Paul would have been as quickly disseminated as any of the other texts which clearly must have reached a rather wide audience. It is not at all unlikely that Paul's writings were copied and spread as the site I posted suggests about any of the early writings and why we have them available even now.
- Coffee & Doughnuts
- Catholic/Ecumenical Discussion
- Catholic/Jewish Discussion
- Catholic/Non-Catholic Discussion
- Catholic Debate Board
- Catholics Loyal to the Magisterium
- News/Articles/Propaganda/Etc
- Religious Website Reviews
- Literary Forum
- Board Hops, Board Rules and Catholic Links
- Prayer Requests
- Apologetics Files: General
- Apologetics Files: Historical
- Apologetics Files: Social Issues
- Moderator's Archives
The gospels for Tony
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 tonydev |
Paul | #21 | ||
|
Posts: 1473 10/13/09 22:37:52 Camper |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#22 | |||
|
Posts: 1474 10/13/09 22:41:51 Camper |
TO Burke:\
How is that a stretch? Copies were numerous and wide spread. I don't understand what you mean by the twelve. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#23 | |||
|
Posts: 4903 10/14/09 08:42:56 Camper |
Hi Tony,
> I don't understand what you mean by the twelve. I am referring to the other apostles that you claim were chiefly influenced by Paul. > How is that a stretch? Copies were numerous and wide spread. Yes, after the alleged persons influenced had been dead for years. You are talking from a 21st century mindset where communication is instantaneous. While Paul is a great influence on the Christian Church and was prominent in the early Church it is a stretch to suggest that he was the major influence in the teachings of the four gospel writers. In his letter to the Galatians he even admits to being somewhat under the influence of the Church at Jerusalem: "It was not till fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again, . . . I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed." Gal 2:1-2. The inference is that had the the leading men in Jerusalem objected to something Paul was doing he would have deferred to them. Look, I am not saying that Paul had no influence over the early Church leaders, but to suggest that he "invented" doctrines, et al is not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In my view you have decided that Jesus, if he existed at all, is not who the Christian Church says he is, thus you have taken your foregone conclusion and cherry-picked the scriptures to prove it. I have no problem with you rejecting the historical Jesus and the christian understanding of who he is, but if you think you need to prove it to yourself and us the scriptures is a barren ground to seek out the evidence. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#24 | |||
|
Posts: 1475 10/14/09 16:05:41 Camper |
The twelve? First, the gospels do not even agree on who they were. Twelve was probably a number arrived at by the earliest texts as a recollection of the twelve tribes: particularly when the Jesus movement was still confined to Jews and a thought of Jewish renewal. Even by later texts we hear virtually nothing about them. The canonical scriptures speak primarily of Paul, Peter and James - and in that order. The only two other mentions that show up in various oral traditions are James in Spain and Thomas in India. Paul's influence would have been on the other local people in the early Christian community. There is nothing in his writings or anyone else's that suggests they were Jesus' alleged apostles. The influence did not have to wait until they were dead for years. Writings were copies immediately and copiously. It has nothing to do with a 21st century mindset. I am, by education, a medievalist. I've spent no small portion of my life on ancient manuscripts and their dissemination, with many a long day at the Arsenal in Paris laboring over authentic documents.
As t o Paul and Galatians - I know the passage well. You need to continue it. .."to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." Paul defied Jerusalem - (who, by the way was under the rule of James, Jesus' brother, not Peter the supposed first pope.) This is not cherry
picking. Again, read my post on Paul. If Paul is correct in saying that what he
knows does not come from men but from God, how would he know the details of the Last Supper, (the transforming words of the Eucharist) and yet not know the details of the virgin birth, the sermon on the mount or any of the other particulars of the
gospels.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Natej1 |
No text | #25 | ||
|
Posts: 945 10/14/09 18:03:06 Camper |
Last Edited By: Natej1 10/14/09 18:09:18.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Natej1 |
#26 | |||
|
Posts: 946 10/14/09 18:07:58 Camper |
tonydev wrote:That doesn't take much explaining. We have no evidence whatsoever that the apostle John was a "simple person" and where he came from is irrelevant. Jesus was from Galilee too. Furthermore John did not remain in Galilee but spent time in Jeruselem and supposedly lived and died in Ephesus, both cosmopolitan cities. As a "pillar" of the Church he would have access to tutors and aides (for a long time) and could easily have aquired many skills. Your methodology seems to be to take an unlikely speculation and bolster it with unproven assumptions and further speculations and PRESTO, out pops an absolute fact. In regards to Paul you have latched on to a misinterpretaion of "he conferred not with flesh and blood" in Galations and tried to expand it into an impossible scenario of Paul making up the Gospels. That this phrase should not be taken literally and extended to all his knowledge and teachings is clear from the rest of Scripture. ACTS 9:1-26 says immediately after the revelation, rather than going to Arabia and not conferring with flesh and blood, Paul was told he must enter Damascus, for there he would be told what he is to do. Not only must the he confer with flesh and blood to find out what he is to do; but even receives the Holy Spirit from Ananias. In 2Pet3:16 we are warned that Paul's epistles are easily misinterpreted. Those of us who believe that the Scriptures are co-authored by God can't ignore that fact in reading them. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#27 | |||
|
Posts: 1476 10/14/09 23:03:00 Camper |
We have no evidence whatsoever that the apostle John was a "simple person" and where he came from is irrelevant. (John) would have access to
tutors and aides (for a long time) and could easily have aquired many skills.
So, the understanding from the context of the synoptics as a whole, that the followers of Jesus were simple men, has no validation. But, the assertion that these men, or at least one of them, had access to Greek scholarship and tutors is perfectly plausible. Yet, you write of me: Your methodology seems to be to take an unlikely speculation and bolster it with unproven assumptions and further speculations and PRESTO, out pops an absolute fact. Would you provide the non-speculative information that John had Greek tutors? As to Paul ( you might want to read my original post) there are several claims as to the source of his information. None of which allign. Neither those within his own writings nor the account of Acts. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Natej1 |
#28 | |||
|
Posts: 947 10/15/09 23:09:56 Camper |
tonydev wrote:Tony, I have never claimed any kind of certitude about who the author of John was, so a plausibility argument is reasonable, but since you expressed certitude that it was NOT the apostle I asked for the source of it. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#29 | |||
|
Posts: 1479 10/16/09 00:10:36 Camper |
May I note that you suggest:
Furthermore John did not remain in Galilee but spent time in Jeruselem and supposedly lived and died in Ephesus, both cosmopolitan cities. As a "pillar" of the Church he would have access to tutors and aides (for a long time) and could easily have aquired many skills. What is the source of that information? My reading of John is based upon the contextual status of the gospels. Again - what is your source that "John" has tutors and aides to compile a distinctlt Greek testament? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#30 | |||
|
Posts: 1480 10/21/09 00:31:34 Camper |
To Burke and Nate:
I do not see any continuation or development. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#31 | |||
|
Posts: 4917 10/21/09 08:48:42 Camper |
Hi Tony,
The problem is you believe that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a great teacher; we believe that he did exist and in fact is God come down to address human kind face to face. The discussion is futile, we are not even singing from the same hymn book. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#32 | |||
|
Posts: 1481 10/21/09 23:21:38 Camper |
So, then, any interest in exploring history, text and fact have no place in what a person decides to believe.
Something like the Fundamentalists who refute evolution. Ainsi soit-il! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#33 | |||
|
Posts: 4920 10/22/09 09:26:28 Camper |
Hi Tony,
> So, then, any interest in exploring history, text and fact have no place in what a person decides to believe. Don't be silly, of course it does, but in examining the history, text and fact we have obviously come to different conclusions, which is fine. My point is you have concluded that Jesus, if he existed was just a teacher, albeit a great one, and the scriptures are just ancient books made up mostly of fiction to teach a point. We believe that Jesus is God come down in human flesh and the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. History, text and facts are essential in the interpretation of what Jesus taught. In my case I began as an Agnostic and reach a point of a belief in a supreme being, for lack of a better term. After a lot of reading and soul searching the Judaeo/Christian God seemed the logical choice. After further research and what I can only describe as a religious experience I came to believe in God and that the fullness of truth was found in the Roman Catholic Church. It does not have all the answers and admits it. By the way, two books by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) that might interest you. Introduction to Christianity, based on university lectures he gave back in the late 60's, and Truth and Tolerance, Christian Belief and World Religions. They are hard slugging, I just finished Introduction to Christianity for the third time, but someone of your background would find them intellectually challenging. While you would disagree with the premise, it would give you some insight into the thought processes that he and the Church went through to reach their conclusions regarding Christianity. He does not shy away from some of the obvious problems some of which you hae pointed out. They are not an apology for Christianity, but a philosophical/theological discussion of the subject. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#34 | |||
|
Posts: 1483 10/26/09 22:21:51 Camper |
Yes, I am familiar with these texts. But, they approach their topic from a specific given. They do not start from point zero.
The discussion in these studies presume a given understanding. The interrogations do not consider the fundamental questions of the texts they explore. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#35 | |||
|
Posts: 4927 10/26/09 22:54:50 Camper |
Hi Tony,
> They do not start from point zero. I have yet to enter a discussion that starts at zero. Anyone who purports to do so is fooling themselves. Having said that, Ratzinger is intelligent enough, to say the least, that I doubt that he would pursue something that he considered a myth. The fact that he acknowledges the problems that still beg an answer says something surely. > The discussion in these studies presume a given understanding. An understanding, I would suggest, that was reached after much soul-searching on his part. I am sure you did not wake up one morning and decide that Jesus may have never existed an left it at that. > The interrogations do not consider the fundamental questions of the texts they explore. On the contrary, it is safe to assume, considering his background, that Ratzinger considered the fundamental questions and, while acknowledging the problems, was satisfied with his conclusions. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#36 | |||
|
Posts: 1484 11/01/09 23:01:41 Camper |
If you don't start by asking the questions from zero, then it's a bit like fundamentalists who begin their examination of creation with Genesis. For
them, that is the foundation of all due and necessary consideration.
It is not safe to assume anything. While Ratzinger may have been satisfied with his starting point, it doesn't necessarily follow that his was the starting point. The need to constantly question where any concept begins is the foundation of the modern world. Without it, earth would still be the center of the universe and disease would be caused by evil phlegms and bad airs. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#37 | |||
|
Posts: 4937 11/02/09 09:16:14 Camper |
Hi Tony,
> While Ratzinger may have been satisfied with his starting point, it doesn't necessarily follow that his was the starting point. We are all at some point at zero. I was and I am sure Ratzinger was. Ratzinger settled zero and moved on. You may not accept his conclusion and it is perfectly fine for you to disagree with him. You wish to go back to zero, I personally have been there as an Agnostic, came to a conclusion regarding Christianity and am not particularly interested in rehashing issues that I have settled. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#38 | |||
|
Posts: 1486 11/05/09 00:07:19 Camper |
En d'autres termes, ferme les yeux!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#39 | |||
|
Posts: 4946 11/05/09 09:33:56 Camper |
Hi Tony,
> En d'autres termes, ferme les yeux! Hardly, I would suggest that once one has made a determination, after due diligence, on any subject they should move on to the next phase. For example, in researching the War of 1812 there are aspects of events that cannot be nailed down with certainty. Granted most are trivial things, but I am a stickler for accuracy. Once I have satisfied myself that I have found the answer, while I may revisit it on occasion, I am not particularly interested in getting into a protracted discussion based on speculation. After 25 years of theological and biblical studies, some at the post graduate level, I find your opinions interesting, but not credible. By the way, back when you first brought up Paul as the "inventor" of the Eucharist I did revisit it briefly, considered it a non-starter and moved on. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tonydev |
#40 | |||
|
Posts: 1488 11/06/09 18:17:06 Camper |
Paul claims (in different versions) that what he knows does not come from men, but from God. In other words - he sees himself as inspired. In the epistles, the
only phrase that matches up with the gospels is the phrase that stands as the foundation of the Eucharist. There is nothing else in Paul that alligns itself
with the synoptics. He never quotes a single thing that the various gospel Jesus' have to say.
Now, if Paul was written first, and Paul had no recourse to other sources ( according to what Paul himself says) it would seem that these words originated with him. Thus, while Paul never says anything that the gospels say, the gospels, at least for this phrase, echo Paul. The presentation of the argument here is somewhat clumsy, but, I think it can be followed. How is it that of all the words of Jesus, Paul does not recall any - except for the Eucharist. And how is it that these words, as originally found in Paul, reproduce themselves in the synoptics? So, I would suggest that you consider again what you call a "non-starter." |
|||
|
|
||||
- Coffee & Doughnuts
- Catholic/Ecumenical Discussion
- Catholic/Jewish Discussion
- Catholic/Non-Catholic Discussion
- Catholic Debate Board
- Catholics Loyal to the Magisterium
- News/Articles/Propaganda/Etc
- Religious Website Reviews
- Literary Forum
- Board Hops, Board Rules and Catholic Links
- Prayer Requests
- Apologetics Files: General
- Apologetics Files: Historical
- Apologetics Files: Social Issues
- Moderator's Archives
