That is what you say when you say:
"It was Paul who introduce the Eucharist and Baptism - not the Gospels - they were written much later." (post 72)
Paul didn't introduce the Eucharist and Baptism. Jesus introduced the Eucharist and John the Baptist the baptism. Just because Paul wrote before some of the Gospels does not mean that he introduced anything. He just wrote about what the Christian Church was already doing before he became a believer.
If I 'believed' what you say here there would no need to start the OP.
I'm sorry if you are offended by what I ask but you seem to think that you are putting forth facts and not theories. Some scholars believing certain things about the early writings do not equate into fact.
My argument, as you appear to have failed to grasp what I am discussing, is that the authors of the Gospels apparently did NOT have access to Paul's writings.
I grasp your argument but disagree with your suppositions. We have no evidence that the Gospel writers didn't have access to Paul's writings but whatever he wrote to the Gentile Churches has no affect on the Gospels. It is the Gospel, which was first delivered by word of mouth and revealed by the Holy Spirit, that affected the writings of Paul.
The Gospel writers having or not having access to Paul's writings has nothing to do with them writing about what occurred prior to Paul's conversion.
Sorry, but the things that you are writing suggest just this.
Newer churches - I have no idea what you are talking about.
This refers to Churches which have risen in the past few centuries. Some of these reject the traditions found in the early Church and held by both the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
That is not the point of discussion. Stay with the program.
This is a thread which you started and by answering the positions which you put forth in your posts, I am staying with the program. I am simply answering you.
Again, I'm not sure what you are alluding to here.
I know that it is difficult to keep up with past posts when you are holding discussions with several people but I am only answering what you put forth.
This part began in your post #58. You had said: "The use of names for important documents was a matter of course in those times and reflected on the author's recognition and esteem placed on that 'name'."
I've already addressed that issue - not all Jews lived in Jerusalem.
I understand but I was still just responding to your post where you say Matthew and John chances of writing their Gospels was nil because of the holocaust.
Agreed - but given the material with which we have to work and the input of experienced scholars in these areas it seems that what I have indicated forms the general consensus.
No, not the "general consensus" but a position by many scholars, while there are also many scholars which disagree.
That scholars disagree is the hallmark of scholarship - it is known as 'peer review'.
Nothing wrong with discussion. Hopefully everyone learns something from the efforts.
Now you are grabbing at straws. Mark was written well before Matthew or Luke.
We don't know when Matthew was written or when it was translated. Papias, who was alive during the Apostolic time and wrote five books, wrote that Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew and everyone translated it the best that they could. When was that written, no one knows but only guesses.
Many, including Pope Benedict XVI, believe that Luke was written about 60 AD and he tells us in his Gospel that many had already done the same. Matthew "could" have been one of these and that would explain their similarities.
It is my belief that Jesus was a Pharisee so, Yes, his theology is informed by the OT and the Mishnah.
There is no evidence that he was a Pharisee and Matthew 3 we see John the Baptist chastising them: 7 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Yet he didn't say that when Jesus approached: 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 John tried to prevent him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?"
So it seems pretty doubtful that Jesus was a Pharisee. Of course, I would be glad to read the evidence to support your hypothesis.
Perhaps - but such has little, if anything, to do with the matter under hand.
Not, the OP but it does with answering your post.
Being yourself somewhat more familiar with the matter of Pharisees and Sadducees I would have thought you would recognised how Jesus followed Pharisaic convention - particularly in the manner of his 'debates'.
Can you show us how these were unique to the Pharisees and not present in the oral traditions which preceded the rise of the Pharisees?
Certainly the Gospels seem to paint the Pharisees and Scribes in a rather ugly light. But you have to remember that the Scribes and the Pharisees ran Jewish affairs - they were the law. And whether we accept it or not, they were held in high esteem.
That is true, but there were two groups in the Pharisees which were in contrast to each other in many ways. The Houses of Hillel and Shammai.
The Mishnah is the 'common law' held by the Pharisees and they refer to these judgments to adjudicate on their own cases which are presented for their decisions. This involved debate - and debate was the process by which the Pharisees arrived at their decisions. So asking Jesus question was not necessarily an act of entrapment - but an opening to a discussion about the law. See Mark 12: 28-34.
These verses from Mark show a great example of the factions within Israel at the time. (Matthew 22: 34 disagrees with you about the intent of this incident though.)
The House of Shammai were in charge of the Great Sanhedrin during Jesus' time. They were very strict and held to the letter of the Law while the House of Hillel were more spiritual in nature and tolerant. The Sadducees were also very strict and rejected oral tradition from the Mishnah.
Jesus corrected the Sadducees for their lack of belief in rising from the dead in Mark 12:18-27. A Pharisee then asked him about the greatest commandment and after Jesus' answer the Pharisee agreed and Jesus commended him. This was most likely a Pharisee from the House of Hillel as was Joseph of Arimathea was most likely as well.
Paul on the other hand was a Pharisee and also from the House of Hillel. He was very well versed in the Mishnah and the Torah, yet was opposed to Christianity until his revelation. So we can see some acceptance of Jesus' teaching in the Pharisees but rejection as well, especially to him being the Messiah.
Did he? Paul tells us at length that he is a Jew and follows the great traditions of Israel.
I guess I over stated a bit. He didn't reject all of what the Pharisees taught but many of the principles. Most of the Jewish teachers of the Law understood the letter of the Law but failed to understand the Spirit of the Law.