Sheshbazzar

'Paul' (and all of the pseudo-'Paul's') was careful not to provide much that could be traced to having knowledge of the Gospels content. As doing so would make a lie out of his claim that no man had taught him the Gospel of Jesus.
So you should not expect to find much in the way of obvious references to the Gospel stories.
Although the 1 Cor 11:23-24 communion ritual with its 'that same night in which he was betrayed' is plucked from Luke 22. (there is no story of Jesus ever being betrayed by anyone on some 'same night' in heaven. The story is set on earth with an earthly human 'betrayer', it is the story of Luke 22.)
The 'Pauline Epistles' gospel was forged by the corrupted late church to accomplish three major objectives.
The first being to contradict and replace Jesus' and Revelations express words to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of Jesus' (two things) with the antinomian teaching of the Popes and their paper puppet 'Paul'.
Second, to discredit and vilify those early Messianic believers who were continuing to 'KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD' -and the testimony of Jesus'.
And third, to promote the Roman lie that Peter and Paul had traveled to Rome and had established 'the Holy Roman Catholic Church' and had instituted 'the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession'.
Nothing 'redundant' about that, when the proclamation of lies by paper 'Paul' facilitated the Roman power grab.
And that is about all the Roman Church wanted remembered, beyond that it was; 'WE will tell you what you will think'.

And 'WE will tell you what it is that you will believe',

And 'WE will tell you exactly what words it is that you will recite. ....or else'.


.

spin

Ya gotta like the ingenuity of this wacky notion. Paul shows almost no knowledge of the gospel, so somehow he musta known about it and was pretending not to know.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

This is along the lines of George Bush being so clever because he seemed so dumb. This is certainly getting past calling a spade a spade and calling it a nasally inserted brain stimulant.

'Cuz that'd give Shesh's game away. Paul can't show the world that he knew too much of the gospel.

Paul is supposed to be avoiding knowledge of the gospel, yet makes the blunder of using a literary reference to Luke's gospel.

This stuff is pretty daft, isn't it?

1. To make Paul anti-trinitarian;
2. To let Paul ridicule the bishop of Rome; and
3. To repudiate the apostles, whose succession the corrupted late church relies on.

Yes, Paul so well reflects the later church and its doctriners. This view that Shesh espouses is just plain old horseshit. And a little grasp on reality would allow him to see it.

:horsecrap: :horsecrap:

Sheshbazzar

Once the lie was asserted that 'Paul' had received direct communications and an exclusive 'gospel' from 'Jesus' and that;
Once he had laid that whopper he could not very well admit that he had ever learned anything about 'Jesus' from THE APOSTLES and 'that WAY' ....which 'Paul' admits to having persecuted beyond measure.

1Cr 1:2, 15:9, Gal 1:13, 1:23, 1 Th 2:14-15 must zoom right over your head.

The Apostolic congregations in Judea were already -in Christ Jesus- before 'Paul' ever 'converted' or had any of his wonky claimed 'visions' and conversations with a dead and risen 'Jesus'.
The congregations in Judea already had, and had long been preaching 'the Gospel of 'Jesus', and upsetting the Jewish establishment.
That is the reason why 'Paul' was persecuting them. (according to the story.)

Do you have some other reason for 'Saul/Paul' to be hunting down, 'persecuting and wasting' the church "beyond measure" ?
Let's hear it.

No, it would give the paper 'Paul's' deceiving game away.
Unlike 'Paul', old Sheshbazzar has no game. no followers, no intentions to build an organization that will set up statues in his memory, 'collects' no money from no one, and being anonymous, has nothing to gain or to lose by calling the shots as he sees them.

With God alone knows how many pseudo-Paul's, its little wonder that one would blunder, and this ritual was something the Catholic church wanted badly, and to be able to exert her 'official' control over, forcing all to come to her 'apostolic' 'bishops' for this ritual communion, ...and fleecing.

Not every 'orthodox Catholic Doctrine' was yet settled when the 'Pauline epistles' were being forged.
There was still vying for power and authority over the church going on in Rome
when the 'Pauline epistles' were being forged, the forgers evidently were not pleased with the bishop then in power, and got their 'dig' in.
The latter church only wanted to claim succession from THE Apostles, this corrupt latter church however DID NOT want The DOCTRINE of THE Apostles of the assemblies in Judea, which was and remains "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD -and- the testimony of 'JESUS'; "KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS"

You have my pity spin. Maybe if you prayed more, 'JESUS' would heal your blindness.

aa5874

The claim that Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed is actually stated or implied by Church writers and in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John his predecessor.

It is really of no use for people to give the impression that the Pauline writings must be early when the very Church supplied the data to place Paul in the 2nd century or later.

The earliest mention of a gospel according to Luke is in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

1. Origen's "Commentary on Matthew"2. Church History 3.4.3. Jerome's De Viris Iluustribus4. The Muratorian Canon The Muratorion Canon corroborates Justin Martyr who mentioned Revelation by John but NOT a single Pauline letter.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

At one time it is claimed Paul died under Nero and simultaneously that he KNEW of gLuke.

Sheshbazzar

Thank you aa.

Duvduv

I am most intrigued by the reference to the gospel "COMPOSED" by Paul without pointing at all to WHAT gospel was "composed." Then there is the reference to the predecessor named "JOHN."

The author of the Muratorian Canon must have forgotten that no one named John as a predecessor of Paul is mentioned anywhere in the epistles. And the same author surely must have known that by virtue of his revelation Galatians Paul could never have had a "predecessor" anyway.

And what gospel did Paul "compose." Did the author going under the name of Origen have access to the Gospel according to Paul?! It's really a huge stretch to argue that the gospel of Luke was Paul's gospel when nowhere does "Paul" cite verses from the gospel known subsequently as the gospel of Luke.

Well, these people who claimed to all be on the same page evidently didn't check through things clearly enough to avoid these problems.......

Sheshbazzar

Christianity is a screwed up religion Duvduv.

...but you don't me to tell you that fact.

Duvduv

Shesh, let's think this through. Why would an author who has access to the complete set of the NT (including Acts and the epistles) refer to someone named John as the predecessor to "blessed Paul" who had no predecessor, and who is never mentioned in those same texts? And even if this means that the author of Revelation wrote to seven churches, where do we have an indication that "Paul" wrote to the seven churches because of John? And if he was Paul's predecessor in this respect, then he must have been so in other respects, but this is never mentioned in the epistles or Acts.

What is DOES HINT AT is that the the author(s) or redactors of the epistles put together their epistles using the general idea of Revelation as a model. But the author of the Muratorian Canon should certainly have known that readers would wonder about his comment, unless he assumed people believed that "Paul" was simply an ordinary apostle following John. But that is only begging the question, of course.

And why would the author of the Muratorian Canon refer explicitly to the idea of a gospel written by Paul when nothing of the sort is mentioned in that same set of Pauline texts? Why would those authors want their readers to be confused?!

I mean, someone if not those authors had to crosscheck the statements at the outset. After all, everyone knew from the epistles and Acts that "Paul" did not write a gospel that was part of the canon, and even if he had, he doesn't quote it anywhere. And if GLuke was intended, then certainly at least once mention would have been made of a Gospel of Paul. But that itself is problematic because the epistles say that his gospel was not simply one of 4 or 5, but was THE gospel. (Yes, I realize the contradiction with Paul's own statements about others being in Christ before him, meaning they had no access to his unique gospel).

Adam

Who needs the Trinity when we have Shesh, aa, and Duvduv?

Duvduv

Allahu Akbar!!