Paul versus the Gospels, life of Christ.

[Armistead]

Post did not copy correctly, will have to correct...Can never figure why something I write on word will not paste correctly her no matter how many times I edit it....errrrrr.

 

[Armistead]

test/..nope
Mod, you can delete, I cant find the function to do so.


I've been debating elsewhere , but it died out as this topic gets rather heated and complex. I did a study on this years ago that I never quite finished. The study at that time almost broke my faith, but at the end I found even stronger ground, but more so on faith than fact and of course many would argue faith isn't evidence. However, I am one that believes faith itself can be evidence. The topic covers 3 basic point and many smaller points obviously come up. One is comparing the Gospels to the writings of Paul, considering Paul's writings are considered the earliest NT writings. Most agree we don't know who wrote the Gospels and that they were written much later. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. This is subjective and many argue the church dated these as early as possible. "The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D." Romer

 

[brightmorningstar]

'Paul isnt Jesus' is a new liberal slogan and concept. It tries to undermine anything of God that liberalism rejects. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the gospel writers weren't Jesus either. The liberal idea is that because the gospel writers record Jesus words that must be more authentic. They totally forget that Luke probably never met Jesus and Paul encountered Jesus and received and was affirmed by Luke and Peter, who incidently posssibly helped Mark write his gospel.

 

[katautumn]

Ah, yes, the Red Letter Christians. I, personally, believe those folks are largely responsible for the weak hippie Jesus image the liberals cling to in order to legitimize their favorable views on issues the Bible clearly condemns. The whole, "well, Jesus didn't say that!" shenanigans.

 

[Armistead]

'Paul isnt Jesus' is a new liberal slogan and concept. It tries to undermine anything of God that liberalism rejects. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the gospel writers weren't Jesus either. The liberal idea is that because the gospel writers record Jesus words that must be more authentic. They totally forget that Luke probably never met Jesus and Paul encountered Jesus and received and was affirmed by Luke and Peter, who incidently posssibly helped Mark write his gospel.

No, not new and not exactly where I'm going. If we accept Paul, then his writings we know were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings. Paul's writing contain nothing about the virgin birth, the many miracles. Paul doesn't mention hell once and in all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus. Paul lived during the time of Christ, yet the writings of Paul seem very distance from the unknown writings of a much later gospels. Can they be reconciled?

 

[Armistead]

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples. So doe's it really matter who wrote them. We know Irenaeus had the most influence on picking the four Gospels, some say using more pagan influence to do so using the number four...discarding many numerous gospels in existence. The second point, what is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? We basically have the four gospels. There were numerous historians and, Philosophers that lived during the time of Christ that wrote on every major event, but Christ was never mentioned. Rome was very strict in recording events, but none of Christ is mentioned. We have no real historical proof that Christ existed, we basically have the four Gospels. The question is--what does history say and can we reconcile history with faith and find a solid foundation.

 

[Armistead]

Ah, yes, the Red Letter Christians. I, personally, believe those folks are largely responsible for the weak hippie Jesus image the liberals cling to in order to legitimize their favorable views on issues the Bible clearly condemns. The whole, "well, Jesus didn't say that!" shenanigans.

Have not a clue about the Red letter Christian movement, although I've heard the phase.

 

[Armistead]

'Paul isnt Jesus' is a new liberal slogan and concept. It tries to undermine anything of God that liberalism rejects. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the gospel writers weren't Jesus either. The liberal idea is that because the gospel writers record Jesus words that must be more authentic. They totally forget that Luke probably never met Jesus and Paul encountered Jesus and received and was affirmed by Luke and Peter, who incidently posssibly helped Mark write his gospel.

There is no evidence that Peter helped Mark write his gospel and much evidence he did not, regarding language, style, age. Although I agree with your other statement, none of the gospel writers were close to Jesus. No doubt the church has tried hard to get the Gospel of Mark to the earliest date possible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Armistead,

Sorry I think all you have written is all wrong.

, then his writings we know were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully.

He did know them fully from the risen Lord. See Galatians 1

Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus;

But he encountered the risen Lord and received what he knew, not from man but from the risen Lord.

and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.

His epistles show he knew a great deal about his life, works and teachings.

Paul's writing contain nothing about the virgin birth, the many miracles. Paul doesn't mention hell once and in all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus. Paul lived during the time of Christ, yet the writings of Paul seem very distance from the unknown writings of a much later gospels. Can they be reconciled?

Once again we are in the liberal area of faith based on what wasn’t. However Paul repeats a number of Jesus sayings, for example Ephesians 5:31 “"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Is recorded in Matthew and Mark, but not John and Luke.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen.

Well that’s what the gospels say. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek. [/quote] Not entirely, I think you will find ‘abba’ is Aramaic.

We have no real historical proof that Christ existed, we basically have the four Gospels. The question is--what does history say and can we reconcile history with faith and find a solid foundation.

You mean you not ‘we’.
I suppose from your point of view we had no proof that Pontius Pilate existed until the mid 1960’s when an inscription on a stone was discovered.
I don’t see your point.

There is no evidence that Peter helped Mark write his gospel and much evidence he did not, regarding language, style, age.

On the contrary there is no evidence he didn’t and some a number of indications why he might have done, which is why I said ‘possibly’

Although I agree with your other statement, none of the gospel writers were close to Jesus.

Well I don’t agree with that, particularly in the case of John.

 

[Timothew]

You posted:
"Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples."

I don't follow this line of reasoning. Greek was used for everything back then, it was the common language. "Koine greek" even means "common greek." If the disciples wrote, they would have written in greek. So to say "they were written in greek, this proves they were not written by Christ's disciples," is just not coherent.

 

[AlAyeti]

'Paul isnt Jesus' is a new liberal slogan and concept. It tries to undermine anything of God that liberalism rejects.

VERY good point BMS. But what would you expect from the powers and principalities and the wolves in sheep's clothing?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the gospel writers weren't Jesus either.

yet the message gets through in translation after translation after translation. Especially on what a marriage is.

The liberal idea is that because the gospel writers record Jesus words that must be more authentic. They totally forget that Luke probably never met Jesus and Paul encountered Jesus and received and was affirmed by Luke and Peter, who incidently posssibly helped Mark write his gospel.

But notice that liberalism is ONLY winning the day yoked to secularism. Or dressed up in a lamb costume.

 

[brightmorningstar]

But notice that liberalism is ONLY winning the day yoked to secularism.

This is something I have pointed out a number of times.

 

[wayseer]

No, not new and not exactly where I'm going. If we accept Paul, then his writings we know were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings. Paul's writing contain nothing about the virgin birth, the many miracles. Paul doesn't mention hell once and in all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus. Paul lived during the time of Christ, yet the writings of Paul seem very distance from the unknown writings of a much later gospels. Can they be reconciled?

1 Cor 11:25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

I would also add that Paul has a different reading on the resurrection

... otherwise you make good points.

 

[wayseer]

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek. Nor were they translated from some other language.

Any author would have used Greek to construct his text. Greek was the lingua franca of those times for high status groups and scribers were certainly in that social group.

Rome was very strict in recording events, but none of Christ is mentioned.

Why would Jesus, a common criminal executed along with thousands of others by the Romans in order to stamp their authority on the province, gain a mention? The fact the Josephus mentions him is something of a miracle in itself.

We have no real historical proof that Christ existed, we basically have the four Gospels. The question is--what does history say and can we reconcile history with faith and find a solid foundation.

The Gospels are 'history' in so much as they do contain historical data. So the Gospels are legitimate tools for the historian.

 

[NorrinRadd]

... The topic covers 3 basic point and many smaller points obviously come up. One is comparing the Gospels to the writings of Paul, considering Paul's writings are considered the earliest NT writings. Most agree we don't know who wrote the Gospels and that they were written much later. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. This is subjective and many argue the church dated these as early as possible. "The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D." Romer

Perhaps you should consider the opinions of some other scholars, such as Gordon Fee and Craig Keener.

Matthew -- probably in the 70s

Mark -- probably around 65

Luke -- probably late 60s

John -- probably 90s

 

[ebia]

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples.

As others have said, that simply doesn't follow. Not that the gospels necessarly were all written by Jesus' immediate followers - only Matthew and John even claim that in their traditional attributation and the first of those is extremely dubious, but pretty much everybody in the greco/roman world spoke Greek as a second language. Outside of the modern western english speaking countries speaking a second, third or even more language isn't something reserved for the rich and well educated - a friend of mine in Pakistan speaks 7 languages, his english is very fluent and I'm told that is his weakest!

So doe's it really matter who wrote them.

Not really, no.

We know Irenaeus had the most influence on picking the four Gospels, some say using more pagan influence to do so using the number four...discarding many numerous gospels in existence.

That's a very distorted picture.
There were four that were very widely used (the four we know as the canoncial gospels). Then there were others of variously dubious quality used by particular sub-groups such as gnostics - some of which are blantantly rubbish, others of which had only been around for a brief space of time.

The second point, what is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man?

Almost every worthwhile mainstream historian studying the first century recognises that Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught something at least vaguely along the lines that the gospels say, and was crucified sometime around AD30. The idea that he never existed is a "way out there" view in historical scholarship.

We basically have the four gospels. There were numerous historians and, Philosophers that lived during the time of Christ that wrote on every major event, but Christ was never mentioned.

There are actually very few talking about 1st century palestine at the time and an awful lot of events around that time of which we have at most one document describing. We have more data on Jesus of Nazareth than we do on Tiberius Caesar - emperor of the known world at the time of Jesus' death!

Rome was very strict in recording events,

Not down to that level that survived very long - no they did not. King Herod the Great did things that are recorded only in Josephus for instance. This idea that there is a huge amount of data about that world and Jesus should figure in it all the time is complete myth.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps you should consider the opinions of some other scholars, such as Gordon Fee and Craig Keener.

Matthew -- probably in the 70s

Mark -- probably around 65

Luke -- probably late 60s

John -- probably 90s

That's the ball-park most scholarship seems to be in these days, except Luke tends to be put early 70s rather than late 60s, Matthew late-70s to very early 80s and John late 80s to early 90s.

Very early dates gave way to very late dates, but now the pendulum has swung back to something sensible.

 

[ebia]

test/..nope
Mod, you can delete, I cant find the function to do so.


I've been debating elsewhere , but it died out as this topic gets rather heated and complex. I did a study on this years ago that I never quite finished. The study at that time almost broke my faith, but at the end I found even stronger ground, but more so on faith than fact and of course many would argue faith isn't evidence. However, I am one that believes faith itself can be evidence. The topic covers 3 basic point and many smaller points obviously come up. One is comparing the Gospels to the writings of Paul, considering Paul's writings are considered the earliest NT writings. Most agree we don't know who wrote the Gospels and that they were written much later. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. This is subjective and many argue the church dated these as early as possible. "The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D." Romer

Those are very late dates - very few scholars would try to sustain anything remotely that late any more.

 

[ebia]

No, not new and not exactly where I'm going. If we accept Paul, then his writings we know were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.

No they don't. Paul clearly assumes his audience already knows the stories - his letters are each written to address particular issues that have arisen in the church to which they are addressed - not to spell out the story that those churches already know.

Paul's writing contain nothing about the virgin birth, the many miracles. Paul doesn't mention hell once and in all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus. Paul lived during the time of Christ, yet the writings of Paul seem very distance from the unknown writings of a much later gospels. Can they be reconciled?

There's no need to "reconcile" - they complement each other beatifully. And the idea of "much" later gospels won't fly - the last of Paul's letters were probably written from Rome only a year or two before the first gospel - Mark - was written in the same place.

 

[ebia]

There is no evidence that Peter helped Mark write his gospel and much evidence he did not, regarding language, style, age. Although I agree with your other statement, none of the gospel writers were close to Jesus. No doubt the church has tried hard to get the Gospel of Mark to the earliest date possible.

The tradition is not that Peter helped Mark write the gospel, but that Mark's gospel is an interpretation of Peter's oral stories, written down around the time of Peter's death. Increasingly scholars are coming to the conclusion that Mark actually fits that perfectly - it shows all the signs of having been written in Rome under the brief persecutions that led to Peter and Paul being martyred.

Mark is quite a theologian - no mere scribe writing down Peter's dictation - but that his gospel is heavily reliant on Peter's stories is entirely plausible.