TedM

Yes, that is possible. It isn't what the op is about though. Nor does it say how he has established credibility. That's the issue I'm wanting to understand. Why did belief in Jesus' resurrection occur in the first place and why did it persist over time? What authority was 'enough' for them to believe and perpetuate it. What did this preacher have to say or do for it to work?

TedM

Paul's influence was vast long before GMark. He says so, and his letters are clear evidence. Acts, which appears to have no knowledge of his letters but agrees in hundreds of ways, seals the deal: Paul was King of Missions. Of course GMark helped but oral tradition appears to have been sufficient to establish and spread the new religion.

Bye. Have the last word. I knew you wouldn't provide the sources you claim exist regarding Luke and Paul. I'm afraid you are living in a world of tremendous delusion.

I'm going to have to leave this thread again as it is not good for my mental health to try and reason with such a bunch of irrational, close-minded, paranoid, conspiracy-oriented people. Not everyone, but enough to where it is more frustrating than enjoyable. Thanks to those who treated the op with some respect.

Before I go, I would like to ask how to get to the archives as I would like to look up Layman's incredible thread showing the consistencies between Acts and Paul's letters. {EDIT: No need--I just found them in the arcives..} I see that as perhaps the strongest potential argument in support of a Historical Jesus, if it can be shown to be likely that the the author of Luke-Acts knew Paul. Time and evidence permitting, I may write up a clear, reasonable paper exploring the MJ/HJ question in this context.

andrewcriddle

thearchives/index

This is a list of threads started by Layman

Andrew Criddle

Toto

There is no requirement that the preacher said or did anything, or that he even existed. All you need is some person claiming a revelation.

But it is too frustrating for you that no one else here thinks like you or wants to validate your beliefs. And your powers of persuasion are not enough to overcome the lack of good arguments on your part.

Have a nice day.
:wave:

outhouse

because you went off into la la land, of illusion with a poor understanding of what you dont know.

you need to get a real grasp on history, not use mythology to invent a different reality

aa5874

Again, READ the Pauline letters.

The Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the CHURCH of God. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.

The CHURCH of GOD was NOT STARTED by the PERSECUTOR called Paul. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.

The Jesus story was KNOWN, PREACHED and WRITTEN BEFORE the Pauline writer was called to preach. See Galatians 1 and 1 Cor 15.

The Jesus cult EXISTED BEFORE the Pauline writer. See Romans 16.

In Acts, Saul/Paul "MET" Jesu when he was BLINDED like a BAT and AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY PREACHED in Damascus.

I think that "running away" is your very best option. Again, please SEE "CHURCH HISTORY" 6.25 and "On Commentary of Matthew" 1.

I am NOT leaving this thread. I AM PREPARED to EXPOSE ALL YOUR FALLACIOUS Arguments--NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

TedM

Thanks. The first is just a repeat of the second. The second also mentions Matthew and Mark as the authors of whole works. The reference by Papius to works by Matthew and Mark could not be the gospels that Origen was addressing, but perhaps were the originals that later were 'beefed up' with more information. Therefore, Origen's 'tradition' is a bit flawed. As such, GLuke may have not been written while Paul was living, but may have represented the 'gospel theology' of Paul since Luke was considered to be a companion of Paul's.

See too:http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/barnes/luk000.htm

Which is more likely?
1. GLuke originally was not about the life of Jesus on earth since Paul never knew of such a Jesus OR
2. Paul must have been aware of the life of Jesus that GLuke wrote about since the tradition held that Luke's gospel was what Paul had preached? OR
3. Paul never believed in a historical Jesus but Luke did? OR
4. Gluke wasn't really written by anybody that knew Paul, and the tradition was wrong.

Something very interesting to me is that the author of Acts (believed to be Luke, also the author of GLuke) said very little about the life of Jesus in Acts--especially in the speeches by Paul, even though he of course wrote extensively about Jesus' life in GLuke. This suggests to me that Luke was being true to Paul's theology--ie Paul really wasnt' very interested in the life of Jesus. Had Luke wanted to he could have inserted HJ references in Paul's speech, but he didn't.

No need to respond aa. Let's let some others in on this...However, I am done.

Toto

Obviously, number 4:

The "tradition" in this case is very late. Irenaeus probably invented it - he harmonized Acts and Paul's letters, found an individual mentioned in the letters who might possibly have been present on Paul's travels by ship (the "we" passages) and decided that person, Luke the physician, must have written Acts.

See how easy that is? And there are many other reasons to think that Luke-Acts was not written by a companion of Paul.

aa5874

Did you NOT say that you were leaving the thread???

Well, you seem to be back with more ERRORS. You very well know that Origen was SPECIFICALLY referring to the FOUR Canonised Gospel and the Order of the Gospels given by Origen is the same order in the Canon.

Commentary on Matthew 1 I MUST, MUST, MUST repond to your erroneous claims and logical fallacies. It is time somebody show that the HJ argument is hopelessly weak and based on DISCREDITED Sources "Filled with Discrepancies, Contradictions and Events that most likely did NOT happen. See Did Jesus Exist? page 182-184

TedM

..