Tyro

"In the NT, the disciple called Simon Peter, Simon, Cephas or the apostle Peter is regarded as the same character." The New Testament is written by different persons during different periods, as you agree. You cannot say that this person is regarded as the same character, since you do not know who Paul ment by saying Cephas. He could have ment someone else, and he certainly does not say Simon.

"If Paul's Jesus was heavenly, where did Paul get information about the character called Peter or Cephas?" - Perhaps by meating this apostle in Jerusalem? That Jesus wasn't historical does NOT in any way mean the apostles were fictous. I see no reason to doubt that there was a Cephas in Jerusalem.

"How on earth are you going to do an investigation about the activities of Paul and rely strictly on the words of Paul alone." - The question is whether or not the writer of the Pauline epistles knew the written Gospels. The only way to know that is looking at the Pauline epistles and compare them to the Gospels. Church fathers do not have any role to play here.

"Every single mention of Paul or Saul by any writer of antiquity MUST be taken into consideration." - Why do you then claim Paul is back-dated? Has any writer of the Church you rely so much on, ever claimed that Paul did NOT live in the first century?

"You simply cannot ignore information about Saul or Paul from other sources of antiquity because Paul wrote nothing or very little about himself." - I do not ignore it. I find it irrelevant. Unsubstantiated claims are not to be taken into considerations. Neither Jerome nor Eusebius lived in the days of Paul and Cephas.

"Counter-claim. 2. Paul was not aware of the Gospels." - No, that is not of necessity a counter claim. I only say you have NOt shown any evidence. I don't say it is impossible for you to be right. Show me the evidence so I can value it. The last pages you have only referred to Jerome and Eusebius, which you do not even think are reliable in other contexts, or even about Paul being a first century writer.

"Why does Paul have to foretell the future to realise that he was the first to propagate the heavenly Jesus or write his letters?" - But he was not. He was not the first to preach for these congregations. There were other apostles, as James and Cephas, according to Paul.

"But, if you know the theory and have read the theory why haven't you been able to give me evidence from sources of antiquity to show that Paul wrote before the Gospels?" - It is still a matter of probabilities. Most scholars find it most probable that Paul wrote in the first century. Doherty gives some arguments for this. I haven't seen any arguments from you yet - just the same ranting about me not being able to prove that scholarly consensus is right. Please prove your assertion that Paul is back-dated and a liar.

"Don't you even realise that the very names James, Peter, John and Jude are charaters found in the Gospels?" - Yes, people with these names are found in the Gospels. So what? Real people became part of an invented myth. The sects producing the Gospels added the real apostles to their stories. How does similar or the same names accuring in two different sets of text prove anything?

"The church placed gMathhew first and that Paul was aware of gLuke." - Yes, and modern scholarship does not. Mark is first. This discussion is not worth having here.

"If the church was wrong about everything else, then it is pontless for you claim Paul preached an heavenly Jesus, because you really don't know what Paul wrote." - We still have the Pauline epistles, so we can actually read what Paul said.

"It is most absurd, ridiculous and highly illogical to investigate Paul and only read his epistles." - If we agree that we cannot know much about the person Paul, we only have the epistles to rely on. Your claim is that the writer of these epistles knew the Gospels. Then we only have to look in the epistles and compare them with the Gospels. When comparing, I do not find Paul using any Gospel passages or referring to any Gospels.

"Acts of the Apostles is regarded as sacred sripture by the Church, it must be absolutely extremely important to read about Paul in Acts." - So where in Acts is it stated that there were any written Gospels when Paul was active?

"Based on the church writings, Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels." - So this is all you have got? Jerome and Eusebius? Then I do not need to "start". This is much too late to prove anything at all. In the Pauline epistles there are no traces of written Gospels, so the writer of the Pauline epistles did not use the Gospels. Case closed.

Toto

What can we learn from this thread?

aa5874 will insist that "Paul" must have been aware of the Gospels. No amount of argument will change his mind.

Is there a reason to keep this thread open? Shall I close it before another innocent newbie wanders by and becomes ensnared in an argument that will not end? I think I have convinced myself. If anyone disagrees for a good reason, I will reopen it.