aa5874

I asked you for the sources of antiquity that you used to show that Paul was not aware of the Gospel.

You claimed Paul died before gLuke was written, but the source of antiquity that claimed Paul died during the time of NERO also claimed Paul was aware of the gLuke.

Why are you cherry-picking your information from the Church?

Tyro

how do you know that? is it even possible knowing that, since all letters in the MSS certainly must have been of the same size?

aa5874

How do we know anything?

Is there not a big G in the passage? Is there not a little g?



I can only deal with the information before me.

Tyro

perhaps it is better to find the correct information before dealing with it. I would be very surprised if the earliest manuscript concerning this passage shows any difference between a big and a small g. This is probably just the rendering of a translator, and not Jeromes own writing. In the earliest extant Suetonius manuscript in Claudius 25 "chresto" is written with a lower case c, but is still rendered as "Chrestus" with a capital C. Translations are not originals, so they make a bad base for conclusions, without the original text...

aa5874

Well, please tell me what is in the original "De Viris Illustribus" by Jerome. If you cannot then I would have to base my determination on what I have before me. Once you get the original I can always review the situation.

kcdad

You claimed Paul died before gLuke was written, but the source of antiquity that claimed Paul died during the time of NERO also claimed Paul was aware of Luke.
Because the Church is was and always will be unreliable.

Paul was aware of Luke just not "gLuke."

Tyro

Early manuscripts are majuscle- or minuscle manuscripts, so there is no way to check if a letter was ment to be written in lower case or higher case, and it did not matter either. I cannot understand how anyone can base an argument on the rendering of a latter in a _translation_....

aa5874

Well, if the Church is, was, and will always be unreliable, why do you continuously claim Paul died before gLuke was written.

It is the unreliable Church that claimed Paul lived in the 1st century.

It is the unreliable Church that canonised letters with the name Paul.

It is the unreliable Church that canonised Acts of the Apostles.

What sources of antiquity provide reliable information about Paul?

You relied on the unreliable for information about Paul.

From where did you get the name PAUL?

From the unreliable Church.

You must be joking.


Look again at De Viris Illustribus by Jerome.

The passage has WHICH and not WHO.

Jerome is claiming Paul was aware of gLuke.

And Eusebius in Church History is also claiming that Paul was aware of gLuke.

Church History by Eusebius It is clear that Paul was aware of gLuke according to the Church.

kcdad

Which refers to the companionship of all his journeying... if it meant what Luke had written, why does it not mention it in the following phrase? Who is the brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches...

You are WAAAA-AAAA-AAAAY too stubborn for me to continue this conversation. You not only don't understand Greek or English, but you don't understand written communication. Your false premises are far too obvious to everyone else reading this. BUH BYE.

Tyro

I agree with kcdad; stubbornness is not seldom to no gain for science. The one having the burden of proof is the one claiming a positive action actually took place, i.e. the one claiming Paul read the Gospels before writing his letters. People claiming there is no evidence of Paul knowing the Gospels, and thus that Paul did not know of them, need no proof at all, since they are not claiming any positive action took place. The one claiming Jesus were wearing a skirt cannot say "There is no evidence he didn't!" since that is a pseudoevidence at best. aa5874 has presented no evidence of the Gospels having been written before the Pauline epistles (which Marcion knew of in the second century), and since it's so, all similarities could be explained by Gospel writers reading Paul. Paul wrote about Cephas (without naming him either Peter nor Simon), James (Jacob) and John (Johannes), and these people are probably in the Gospels because the Gospel writers wanted to include the early apostles in their story about the starting of the sect. That is natural sectarian behaviour. As long as no evidence is shown, that the Gospels existed earlier than the epistles of Paul, and that Paul is quoting the Gospels (and not the other way around), the hypothesis that Paul knew of the Gospels is without support. End of discussion.