Well...I tried. (prophet, priest, religious leader, last supper)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of "Paul's letters" are indeed traced as older than the oldest gospels found. But to say that Mark or Luke are wholly dependent on Paul's letters would be an over-statement.
I never said wholly dependent. But the author of Mark certainly appears aware of Paul's letters, even though much of his gospel is taken out of the OT. And Luke tries to smooth over the different theologies in Mark and Matthew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
And even Acts seems to contradict the details found in some of his letters.
Yes, the author of Luke is rewriting Paul's letters, inventing his own history for theological reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
The Gospel story, in its essence and probably orally, was definitely getting around before Paul came along. Many early Christians even thought that the Tanak and their own oral history would be enough to keep the faith in their progeny and that writing extra books (New Testament) to hold as sacred scripture would be heresy and blasphemy.
Transponder has the same view about an earlier tradition. I am not convinced. I think the author of Mark invented his story of a historical Jesus around the end of the first century AD. The earlier letters such as James only reference the OT. Not once do they mention the acts or teachings of an earthly Jesus.
I never said wholly dependent. But the author of Mark certainly appears aware of Paul's letters, even though much of his gospel is taken out of the OT. And Luke tries to smooth over the different theologies in Mark and Matthew.
Yes, the author of Luke is rewriting Paul's letters, inventing his own history for theological reasons.
Bravo. That's exactly the conclusion that I came to after comparing Acts with Paul. I even wondered whether Eusebius (Contantine's, not ours) could have written it, because he uses Josephus as well as Paul in constructing a story. I see his adaptation of Paul on the escape from Damascus, and the discussion with James in Jerusalem (turned by Luke into a public..well, not a hearing exactly, but a public endorsement of Paul's mission to the gentiles...which is what Acts is all about anyway) and so far as I can recall, no a word about the famous wrangle with Peter about Kosher seating in the Nazorene refectory. but then Like doesn't seem to have Matthew's somewhat Odd view of Cephas.
In Luke, the writer seems to have adapted Josephus on the end of the reign of Archelaus and the Roman annexation of Judea as a mechanism for getting Jesus born in Bethlehem, whereas Matthew simply has the family living there and they are still there when the Magi roll up over a year later (Which is why Herod asks when the sate appeared and thus knows what is the upper age limit to be targeting, just in case the three wise guys fail to report back, which, Lo and Behold, they do, or don't rather. You see what I mean about Plot construction?) and Herod's fear is Matthew';s mechanism for getting Jesus out of Bethlehem into Nazareth, thus fulfilling Scripture! Which isn't actually there.
Luke also uses Josephus in Gamaliel's speech linking the Census of Quirinus with the roman takeover and Judas' revolt. Which it was of course, and not in the time of Herod. He has Gamaliel compare that with the revolt of Theudas whom Luke, amusingly, has him giving himself out to be "Somebody" and avoids that Theudas was a failed messiah - just like Jesus. But Gamaliel (or rather Luke (Acts 5.36 -on) gets them back to front: Judas came before Theudas, not after him. And I think the whole Damascus road conversion is invented by Luke. It is nowhere in Paul - other than the reference to Jesus appearing (in the head) to Paul after he'd appeared (in the spirit, Aka the imagination) to all the other faithful.
Quote:
Transponder has the same view about an earlier tradition. I am not convinced. I think the author of Mark invented his story of a historical Jesus around the end of the first century AD. The earlier letters such as James only reference the OT. Not once do they mention the acts or teachings of an earthly Jesus.
You think James is an early epistle? Stylistically, they seem pretty much in order, the original Thesis with the argument set out is in Romans, and thereafter one can see the whole thing falling apart, Paul in denial, the wrangle with the apostles and Paul snarling at them and warning his churches not to listen to 'any other gospel'. And I suspect that James may be authentic James rather than a letter TO him.
There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus really lived in Galilee and was crucified, and probably did the donkey -ride and assault on the temple, mainly because these are all problems for the Christians, which they have to explain away, or cover up. The story was probably Oral tradition, though I suspect that John actually did have a written account. That account might have been remarkably similar to the original account that was the basis of the synoptic gospel. In a way, there are two 'accounts', John and the Synoptics. And 'The gospel of Peter' is a 'synoptic' gospel, too. Though it might incorporate the leg -breaking'.
Point is that, since I don't believe prophecy, the basic Synoptic gospel has to have been written after the Jewish war to reflect the same sentiments as in Bar Serapeion's letter saying that Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed because the Jews 'killed their king'. This is demonstrably not true - the Romans did that, but the early Christians certainly had gone beyond Paul sadly shaking his head over the Romans (lords of this world) killing Jesus (they would never have done that if they'd know whom he was) to the early Christian view that Jerusalem fell because the Jews rejected Jesus and were responsible for his death. Accomplished though that show trial with Pilate trying to let Jesus off and the Jews threatening to Tell Sir if he doesn't have Jesus killed. Even get the motive - because he had got up their noses. Matthew even ensuring that it wasn't just the fault of the Sanhedrin, or the crowd that were there or even the Jews of the time, but all Jews, ever after were equally guilty. And thus persecution of them was perfectly justified.
Oh sure, we are ALL equally guilt of Jesus' death if we do not buy a free pass. Jews of course can get one by converting to Christioanity, and thus they become - not innocent, but forgiven.
And I suppose that's been the message all along - if you are a Christian, you can get away with anything, even murder, scamming old ladies out of the price of a Learjet and snorting coke off the back of a male prostitute.
Most of the letters are correctional and full of delineations of the faith, which helps a lot of Churches with deciding what "their Sharia law" (let's call it) should be, since the Gospels aren't so clear/tempting with their seemingly unclerical dogma and parables.
The gospels were an attempt to show that Jesus Christ was a political figure. Paul was very hesitant to do that out of fear, for obvious reasons. People today still use coded language in their political correspondence.
But Jesus was a challenge to Caesar. I don't see how anyone cannot see that.
Bravo. That's exactly the conclusion that I came to after comparing Acts with Paul. I even wondered whether Eusebius (Contantine's, not ours) could have written it, because he uses Josephus as well as Paul in constructing a story.
Justin Martyr (died 165 AD) mentions the Gospel according to Luke but not Acts. So Acts must have been written around that time. Clement of Alexandria mentioned Acts around 200 AD. Eusebius could not have written Acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I see his adaptation of Paul on the escape from Damascus, and the discussion with James in Jerusalem (turned by Luke into a public..well, not a hearing exactly, but a public endorsement of Paul's mission to the gentiles...which is what Acts is all about anyway) and so far as I can recall, no a word about the famous wrangle with Peter about Kosher seating in the Nazorene refectory.
Acts 10-11 is Luke's new, clean version of why Peter was not always Kosher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And I think the whole Damascus road conversion is invented by Luke. It is nowhere in Paul - other than the reference to Jesus appearing (in the head) to Paul after he'd appeared (in the spirit, Aka the imagination) to all the other faithful.
While the account in Acts is most probably a fictional account, Paul says in Galatians 1 that he had vision, then he went to Arabia (Felix, not Saudi) before returning to Damascus. So Luke may be reinventing an actual road to Damascus event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You think James is an early epistle?
Along with 1 Peter and possibly Jude. None of them show any knowledge of the gospels, only quoting the OT (or Enoch for Jude).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And I suspect that James may be authentic James rather than a letter TO him.
It is by a James, he gives his name as the author. The question is which James? I doubt it is one of the James that Paul mentions as I accept it is a late first century AD letter.
The gospels were an attempt to show that Jesus Christ was a political figure. Paul was very hesitant to do that out of fear, for obvious reasons. People today still use coded language in their political correspondence.
But Jesus was a challenge to Caesar. I don't see how anyone cannot see that.
Because he wasn’t. Not in any real way.
Nero was the emperor during the time of the gospels, and I doubt he had even heard of Jesus or the cult that arose after his death. Christianity never threatened any emperor, and when it reached reasonably widespread acceptance a few centuries later the emperor simply declared the Empire to be Christian, he sat on the throne by divine right, and from a political standpoint, things continued as they always had.
Nero was the emperor during the time of the gospels, and I doubt he had even heard of Jesus or the cult that arose after his death. Christianity never threatened any emperor, and when it reached reasonably widespread acceptance a few centuries later the emperor simply declared the Empire to be Christian, he sat on the throne by divine right, and from a political standpoint, things continued as they always had.
That was the antichrist religion of the empire as predicted.
Justin Martyr (died 165 AD) mentions the Gospel according to Luke but not Acts. So Acts must have been written around that time. Clement of Alexandria mentioned Acts around 200 AD. Eusebius could not have written Acts.
Quite. I know that I had that idea knocked down before. Pity.
Quote:
Acts 10-11 is Luke's new, clean version of why Peter was not always Kosher.
While the account in Acts is most probably a fictional account, Paul says in Galatians 1 that he had vision, then he went to Arabia (Felix, not Saudi) before returning to Damascus. So Luke may be reinventing an actual road to Damascus event.
As I recall Acts has Paul converted on the way to Damascus. Luke doesn't seem to bother with Arabia. perhaps becasue he doesn't care for the idea of his visiting people and Getting Ideas from them. This is 1to1 with God.
Quote:
Along with 1 Peter and possibly Jude. None of them show any knowledge of the gospels, only quoting the OT (or Enoch for Jude).
It is by a James, he gives his name as the author. The question is which James? I doubt it is one of the James that Paul mentions as I accept it is a late first century AD letter.
Recalling my reading of it it looked to me, though cast in rather christian tone, it seems to be arguing with Paul about works vs Faith, which was Paul's original idea. Essentially observing the law would not save, but Faith in Jesus (as the obedient and risen messiah) would save.
Recalling my reading of it it looked to me, though cast in rather christian tone, it seems to be arguing with Paul about works vs Faith, which was Paul's original idea. Essentially observing the law would not save, but Faith in Jesus (as the obedient and risen messiah) would save.
I think you are completely missing Paul's message. Faith in "Jesus Christ" the lowly messiah was a slap in the face to those who were worshipping the true risen savior (Caesar). It was purely political. Can you really not see that?
Don't you see how people on both sides of the political spectrum today claim that God is on their side? Things really have not changed that much.
I think you are completely missing Paul's message. Faith in "Jesus Christ" the lowly messiah was a slap in the face to those who were worshipping the true risen savior (Caesar). It was purely political. Can you really not see that?
Don't you see how people on both sides of the political spectrum today claim that God is on their side? Things really have not changed that much.
You have a misunderstanding of Roman state religion.
Romans were polytheists, another god did not threaten them. You could worship Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Isis, Jesus Christ and the deified Augustus Caesar all at the same time if you liked. Additionally, emperors were not always deified, and the ones who were were deified after death, not during their reign.
Not only that, but Romans did not need a savior, as they did not believe in original sin. Your reward in the afterlife varied, depending on a number of factors, but eternal damnation wasn’t an option.
The Roman religion may have been threatening to Christians, but Christianity was not threatening to the Romans.
Some of "Paul's letters" are indeed traced as older than the oldest gospels found. But to say that Mark or Luke are wholly dependent on Paul's letters would be an over-statement. And even Acts seems to contradict the details found in some of his letters. The Gospel story, in its essence and probably orally, was definitely getting around before Paul came along. Many early Christians even thought that the Tanak and their own oral history would be enough to keep the faith in their progeny and that writing extra books (New Testament) to hold as sacred scripture would be heresy and blasphemy.
It definitely get the impression that the gospel - content (they have been revised a couple of times) was around before the letters of Paul became available, even if a lot of what he said in them was known. A lot of Paulinist ideas are found in Matthew and of course I think the ideas came first - I don't buy the idea that Jesus taught this stuff and the apostles told Paul later. Paul started the Gentile friendly version and his idea were developed (and made more anti Jewish) in the original gospel story.
It seems clear to me that Luke was certainly aware of Paul's letters, and the Synoptic story was altered to fit Paul in. Acts was written to explain how the followers of Jesus just left it to Paul to take the message to the gentiles. I reckon Paul invented the bulk of it himself. Hardly ever refers to 'Jesus said this, and that'. It's all worked out according to his own reasoning in Romans. Referring back to the OT - never quotes Jesus (apart from the 'Last supper' quote).
In Matthew, you get some Paulinist stuff, as i said: how to treat your fellow -believers in legal disputes. I think that passage about Jesus mission only to 'the lost sheep of Israel' - a bit puzzling when he seems to have a mission to the gentiles himself, can be understood in the context of explaining why it was left to Paul to do the mission to Gentiles himself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
