gospels wrote about Paul or Saul. The authors used other sources or copied from one another. No author of the Gospels wrote about the Pauline churches.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Pauline letters were known, seen, or written up to the middle of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr did not mention one single word about Paul, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline churches or the gifts of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

But Justin mentioned Marcion.

The Pauline letters were written after the Gospel or Memoirs were already written and known.

Paul is a back-dated fiction writer and was absolutely aware of the Gospels.