Hi Tony,
Sorry, I missed your post somehow.
> 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.
He was inspired, but that inspiration was not in isolation. Galatians 2 should at the very least give you pause. He went up to Jerusalem to get the blessing of the Church for his preaching.
> There is nothing else in Paul that aligns itself with the synoptics.
It wouldn't, his experience was post resurrection and his early contacts with Jerusalem were fleetly. For the same reason the twelve would not be quick to adopt an "invention" by Paul.
> He never quotes a single thing that the various gospel Jesus' have to say.
Of course, they hadn't been written yet.
> 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.
I would suggest that you are taking Paul too literally when he says what he knows does not come from men. The twelve would have said the same thing, the pope says the same thing today. While his knowledge was handed down by men, they have God as their origin. I grant you that Paul did receive revelations, but not in the sense that you portray them. Those revelations would have directed him to the preachings of the twelve.
> Thus, while Paul never says anything that the gospels say, the gospels, at least for this phrase, echo Paul.
As I have said before, Paul's letters were written to answer specific questions and to solve specific problems in the Churches to whom they were written. He would not have gotten into subject matter that was commonly held as it would have taken the focus away from what he was trying to get across.
> How is it that of all the words of Jesus, Paul does not recall any - except for the Eucharist.
Because Paul probably never heard Jesus as he was not one of his followers. On the contrary he looked on him as a crank. I would suggest that he received the Eucharist from the apostles at Jerusalem since it was the key to Christian liturgy, such as it was, in those early days.
> And how is it that these words, as originally found in Paul, reproduce themselves in the synoptics?
You are making an assumption not in evidence. I would suggest that Paul has reproduced these words from the oral tradition of the Church at Jerusalem.
Peace,
Sorry, I missed your post somehow.
> 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.
He was inspired, but that inspiration was not in isolation. Galatians 2 should at the very least give you pause. He went up to Jerusalem to get the blessing of the Church for his preaching.
> There is nothing else in Paul that aligns itself with the synoptics.
It wouldn't, his experience was post resurrection and his early contacts with Jerusalem were fleetly. For the same reason the twelve would not be quick to adopt an "invention" by Paul.
> He never quotes a single thing that the various gospel Jesus' have to say.
Of course, they hadn't been written yet.
> 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.
I would suggest that you are taking Paul too literally when he says what he knows does not come from men. The twelve would have said the same thing, the pope says the same thing today. While his knowledge was handed down by men, they have God as their origin. I grant you that Paul did receive revelations, but not in the sense that you portray them. Those revelations would have directed him to the preachings of the twelve.
> Thus, while Paul never says anything that the gospels say, the gospels, at least for this phrase, echo Paul.
As I have said before, Paul's letters were written to answer specific questions and to solve specific problems in the Churches to whom they were written. He would not have gotten into subject matter that was commonly held as it would have taken the focus away from what he was trying to get across.
> How is it that of all the words of Jesus, Paul does not recall any - except for the Eucharist.
Because Paul probably never heard Jesus as he was not one of his followers. On the contrary he looked on him as a crank. I would suggest that he received the Eucharist from the apostles at Jerusalem since it was the key to Christian liturgy, such as it was, in those early days.
> And how is it that these words, as originally found in Paul, reproduce themselves in the synoptics?
You are making an assumption not in evidence. I would suggest that Paul has reproduced these words from the oral tradition of the Church at Jerusalem.
Peace,
