aa5874

Again, I am dealing with the DATED NT manuscripts, sources that are compatible with them, WRITTEN statements ACTUALLY found in the Pauline writings, Acts and other sources to make logical deductions.

I cannot PRESUME. Presumptions and Assumptions are unacceptable--worthless.

Apologetic Sources that mention Paul claimed he wrote Epistles EXCEPT Acts of the Apostles.

Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul just ONCE and TWICE claimed he wrote Epistles.

The author of Acts dedicated 13 chapters of Acts to the SECOND visits of Paul to Churches around the Roman Empire and NEVER once claimed Paul wrote letters in ADVANCE of his arrival.

Please, based on Apologetic sources Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written and this is Compatible with the DATED NT manuscripts.

Commetary on Matthew attributed to OrigenSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4

The DATED NT manuscripts support the claim by Apologetic sources that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written. Papyrus 4, fragments of gLuke are dated by Paleography within the same time period of P46, the Pauline letters, the late 2nd -3rd century.

I will ONLY review or modify my position when NEW credible evidence becomes available since I longer accept presumptions and assumptions.

There is ZERO dated Texts of antiquity to support any claim that Paul started any Churches or was the first to preach the Jesus story.

The Pauline letters are NO earlier than the mid 2nd century and are Anti-Marcionite Texts.

aa5874

Please, you are wasting your time.

People here understand the significance of the thread.

There is ZERO evidence in the Pauline letters that Paul founded any Church.

Paul PERSECUTED the Church of God. The Church of God ALREADY existed BEFORE Paul preached the Faith in the Pauline writings.

Show us EXACTLY where in the Pauline letters it is claimed he founded the Churches of Rome???

Show us EXACTLY where in the Pauline letter it is claimed he founded the Churches of Corinth???

Show us EXACTLY where Paul claimed he founded the Churches of Galatia???

Show us EXACTLY where Paul claimed he founded the Churches of Thesalonica??

Show us EXACTLY where Paul claimed he founded the Churches of the Philippians.

Show us EXACTLY where Paul claimed he founded the Churches of the Ephesians

Show us EXACTLY where Paul claimed he founded the Churches of the Colossians???

You are dealing with Chinese Whispers and have NOTHING at all to support your unsubstantiated rumors that Paul founded Churches.

The Dated NT manuscripts do NOT support your imagination.

The Pauline letters P 46 are dated to the 2nd mid 2nd-3rd century.

Grog

Who's to say Paul is honest? We all know that Paul himself hints at his own deceptions (or what could be interpreted as such).

Grog

True, but establishing those facts is a point of contention. AA has a point on that. What constitutes a "fact" when we are talking about the Jesus that actually existed in history?

"Jesus was crucified by Pilate."

Is that a fact? A whole lot of history is done with this being an underlying assumptive "fact." In his book, DJE? Ehrman admits that he had never heard the proposition, had never even considered it, until recently. He based his entire career until very recently on the unexamined assumption that "Jesus was crucified by Pilate." He then writes a book that retroactively confirms his presupposition, the presupposition upon which he built his career.

How do we establish this as a "fact" of history?

Duvduv

In posting #38 I asked about the question of the pre-Paul "churches" in relation to Galatians. Since the overall correct gospel was in the hands of Saul/Paul, which had to include preaching to Jews and gentiles since it was revealed directly by the risen Christ, how could "Churches in Judea" have been flourishing when Saul was a persecutor if their gospel doctrine was INCOMPLETE just a couple of years after the crucifixion??

Of course Acts does not even go into the details of comprised the pre-Paul gospel, how it differed from the Pauline gospel, and why it was more successful than the failed preaching of Paul to Jews just a few years later (despite his commission to the gentiles), or why Jesus changed his mind once he went to heaven.

The total extent of confusion and contradictions was ignored by the orthodox church despite all the great philosophers it had at its disposal. How could they have been so sloppy either when putting together the texts or creating their canon?!

Bronzeage

This is a bizarre thread.

It seems as if aa5874 is trying to set a trap for someone and is frustrated that others keep standing on it.

Horatio Parker

The conventional wisdom is that Paul wrote before the Gospel narratives were composed. So one could reasonably expect not to see the Gospels referenced in Paul.

But, according to you, at least two Gospels were extant during Paul's career. Why did Paul ignore them?

sotto voce

Why would he lie? It's the last thing he would have done, especially in 1 Cor 15.

But who's to say that anyone is honest? Historical scholarship is not primarily about attributing likely motives, it's about knowing stuff. Hard work, not guesswork, or even chucking mud. Historians can lie as readily as anyone. Where moral considerations are concerned, one might even be on the look out for it.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church he was specifically appealing to what some of these buggers could not deny was true. And that's not too strong a word. Some of them were saying that there was no resurrection, which rather stuffed the very idea of the resurrection of Jesus. One can only wonder at Paul's patience. (Peter might have wanted to reach for that sword!) So it can be supposed that whatever he wrote about what was believed, they agreed with, and already knew. 'This is what you believed,' he told them. So the idea of Paul lying, here at any rate, seems unlikely.

When he wrote about Christ dying 'for our sins according to the Scriptures', he did not necessarily hold a gospel in his other hand. He could well have referred to this, among much other appropriate existing text:

'He poured out his soul, to death, so was numbered with sinners. He took away the sins of many, and made intercession for transgressors.' Isa 53:12

When Paul wrote about Christ 'raised on the third day according to the Scriptures', he could well have referred to this:

'After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.' Hos 6:2 NIV

Now it's possible that one or more gospels, or written lore that was afterwards incorporated into a gospel, but was nevertheless considered Scripture, was known to Paul and the Corinthians. There is no good reason to believe that the material that went to make the gospels was not written within a few years, never mind decades, of the putative resurrection. But it should not be considered a necessity, a prerequisite to the existence of the church, that this was so. Strangely enough, people talked to each other in those days. You may remember it yourself, in the days before the internet. There was no great need for anything much to be written, except bills and receipts, of course. Jerusalem was not only close to two major trade routes, it was close to the Mediterranean, that acted as a conduit for every opinion in the known world, through personal contact, not through newspapers or by electronic means, or even via papyrus scrolls.

Not only that, Jews from all over the known world (and Strabo confirmed that they could hardly be avoided) gathered in Jerusalem at regular intervals. The great likelihood is that reports (genuine or not) of Jesus' death and resurrection were in Elam and in Spain long before an apostle got to them.

aa5874

Please, explain "conventional wisdom", how "conventional wisdom" was derived, the evidence for "conventional wisdom" and the people who have "conventional wisdom"???

I am dealing with the actual DATED NT manuscripts and Texts, and sources which are compatible with them. Surely, you must consider that I am WISE to do so.

What gospels did Paul ignore??? I have NO knowledge that the Pauline writer ignore any gospel.

Please identify the gospels that you think Paul ignored???

In the Epistles, the Pauline writers claimed Jesus DIED for OUR SINS was buried and Resurrected on the Third Day according to the Scriptures.

Examine the New Testament Scriptures of gMark. Jesus in gMark did teach his disciples that he would Resurrect on the THIRD day and Paul claimed Jesus did resurrect ACCORDING to the Scriptures.

Mark 9:31 KJV Romans 10:9 KJV1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV Please, please, please!!! I beg of you to show that the Pauline writers ignored the Gospels.

Duvduv

AA, you hold that "according to the Scriptures" unambiguously refers to the gospel of Mark long before the gospels were considered holy scriptures as part of the Bible, but what evidence is there for this? How could a gospel be called "scriptures" and not identified long before gospels were part of a Bible?