aa5874

Look at the words again that CLEARLY show that reference was made to the Gospel that Luke wrote.

It is clear Paul is making a statement which concerns the Gospel that Luke wrote.


Jerome in De Viris IllustribusJerome is claiming that Paul was aware of a written Gospel according to an author called Luke.

And in which century are you telling me that Eusebius wrote in the 4th century?

What century did Homer write about Achilles and claimed he was the offspring of a sea-goddess?

What century did Josephus write about Alexander the Great?

It is written in Church History that it was said that Paul was aware of gLuke.

There is no extant information from the Church that Paul was not aware of the Gospels.

Well, why don't you prove that your position is truthful? You have not been able to show me the truth from sources of antiquty.

Please tell me the truth about Paul and please provide the sources of antiquity that clearly show that your are true with respect to Paul, that he was truthfully not aware of the Gospels.

You simply do not understand the difference between fictious events and a description of the very events.

The NT is a compilation of fiction, and in the NT, Paul was aware of gLuke.

This is the story of the Church, Paul was aware of gLuke.

Now, if you think Paul was not aware of gLuke, then you must prove it.

It is obvious you can't.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels and wrote after Justin Martyr.

IamJoseph

Paul [and thereby the entire Gospels] lost this battle. The law is not dead, except for Paul's Law, and all that happened is it became the world's greatest stabliser - using the Gospel pushers as the vehicle: the world's institutions turn by the Hebrew laws and none come from the Gospels.

'YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS LAW.'

The entire universe turns via majestic laws. The absence of laws equal chaos.

spamandham

Paul is not mentioned in any of the Gospels, nor did Paul write a Gospel.

IamJoseph

:constern01:

The same is also claimed of Mohammed. But both these revelations are contradictory - theologically, historically, geographically and in the math [dates]. Its either Protocolian stuff, or at least, one of these revelations belongs to be called Protocols and Blood Libels falsehood - two falsehoods coming from Europe, and both charges seen in pre-christian Roman and Greek archives repeatedly and upto 200 years previously.

This, IMHO, says three things:

1. It was written by Romans much after the fact. The hatred of Jews, Monotheism, and no image worship, was seen as vile by the pre-christian Romans, giving a clear motive for writing [inventing] such charges when there are no evidential crimes described: the pre-christian hatred resulted in a Pre-christian European Holocaust - over a million Jews sacrficed themselves and their country against the Roman decree of Heresy in 70 CE. The issue of 'conspiracy' appears a retrospectve description, seen from the Gospels lens as opposed that of the Hebrews - where it correctly belongs, christianity not being existant at this time. Conspiracy becomes a mute point when there is a clear opposition of the existant laws - again inferring a Roman perspective here, when there was a genocidal decree of HERESY hovering over Judea. It begs the question, how could Jesus escape the Roman decrees, and instead the focus is deflected on the Jews!? It seems incredible that any Jews' actions can be described as a conspiracy what was their primal and fulcrum belief against divine humans for 2000 years before the Gospels emerged - the conspiracy clearly points at its accusers - the Romans and Greeks who wrte in Latin!

2. There is no proof of this charge - when there should be. Many Roman archives describe a host of trials, even much minor ones: why not the Gospel contained one, which describes a trial involving many prominent Jewish figures the Romans soon would massacre?

3. The Gosples has many Nazi-like doctrines and verses, much omitted by Gospel preachers, and is in this sense very similar to some things seen in the Quran. If a good, honest and brave christian sees the UnGodly folly of such Quranic verses as 'JEWS ARE BORN OF APES AND DOGS' - they have to confront such verses as 'JEWS ARE BORN OF DEVILS' in their own scriptures [John]. This is a factor which makes European Christian silent when horrific antisemitism from the Middle-east is inflicted on the Jews. Such villifications should be deemed a crime against humanity and be legally banned - not for the benefit of the Jews, but for that of Christians and Muslims. If these scriptures are talking Godliness, then this applies:

'A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER'.

kcdad

Paul's statement concerning Luke's Gospel is an interpolation... Jerome doesn't know what Paul was referring to... he presumes, as you do, based on how he wants to understand the world. Paul's statement doesn't refer to a written Gospel account AT ALL.


Even were he he, it wouldn't be evidence that Paul was... it would only be evidence of Jerome's error. .. er ... opinion.

I am telling you in the 21st century, Eusebius wrote in the 4th century.
What century did Homer write about Achilles and claimed he was the offspring of a sea-goddess?
Unless he wrote in the last year of his life, he wrote in the first century CE.
Show me. Nothing you have presented so far demonstrates that claim. The vast overwhelming consensus of scholars agree that Paul's letters were written before 70CE and Luke's Gospel not until late 80s.
gospel... small g (meaning good news, the teachings of Jesus) not Gospel (meaning written narrative)

Which sources from antiquity would you use to prove the solar system is heliocentric?

He died BEFORE they were written.

How does one "describe" fictious(sic) events?

well there you go.

Ok... (By "the Church", you mean Jerome? Or do you mean an official Vatican position?) Paul and Luke are both fictitious, right?

If they are fictional as you say, that would be idiotic to try. It would be one giant mental masturbation to even consider it.

Paul, the fictitious writer? Was Justin Martyr fictitious, too?

kcdad

So does society, but that doesn't keep people from violating and creating new laws...

IamJoseph

If this means the NT instead of the Gospels - does it impact?

aa5874

An interpolation? Well, please tell me what Paul wrote originally and from what source of antiquity you derived your information of the interpolation?

What source of antiquity do you intend to use to show that Jerome did not know what Paul was referring to?

And what source of antiquity did you use to believe that you understand or know what Jerome understood?



And that would your.....er.....opinion. And your .....er....opinion would not be .......er.....evidence.

All I need from you is .....er......a source of antiquity that ....er....supports your position.

So far you have produced....er...nothing...but your .......er...opinion.

You....... err.


Why do you think that what you write 1600 years after Eusebius carries more weight than his writings.

Maybe if it was not for Eusebius there would not have been any information or stories about the character called Saul/Paul.

But, how can you prove Josephus wrote in the 1st century?

You don't really have to prove that Josephus wrote in the 1st century, all you need is to provide some source of antiquity that made such a claim.

Now, please provide a source of antiquity that can support your belief that Paul was not NOT aware of the Gospels.

It is obvious that you cannot.

I will show you again.

Church History by Eusebius Now, you show me the source of antiquity that claimed Paul was NOT aware of the Gospels.

I am looking for sources of antiquity to support your claims, I think you can pay scholars to disagree with one another. I have seen experts come up with completely opposite opinions after they were paid.

Vast amount of scholars disagree. I am not just interested in their opinions but the source of antiquity of which they have formed their opinion.

What or where is your source of antiquty that clearly show Paul was not aware of the Gospel?

Your opinion of me or dis-agreements are worthless, irrelevant and without merit until you can find sources of antiquity to support your position.



Jerome used a big G in De Viris Illustribus.

You see the big G in Gospel?

The big G is about the little g.

You see the little g in gospel.?

That's for astonomers to answer.

Now, why don't you prove that your postion is true or provide sources of antiquity that can show that you are truthful about Paul?

WHAT! This is incredible! There is no such information anywhere in any source of antiquity, you are making stuff up.

The Church claimed Paul died sometime before the death of Nero and it is the very Church that claimed it was said Paul was aware of gLuke.


Acts 9 is a good example. It describes the fictitious miraculous conversion of Saul/Paul.


You mean Jerome had nothing whatsoever to do with the Church and that your position is the Vatican's position, that Paul was NOT aware of the Gospels?

It can be shown that Eusebius and Jerome claimed or wrote that Paul was aware of gLuke.

It is your claim that gLuke was written after Paul died that cannot be supported by sources of antiquity.

You write fiction about the contents of sources of antiquity.[/b]

Amaleq13

And it never will be because it can't be demonstrated as true. It can only be asserted through faith in the beliefs of the early Church Fathers. Keep in mind that these are the same Christian authors your interlocutor elsewhere declares fabricated their history. Yes, the same history he is now partially relying upon as factual.

So, in order to be just as convinced, you need to accept the clearly disingenuous position that the Church Fathers were simultaneously producing fiction and reliable history and also the blatantly arbitrary treatment of the information as one or the other depending on your argument. Oh, and you also need to accept the logical fallacy of expecting the opposing view to prove a negative.

Not ready to have the necessary lobotomy?

Then you should stop doing this -> :banghead:

The only reason to continue is for any confused lurkers but I suspect that any who don't already recognize what is going on here are beyond help.

You can't argue with a sermon, amigo. It is one way communication.

kcdad

here... have fun

http://www.google.com/search?q=when+...itle&resnum=11

Luke was written after Mark... when was Mark written?