This is all nonsense designed as a diversion. For the purpose of the matter currently being discussed, Paul's possible sources of information, it simply doesn't make any difference whether James was a blood brother or some other kind of follower; because either way Paul spoke to him and could have received information from him. I simply don't believe you can't see this point, and I will not be drawn into further consideration of James's relationship with Jesus. It is unnecessary here as you know well. As I have stated already
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Out of curiosity I checked Greekbible
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. - Galatians 1:19
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; - 1 Cor. 9:5
In the original Greek there is NO DIFFERENCE between what is translated as "brethren" (actually Brothers) of the Lord in 1 Cor. 9:5 and Brother of the Lord in Galatians 1:19.
I in fact, pointed this out to Craig B before and he blew it off but as this shows that Paul made NO distinctions between the spiritual brothers of the Lord and the supposed biological brother James.
Also in the section regarding the supposed 500 witnesses Paul lists James separate from the apostles (both the 12 and others...who ever they are) but in Galatians 1:19 he is counting James as an apostle.
The earliest manuscript PAPYRI 46 C 175-225 CE with Galatians 1.19 does not mention Jesus Christ.
The passage uses the NOMINA SACRA for LORD GOD.
Galatians 1.19 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus since it refers to the LORD GOD.
Please, examine Papyri 46.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/im...il;cc=apis;entryid=x-3612;viewid=6238_159.TIF
In addition, Christian writers of antiquity have already admitted their Jesus, the Lord from heaven, had NO brother called James the Apostle.
This is all nonsense designed as a diversion. For the purpose of the matter currently being discussed, Paul's possible sources of information, it simply doesn't make any difference whether James was a blood brother or some other kind of follower; because either way Paul spoke to him and could have received information from him. I simply don't believe you can't see this point, and I will not be drawn into further consideration of James's relationship with Jesus. It is unnecessary here as you know well. As I have stated already
Your statement is void of logic and evidence.
You cannot show or present any credible corroborative evidence that "Paul" spoke to James .
Which "Paul" spoke to James?
The "Paul" who wrote Papyri 46 c175-225 CE??
Craig B, how much longer can you continue to spout your bizarre presumptive baseless argument?
Last edited:
Out of curiosity I checked Greekbible
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. - Galatians 1:19
μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; - 1 Cor. 9:5
In the original Greek there is NO DIFFERENCE between what is translated as "brethren" (actually Brothers) of the Lord in 1 Cor. 9:5 and Brother of the Lord in Galatians 1:19.
I in fact, pointed this out to Craig B before and he blew it off but as this shows that Paul made NO distinctions between the spiritual brothers of the Lord and the supposed biological brother James.
Also in the section regarding the supposed 500 witnesses Paul lists James separate from the apostles (both the 12 and others...who ever they are) but in Galatians 1:19 he is counting James as an apostle.
OK, very interesting. So on that basis the reference to "the lords brother" becomes even less convincing as any suggestion of a family member.
This is all nonsense designed as a diversion. For the purpose of the matter currently being discussed, Paul's possible sources of information, it simply doesn't make any difference whether James was a blood brother or some other kind of follower; because either way Paul spoke to him and could have received information from him. I simply don't believe you can't see this point, and I will not be drawn into further consideration of James's relationship with Jesus. It is unnecessary here as you know well. As I have stated already
Craig, you have descended in to total 100% blind religious faith in all your posts!
Firstly - you don’t know if Paul ever spoke to James, let alone what might ever have been said between them (if such people even existed anyway!).
And Secondly - even if Paul did speak to someone called "James, who might never have been any actual brother of Jesus (as Max has just explained, in addition to all our previous explanations), then just because Paul spoke to a non-brother called "James", that clearly says nothing at all about whether James had ever known any figure called Jesus, and far less that he could ever tell Paul anything about a "Jesus" to whom he was not actually related to anyway (according to what Max just explained to you).
IOW, you are now reduced to the absolutely ridiculous position of claiming that even if James was not a real brother of Jesus, then nevertheless you say that if Paul ever spoke to “James”, that means Jesus once existed. What total utter nonsense.
Craig, you have descended in to total 100% blind religious faith in all your posts!
Firstly - you don’t know if Paul ever spoke to James, let alone what might ever have been said between them (if such people even existed anyway!).
And Secondly - even if Paul did speak to someone called "James, who might never have been any actual brother of Jesus (as Max has just explained, in addition to all our previous explanations), then just because Paul spoke to a non-brother called "James", that clearly says nothing at all about whether James had ever known any figure called Jesus, and far less that he could ever tell Paul anything about a "Jesus" to whom he was not actually related to anyway (according to what Max just explained to you).
IOW, you are now reduced to the absolutely ridiculous position of claiming that even if James was not a real brother of Jesus, then nevertheless you say that if Paul ever spoke to “James”, that means Jesus once existed. What total utter nonsense.
I pointed out this in the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread nearly three years ago:
Before anyone brings up the brother nonsense in Paul's writings I would like to point to Hong Xiuquan leader of the Taiping Rebellion (1850 to 1864) who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. How do we know that Paul didn't meet some nutcase who only thought he was the biological brother of Jesus but like Hong Xiuquan in reality wasn't? Answer is we don't.
Also as I stated a long time ago until Christ Mythers pointed out the temporal issues with Josephus the death of James the Just was put c 69 CE with Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and-or Eusebius of Caesarea being the references of choice
Interesting James, son of Alphaeus has a c62 CE death date which near as I can tell stems from Saint Jerome proposing James, son of Alphaeus was the "James, the brother of the Lord" referenced by Paul with 'brother' actually meaning 'cousin'. So here we seen another try to make things fit hand waving based on unsupported assumptions based on religious dogma.
As I pointed out a LONG time ago Greekbible defines the ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ (James) in Paul in this way: "son of Zebedee, an apostle and brother of the apostle John, commonly called James the greater or elder, slain by Herod, Acts 12:2"
Last edited:
I pointed out this in the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread nearly three years ago:
Before anyone brings up the brother nonsense in Paul's writings I would like to point to Hong Xiuquan leader of the Taiping Rebellion (1850 to 1864) who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. How do we know that Paul didn't meet some nutcase who only thought he was the biological brother of Jesus but like Hong Xiuquan in reality wasn't? Answer is we don't.
Also as I stated a long time ago until Christ Mythers pointed out the temporal issues with Josephus the death of James the Just was put c 69 CE with Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and-or Eusebius of Caesarea being the references of choice
Interesting James, son of Alphaeus has a c62 CE death date which near as I can tell stems from Saint Jerome proposing James, son of Alphaeus was the "James, the brother of the Lord" referenced by Paul with 'brother' actually meaning 'cousin'. So here we seen another try to make things fit hand waving based on unsupported assumptions based on religious dogma.
As I pointed out a LONG time ago Greekbible defines the ΙΑΚΩΒΟΝ (James) in Paul in this way: "son of Zebedee, an apostle and brother of the apostle John, commonly called James the greater or elder, slain by Herod, Acts 12:2"
Christian writings of antiquity have ALREADY admitted that their Jesus, the Lord from heaven, had NO brother called James and that their James was ALIVE long after the James in AJ 20.9.1 was dead.
See writings attributed to Chrysostom Celsus and the preface to the Recognitions.
The earliest manuscript of Galatians 1.19 does NOT mention Jesus but the Nomina Sacra for the LORD God of the Jews.
dejudge:
Thank you for that link.
Please look at the sixth line from the top, about the middle of the line, you will see, with difficulty, but, still, visible, apokalypseos IHY XRY, nomina sacra for Iesous Christous--English: "a revelation by Jesus Christ".
Paul was taught by NO man, but rather by an apokalypse of Jesus.
So, again, maximara, you seem not to have followed my earlier post, where I inquired about the discrepancy between the last supper of Mark and Matthew on the one hand, (diatheke), versus Paul on the other (kaine diatheke).
Again, how reasonable is it that on something as incredibly important, to the authors of the gospels, the covenant between Jews and God, that Mark and Matthew, would fail to mention the NEW covenant, and Paul, who was not even in attendance for the last supper, and who was openly opposed to the 12, repeatedly denying that he learned about Jesus' divinity from humans, should have the ability and power to create a "new" covenant, honored by consumption of the blood of Jesus? How on earth, could Mark and Matthew have overlooked Paul's assertion of a "new" covenant, if those epistles had existed prior to Mark's gospel?
Thank you for that link.
Please look at the sixth line from the top, about the middle of the line, you will see, with difficulty, but, still, visible, apokalypseos IHY XRY, nomina sacra for Iesous Christous--English: "a revelation by Jesus Christ".
Paul was taught by NO man, but rather by an apokalypse of Jesus.
So, again, maximara, you seem not to have followed my earlier post, where I inquired about the discrepancy between the last supper of Mark and Matthew on the one hand, (diatheke), versus Paul on the other (kaine diatheke).
Again, how reasonable is it that on something as incredibly important, to the authors of the gospels, the covenant between Jews and God, that Mark and Matthew, would fail to mention the NEW covenant, and Paul, who was not even in attendance for the last supper, and who was openly opposed to the 12, repeatedly denying that he learned about Jesus' divinity from humans, should have the ability and power to create a "new" covenant, honored by consumption of the blood of Jesus? How on earth, could Mark and Matthew have overlooked Paul's assertion of a "new" covenant, if those epistles had existed prior to Mark's gospel?
Odd you should write that. You're the one who's bringing the thing up. It has no relevance to the matter under discussion, which is where Paul could have received information, such as he had, about Jesus' biography.... Before anyone brings up the brother nonsense in Paul's writings ...
As noted, you're simply regurgitating this irrelevant material as a diversion from the matter under discussion. As I posted already
... Paul relates in Galatians that he met James, Cephas and John. I think it likely that he did, that these were the same people named elsewhere as associates of Jesus, and that he may well have received information from them, though as is well known he exhibits little direct knowledge of J's biography.
In this context it is not important whether James was a blood sibling or a follower, of course, so no argument on that topic is necessary.
Last edited:
Odd you should write that. You're the one who's bringing the thing up. It has no relevance to the matter under discussion, which is where Paul could have received information, such as he had, about Jesus' biography.
The Pauline writers used gLuke.
"Historical Jesus take the Threeeaaaaaadd, take it from my hands......" ROFL.
Is this thread really about some dude who like some 2000 odd years ago or the need to prove "somebody" is right? You guys do realize that even if you could prove HJ there is still the matter of miracles right, since that is what got him such a high notoriety?
Not only that but Paul was persecuting him some Christians good before he adopted the name Paul, better call Saul. If the people wouldn't listen to Moses for killing 1 Egyptian guard (which required Aaron to tag along because he lost his credibility) I find it hard to believe that the people were like "Yep he seen JC guys, he is cool". But I guess he went around telling everyone he was reformed and didn't have to do any of those pesky miracles like JC.
HJ was definitely an amalgamation of people (more than likely not just named Jesus) similar to Mary (who was busted up into three different characters after the fact).
Of course it is difficult to think or admit that John and "Jesus" we either rape babies or a fling done by one of Herod's wives resulting in both being cast out bastards like so many other biblical heroes (heck, throw in some Roman mythological heroes too), but similarly they were taken care of.
Jesus Ben Damneus is one of the real patsies. As Josephus stated, during his (JBD) time the Sanhedrin was commonly using and old lot casting system where the winner was known via a mathematical formula (one that Josephus was accused of using, Roman Roulette) for their own pleasure and whims, installing puppets at their leisure. Dude got slain in the temple siege shortly after his appointment for requesting the invading army to lay down their weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot_Temple_Siege#Siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus
Jesus was followed by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla
hmm, Jesus, Yehoshua, then there is that Ananus Ben Ananus character again, who was high priest before Jesus.
I am telling you man, these priests gotta start getting their Acts together.
Is this thread really about some dude who like some 2000 odd years ago or the need to prove "somebody" is right? You guys do realize that even if you could prove HJ there is still the matter of miracles right, since that is what got him such a high notoriety?
Not only that but Paul was persecuting him some Christians good before he adopted the name Paul, better call Saul. If the people wouldn't listen to Moses for killing 1 Egyptian guard (which required Aaron to tag along because he lost his credibility) I find it hard to believe that the people were like "Yep he seen JC guys, he is cool". But I guess he went around telling everyone he was reformed and didn't have to do any of those pesky miracles like JC.
HJ was definitely an amalgamation of people (more than likely not just named Jesus) similar to Mary (who was busted up into three different characters after the fact).
Of course it is difficult to think or admit that John and "Jesus" we either rape babies or a fling done by one of Herod's wives resulting in both being cast out bastards like so many other biblical heroes (heck, throw in some Roman mythological heroes too), but similarly they were taken care of.
Jesus Ben Damneus is one of the real patsies. As Josephus stated, during his (JBD) time the Sanhedrin was commonly using and old lot casting system where the winner was known via a mathematical formula (one that Josephus was accused of using, Roman Roulette) for their own pleasure and whims, installing puppets at their leisure. Dude got slain in the temple siege shortly after his appointment for requesting the invading army to lay down their weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot_Temple_Siege#Siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus
Jesus was followed by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla
hmm, Jesus, Yehoshua, then there is that Ananus Ben Ananus character again, who was high priest before Jesus.
I am telling you man, these priests gotta start getting their Acts together.
So, again, maximara, you seem not to have followed my earlier post, where I inquired about the discrepancy between the last supper of Mark and Matthew on the one hand, (diatheke), versus Paul on the other (kaine diatheke).
I did follow your early post; see post 394:
With all this editorial meddling hanging a theory on one word (or even a phrase) is not logical. If anything it is reckless. There is no way to say if anything that short was actually Paul and not some copyist mucking around with the text to "improve" it.
As I pointed out before each of the seven epistles is composed of two or more letters so some editing occurred. Some scholars think that Marcion of Sinope was this editor.
Given Marcion's idea that the true God had sent Jesus to save us from the incompetent and-or malicious demiurge that the Jews worshiped I wouldn't put it past Marcion to "improve" what Paul wrote.
I should point out that some think Luke as we have was in response to Marcion's Evangelikon.
Note that Marcion did NOT use any version of Mark or Matthew so if he was the first editor of "Paul" then anything Paul says has to be taken in how it relates to Marcion's Evangelikon.
Which "Pauline writer" used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please.The Pauline writers used gLuke.
dejudge said:The Pauline writers used gLuke.
Which "Pauline writer" used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please.
Why don't you do some research instead of asking questions that have JUST been answered?
The evidence will not magically disappear.
I have ALREADY shown the evidence from antiquity where Multiple Christian writings admit the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.
It is claimed that gLuke is really the Gospel of Paul.
The authors of Church History, Commentary on Matthew 1 and Against Heresies admit the Pauline writers did know of gLuke.
Examine "Against Heresies" 3 attributed to Irenaeus.
Against Heresies 3.1.1
Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.
Examine Commentary on Matthew 1 attributed to Origen.
Commentary on Matthew 1
And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
Examine Church History 3 attributed to Eusebius.
Church History 3.4.8.
And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
Examine Church History 6.
Church History 6.25.6 6.
And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
The c 175-225 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus P 46 contain words found ONLY in gLuke P 75.
Examine Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]
[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν
Examine Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]
και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers did use gLuke.
Examine "Against Heresies" 3 attributed to Irenaeus.
The very same Irenaeus who also stated that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was crucified and that Pontius Pilate ruled Judea under Claudius Caesar.
Irenaeus is writing propaganda as much as he is writing "history". We have proof that he will write total fictional nonsense if it will further his position.
Examine Commentary on Matthew 1 attributed to Origen.
Origen also makes two comments regarding Josephus directly connecting the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem to the death of James the Just...no such passage exists in any version of Josephus we have. Either that passage wasn't preserved or it never existed in the first place. So we have to watch taking what Origen claims at face value.
Examine Church History 3 attributed to Eusebius.
The same Eusebius who is described as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity" and is the first person to reference the Testimonium Flavianum.
Let's not forget this little gem of historical fiction he also wrote in Church History:
"It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."
Eusebius is a train wreck in terms of reliability. About the only thing he is good for is an example of the total fictional insanity Church Fathers would invent for their position.
The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers did use gLuke.
No as you could have who ever edited Luke could have used Paul as the basis for. In fact, Tertullian commented in Adv. Marcion, Book IV about “an amender of that Gospel [Lk], which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone -- so long looked for by Christ.”
"In other words, there had been earlier versions of Lk, and it is therefore possible that rather than editing canonical Lk, Marcion might have had access to, and edited, one of these earlier versions." - Two Gospels, or Two Versions?
So Tertullian was admitting that Luke had been "all topsy-turvy" since it was written down which Tertullian put c37 CE. If as we now suspect that Luke wasn't written down until Domitian (81–96) at the earliest that means there were an insane amount of variations of Luke supposedly around by the time Marcion got his hands on it c140 CE. This makes hanging a theory on one line ridiculous if not insane.
Last edited:
I repeat. Which "Pauline writer" used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please.Why don't you do some research instead of asking questions that have JUST been answered?
The evidence will not magically disappear.
I have ALREADY shown the evidence from antiquity where Multiple Christian writings admit the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.
It is claimed that gLuke is really the Gospel of Paul.
The authors of Church History, Commentary on Matthew 1 and Against Heresies admit the Pauline writers did know of gLuke.
Examine "Against Heresies" 3 attributed to Irenaeus.
Against Heresies 3.1.1
Examine Commentary on Matthew 1 attributed to Origen.
Commentary on Matthew 1
Examine Church History 3 attributed to Eusebius.
Church History 3.4.8.
Examine Church History 6.
Church History 6.25.6 6.
The c 175-225 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus P 46 contain words found ONLY in gLuke P 75.
Examine Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]
Examine Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]
The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers did use gLuke.
dejudge said:Examine "Against Heresies" 3 attributed to Irenaeus.
The very same Irenaeus who also stated that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was crucified and that Pontius Pilate ruled Judea under Claudius Caesar.
The fact that it is argued by a Presbyter and Bishop of the Church of Lyons that Jesus was crucified about 50 years old under Claudius then there are IRRECONCILABLE differences between the Jesus story of Church of Lyons and the Pauline Corpus.
"Paul" did NOT preach Christ crucified under Aretas if Jesus died around c 49 CE.
The Pauline Corpus is NOT historically credible whether or not Jesus existed.
maximara said:Irenaeus is writing propaganda as much as he is writing "history". We have proof that he will write total fictional nonsense if it will further his position.
The Pauline Corpus is no more credible than "Against Heresies". "PAUL" of the Pauline Corpus was a known established Liar since at least the 4th century.
It is rather strange that you admit Irenaeus was writing propaganda but fail to admit that Irenaeus USED the very Pauline Corpus as a fundamental source for his TOTAL FICTIONAL NONSENSE.
You FAIL to expose that Irenaeus USED every Letter under the name of Paul except perhaps Philemon to promote his TOTAL FICTIONAL NONSENSE about the resurrection of the Lord God from heaven who was KILLED by the Jews.
maximara said:Origen also makes two comments regarding Josephus directly connecting the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem to the death of James the Just...no such passage exists in any version of Josephus we have. Either that passage wasn't preserved or it never existed in the first place. So we have to watch taking what Origen claims at face value.
You keep forgetting that we have to watch what claims we are taking at face value from the Pauline Corpus.
You remember that Pauline writers claimed Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and OVER 500 person AT ONCE was seen of the resurrected Jesus?
The Pauline writers were known liars in antiquity.
maximara said:The same Eusebius who is described as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity" and is the first person to reference the Testimonium Flavianum.
The writers under the name of Paul are thoroughly dishonest as the supposed Eusebius.
In fact, Eusebius used the Pauline Corpus to promote his dishonesty. Eusebius did NOT admit the Pauline Corpus was written by a Group of person POSING as a single character called Paul.
maximara said:Let's not forget this little gem of historical fiction he also wrote in Church History:
"It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."
Eusebius is a train wreck in terms of reliability. About the only thing he is good for is an example of the total fictional insanity Church Fathers would invent for their position.
You admit Eusebius is a train wreck of reliability but always fail to admit that he used the Pauline Corpus to destroy the train tracks.
maximara said:So Tertullian was admitting that Luke had been "all topsy-turvy" since it was written down which Tertullian put c37 CE. If as we now suspect that Luke wasn't written down until Domitian (81–96) at the earliest that means there were an insane amount of variations of Luke supposedly around by the time Marcion got his hands on it c140 CE. This makes hanging a theory on one line ridiculous if not insane.
You must be talking to yourself.
You use ONLY Paul to corroborate Paul.
You are hanging your "theory" on a single source riddled with admitted forgeries, false attribution, historical problems, discrepancies and contradictions.
To do a proper Critical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus one MUST, MUST , MUST employ multiple sources of antiquity [apologetic and non-apologetic]
The internal evidence from multiple sources of antiquity do show that the Pauline Corpus is in fact historical garbage and was NOT employed in the early development of the Christian cult who worshiped a character called Jesus of Nazareth, God from heaven.
Last edited:
People WHO say that THE Pauline writers used gLuke must respond TO THIS this this post...To do a proper Critical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus one MUST, MUST , MUST employ multiple sources of antiquity [apologetic and non-apologetic]
Which "Pauline writer" used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please.
People who say the Pauline writers did not know of and did not use gLuke should read 'Against Heresies' attributed to Irenaeus, Origen's 'Commentary on Matthew 1, 'Church History' attributed to Eusebius, Papyri 46 and 75.
The authors of Church History, Commentary on Matthew 1 and Against Heresies admit the Pauline WRITERS did know of gLuke.
1. Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.
2. Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
3. Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
4. Church History 6.25.6 6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
5. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν
6. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers did use gLuke.
There is also the Muratorian Canon which place the Pauline Corpus AFTER the Revelation of John.
7. The Muratorian Canon----the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name....
In effect, the Pauline Corpus was really the LAST version of the Jesus story.
ALL The Pauline WRITERS knew of gLuke and the Revelation of John.
The authors of Church History, Commentary on Matthew 1 and Against Heresies admit the Pauline WRITERS did know of gLuke.
1. Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.
2. Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
3. Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
4. Church History 6.25.6 6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
5. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν
6. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
The evidence from antiquity do show that the Pauline writers did use gLuke.
There is also the Muratorian Canon which place the Pauline Corpus AFTER the Revelation of John.
7. The Muratorian Canon----the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name....
In effect, the Pauline Corpus was really the LAST version of the Jesus story.
ALL The Pauline WRITERS knew of gLuke and the Revelation of John.
Last edited:
People who say that the Pauline writers did know of and did use gLuke must read and answer this post.People who say the Pauline writers did not know of and did not use gLuke should read 'Against Heresies' attributed to Irenaeus, Origen's 'Commentary on Matthew 1, 'Church History' attributed to Eusebius, Papyri 46 and 75.
Which "Pauline writer" used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.