aa5874

I was posting waaaaa-aaaaaaaa-aaaaay long before you entered the discussion.

I don't ever say buh-bye.

This is Jerome in De Viris Illustribus. It is very easy to understand
This is another easily understood passage. Eusebius in Church History It is obvious that the Church propagated that Paul was absolutely aware of gLuke.

aa5874

But what evidence have you presented to prove Paul did exist in the 1st century or that he did write before the Gospels?

You have produced nothing at all.

Once letters with the name Paul are under investigation then you must find sources of antiquity EXTERNAL to the letters.

It is absurd and illogical to use the words of the writer called Paul to CORROBORATE the very same writer when it has already been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul.

Now, it is very Church who PROPAGATED that Marcion knew the Pauline letters that propagated Paul was aware of gLuke.

Why don't you accept the written statements, the evidence, from Jerome and Eusebius?

This is Eusebius in Church History:

This is Jerome in De Viris Illustribus Why do you believe the Church when they wrote about Marcion and you refuse to accept the Church, including Jerome and Eusebius, when they propagated that Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels?

You sources of antiquity, the writings of the church, do not support your view that Paul was not aware of the Gospels.

Tyro

I think Earl Doherty has some strong arguments for a historical Paul at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset25.htm#Dmitry

Tyro

Paul seems unaware of an historical Jesus. It is the spiritual powers who cruicified Jesus, in Paul's mind.

Paul could have been an historical person in the first century, even if he did not know the author of the Gospel of Luke. That the Church fathers were wrong about details in the lifes of Peter and Paul doesn't make Peter and Paul fictous. Since Paul seems unaware of an historical Jesus, he also seems not to have read the Gospels, as the Gospels speak of an historical Jesus. Like Doherty and others say, the Pauline corpus seems to be a first century product. If Paul had known about the Gospels he would have used them, and why not even cite them. He does not.

The Lord (God) has given Paul the information about Jesus:

It is not from a written Gospel Paul is given this information, according to this statement, since

Paul is not lying here, just because you want him to be. I see no reason to doubt Paul's statement that he got his εὐαγγέλιον, evangelion, "by revelation from Jesus Christ", in his own mind, and not by reading e.g. the Gospel of Luke. Before Justin, the word was not used mainly to designate certain Christian scriptures.

Even if Paul had been unhistorical, I see no evidence of the person writing the Pauline epistles having any knowledge of the written Gospels. The source seems to be revelation from God, about a "person" cruicified by spiritual powers.

aa5874

I am asking you for sources of antiquity that support your position that Paul was not aware of the Gospels, you have not done so as yet.

You have no strong arguments for your position with respect to the OP.

Some-one or a multiplicity of persons wrote the letters with the name Paul, but based on Justin Martyr, these person or persons appear to have written sometime after his writings , and Justin mentioned the MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLES or Gospels.

aa5874

You use the words of Paul to corroborate the very words of Paul. How non-sensical!

You must use some other source of antiquity to corroborate Paul.

Don't you understand that the writings with the name Paul are under investigation.

The writer called Paul claimed he was in Damascus during the time of Aretas, is that true? You, most obviously and logically, cannot use Paul's words to confirm Paul's own words, you must USE some other credible source.

If I told you that I am in Damascus right now, and you suspected that I was lying, you would use some other source to try and establish if I was truthful.

The very same must be done with Paul, he claimed he was not lying, so to find out if he was truthful some other source must be used, unless Paul is infallible.

Galations 1:20 -
You must also understand that ALL the letters in the NT have very little about Jesus Christ on earth. The epistles that are even claimed to have been written after the Pauline Epistles have virtually nothing about Jesus while he was on earth.

1. The epistle with the name James, supposedly the brother of Jesus, has almost no one single thing about Jesus on earth.

2. The epistles with the name Peter have the same problem, they are not biographical with respect to Jesus Christ.

3. The epistles called John are just the same with Jesus. Historically starved.

4. The epistle from Jude also is not primarily about the life of Jesus on earth, the epistle appears to be theological or doctrinal.

5. The epistle called 1st Clement is not a biography of Jesus.

6. The epistles with the name Ignatius are not biographies of Jesus.


It must be clear by now that epistles, assumed to have been written after the Pauline letters, also have very little informatiion about the life of the supposed Jesus on earth.

These epistles are similar to the Pauline letters, even though written later, there is virtually no information about Jesus.



Again, it is obvious the letters of Paul were written, but we are trying to find out when the writer or writers wrote these letters.

Based on Justin, the epistles of Paul appears to be after Justin's writings.





Now, why do you believe you can read Paul's mind?


But the writer called Paul claimed Jesus broke bread with his disciples and was betrayed in the night. See 1 Corinthians 11.23-26
And further Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected on earth. According to Paul, some of the 500 died. These people must have died or fallen asleep on earth based on Paul.

1Co 15:6 -
Paul was absolutely aware of the Gosples. The lack of details of Jesus in the Pauline letters is consistent with other later letters that have no details about Jesus.

Tyro

I do not need any "sources of antiquity that support [the [negative] position that Paul was not aware of the Gospels". I only need the Pauline epistles themselves, and in them, no apparent trace of the Gospels can be seen. Where is the citations, the direct quotes and the attribution of any written Gospel or "memoir"? Surely the Gospel authors and Paul sometimes believed the same (that Jesus was crucified for example), but that does of course not mean that Paul had read the Gospels. Paul says he did not get his information from any human, which he had been, if he had read the Gospels. If the readers knew of the Gospels, and Paul uses them, how could he get away with the asertion that he did not get the information from any human? Or is it all a conspiracy to make people believe the Pauline epistles were written before the Gospels? For what purpose? You still has to present evidence for Paul actually using e.g. the Gospel of Luke, and not just quote Church Fathers you don't even believe speaks the truth...

Tyro

Yes, I know. The epistles you mention do not speak of a Jesus on earth, since the epistle writers are unaware of such a figure, and thus also unaware of the Gospel stories. If the authors would have been reading the Gospel stories, and believed in them, surely they also would have quoted them.

There is no mention of any disciples in the text, and the Greek word for "betray" (paradidōmi) could also simply mean "hand over", "deliver", as in Romans 6:17, "that form of doctrine which was delivered you". If you do not read the Gospel into the passages of Paul, you do not interpret Paul as confirming the Gospels. Paul could have ment that the spiritual Christ Jesus broke bread in a vision, and afterwards was handed over to the spiritual powers which crucified him.

Yes, Christ Jesus was seen (Greek verb optanomai) by 500 brothers in a brotherhood of faith, just like he was seen by Paul himself, "last of all he was seen [the same Greek verb] of me also" (1 Cor 15:8). You say he was seen "on earth", but Paul does not say that. You are forcing the Gospels on the Pauline text, and of course then you believe Paul knew of the Gospels. Never in the Gospels are any 500 brothers mentioned, by the way. People had visions of Christ Jesus, and Paul, James and the 500 brothers were amongst these people. Noone claims Paul met the risen Christ on Earth, so why would the others have had done so. It is not at all unprobable that some of the brothers in the brotherhood did die after the mass-revelation session they apparently "saw" the spiritual Christ Jesus during.

Tyro

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:1. In 2 Corinthians 12:9 Paul even "quotes" Jesus: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.", a "quote" apparently not deriving from the written Gospels. Apparently, Paul has "seen" Jesus just like the other apostles have "seen" him - in visions, revelations from God. John, the one writing Revelation, also gets a "revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1). This is not taking place in the Gospel environment. Paul is unaware of any earthly Jesus Christ, and he "did not receive [his information] from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". I do not need any secondary source to "prove" what was in Pauls mind - I just look at what Paul is writing, just like I do not need to be inside your head to see that you are clearly just reading the Pauline epistles with "Gospel glasses", and thus see what you apparently want to see - some kind of match between the epistles and the Gospels, even though there are none. You have claimed Paul mentions disciples at the "last supper", Jesus being seen "on earth" and that Paul mentions a "Simon Peter". These are all unsubstantiated claims, without any support in the epistles themselves. I still don't see the parallells you're desperately trying to convince people there are. I haven't got the burden of proof for my negative statement. You have to prove your assertion that there are traces of the Gospels in the Pauline epistles (and that Paul is not used by the Gospel authors, or that the Gospel authors and Paul were using the same source).

aa5874

Of course you need evidence. Your position is contrary to the Church.

You cannot just say Paul was not aware of the Godpels and expect people to believe your baseless unevidenced statement.

No church writer ever claimed the Paul wrote before the Gospels.



As I mentioned before, you cannot find any citations, any direct quotes from other epistles that are considered to have been written later than the Pauline letters and even after the Gospels.

Examine the epistle called James.

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, yet the epistle called James is considered to heve been written after gMark.

Look at the epistles called Peter 1&2.

Show me a direct quote, a single citation from the Gospel or Memoir. 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.

Examine the letters called John 1, 2 &3.

These epistles are considered to be late, written after the Pauline letters, but show me a direct quote or citation from the Gospel or Memoirs.

There are none.

Look at the epistle called Jude.

There are no direct quotes or citations from the Gospels or Memoirs.

It must be clear by now that absence of direct quotes from the Gospels are also an indication that the epistles were written late.

Your theory has been destroyed. The SEVEN LATE epistles, James, Peter 1&2, John 1,2&3 and Jude have no direct quotes or citation from the Gospels.


So, how come you don't believe the Church writers when they wrote that Paul was aware of gLuke?

How come you believe there was a person called Paul and that he wrote before gMatthew?

The church writers claimed gMatthew was written first.

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.