Steven Carr

And why some early manuscripts of Luke do not have this identical wording.

dog-on

I suppose that the only manuscript that actually means anything is the one we do not have...

Solo

My request ? I am afraid if you read my comment as a request for a table service from yourself, you have badly misread the text.

Jiri

dog-on

Not a request? Cool.

Solo

Oh, I see. I thought it was obvious you would have to explain the absence of the sacrament if you wanted to make sense. But, as far as I'm concerned, there was no request in that. Whether you want to make sense is strictly your option.

But surely, dog-on, you understand my point. If Jesus in heaven told Paul exactly what Luke sources told Luke Jesus said to his company on earth, then the twelve could not have just give up serving the tables in favour of "preaching the word of God". Why not ? Because Paul (supposedly) invokes the word of the Lord, as a way of reminding the Corinthian slobs what the twelve (ok, eleven) in Jerusalem already know about the sacrament.

Follow ? Good.

So, if there was a sacramental meal tradition in Jerusalem based on the words of Jesus, then the recipients of that grace would not have franchised it to the Hellenists (subsequently expulsed). If Jesus had bade on earth: "Do this (and this) in remembrance of me !" it would have bound the whole church, and the twelve as part of "the ministry of the word". This is not AfS; this is an inconguity arguing for the late origin of the sacrament and its subsequent smuggling into the earliest traditions.

Jiri

dog-on

Did I ever say that I thought that the eucharist was original to Paul, or that I thought that it was not, in the form we all know and love, a late addition?

Do you know what a reach around is?

Rick Sumner

Why do you think it's relevant to my point here if he "came to Earth" or not?

Rick Sumner

The entire purpose of Paul's argument--of the "tortured exegesis" as its often called--is to argue that he is not contradicting the Law. Whether we find him persuasive or not, he did not think he was in contradiction, and explains why.

Sheshbazzar

That Paul taught that the Gentiles were justified by faith without 'the works of The Law' (specifically -circumcision- in this case, but also many other 'ordinances' that are the sole obligation to those who are 'The children of Israel' according to the flesh), does NOT contradict The Law of YHWH as given by Moses; Rather it reminds and calls for those born under The Law to give way and allow The Law to operate as intended with respect towards those called ' Gentiles', For it is evident throughout The Law and The Prophets, that though the Nation of Israel rise to preeminence above all other nations, yet these 'other' nations would also come to worship YHWH, being blessed by Him, along with His people, and yet still remain distinctly 'other nations' unto the 'ends of time'.

The 'Law' of YHWH did not, and does not, ever require 'Gentiles' to become 'Jews', or to live according to those myrid 'Jewish' dictates and 'decisions' imposed upon those whose standing is secured by right of a claim to an inheritance which is through the flesh.
(unless they willingly undergo circumcision_ only then do they also become as debtor's to 'DO all the words of The Law')

In this matter it is Paul who is the defender of The Law, against those who would willfully disregard that liberty which The Law ever allows to those who are 'gentiles' and righteous 'strangers'.

Was Paul a rabbi? What is it that makes a man a rabbi?
Garnering the approval and the appointment of men?
or of Elohim?
In this it is evident to me at least, that it was Paul who was setting forth a higher respect for what The Law teaches, than that of his 'Judaising' opponents.

aa5874

The usual signs that the author of Luke knew the Pauline writings are virtually missing.

In fact the Synoptics are very good material to help to identify when an author may be aware of or may know of some previous source.

One of the indications that an author maybe aware of some writing is wholesale copying of passages from the suspected source.

Another indication is sequence of passages or phrases from the suspected writing.

In gLuke and Acts of the Aposles, there are wholesale copying of passages from Hebrew Scripture, there are over 50 passages from Hebrew scriptures, but there is only one passage where there appears to be copying either from gLuke to the Epistle or the reverse from the Epistle to gLuke.

And the Pauline writer will say how he got his information.

This is the so-called Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34 - The Pauline writer's explanation is not likely to be true. He most likely got his information about the Last Supper from some human source, not a heavenly source.

The Pauline writer may have read gLuke.

Another indication that the Pauline writer was after the author of Acts can be found in Galatians where Paul appears to be correcting the author of Acts about his travels to Jerusalem.

This is the Pauline writer claiming he is not a liar in Galatians.1.15-20

The Pauline writer was likely to have read Acts of the Apostles where the author, commonly called Luke, claimed he did leave Damascus and went to Jerusalem to see the apostles. There is no mention at all of Paul in Arabia in Acts. See Acts 9.

There are indications that the Pauline writings were after gLuke and Acts of the Apostles and he most likely got his information about the Last Supper from a human source.