Jesus vs Paul?

[Oberon]

There is not a single act or event written of in the gospels that we can say with any degree of certainty that actually happened

You can't. Virtually every ancient historian over the past century would beg to differ. But I know you are an expert given the many webpages you have visited.

, and not one single word uttered from Q ,(sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke), that we can find in any of the earliest Christian writings, (the epistles)

I take back that expert remark. Surely one website you visited would have shown the above incorrect? Oh wait. You only visit those supporting what you already believe.

You are simply and obviously "not one word of Q is found in Paul." Paul "rejects" Jesus' teaching on divorce. THIS IS FOUND IN Q!!! From 1 Cor. 7:10-12:"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." What he DOES do is distinguish his teaching from Jesus'. This is important for two reasons: 1) This teaching, contrary to what dogsgod asserts above, is found in Q (The Complete Gospels p. 294) Lk 16:18/Mt 5:32. So it shows that Paul knew something of Jesus' teachings. 2) If dogsgod is correct, and all of Jesus' teachings Paul knows are through revelation, then there would be no reason to distinguish Jesus' teaching on divorce from his own addition. Both could be attributed to revelation.

 

[fallingblood]

Not considered authentic i.e unknown writer attributed to paul?

I am finding it kinda strange when in one breath fallingblood you strongly disagreed with logician as to the none-existing unknown writers, yet in another breath you have just acknowledged the unknown authorship of Ephesians?

I disagreed with logician on his statement that Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John never existed. I fully agree that the Gospels are written by unknown writers; however, how logician tried to prove that simply, in my opinion, was false.

I agree with him that yes, the writers are unknown. However, rest of his statement I disagree with.

 

[Oberon]

There were varying gospels as well like Thomas, Phillip, Mary, etc.

Of the gospels we possess outside the canonical ones, precious few if any are useful except in understanding the religious nature of the producer(s) of the texts (i.e. they are pretty worthless when it comes to trying to obtain historical data about Jesus or the earliest layer of christianity from them).

The one big possible exception is Thomas. As we have it, Thomas is a much later gospel. However, it is clear that parts of it go back far earlier. The question is how earlier, and the central debates are 1) Does Thomas predate the synoptics? and 2) Is Thomas independent of the synoptics?

From my reading of the literature, I believe that a majority argue that Thomas was composed after the synoptics, and while it may well be true that "layers" of Thomas are earlier, "layers" of all the gospels are earlier and this isn't saying much, particularly as I don't have great faith in the ability of scholars to "stratify" these layer chronologically.

The issue of dependence is far more murky. It may be I just haven't examined the literature enough, but this seems to me to be even less agreed on. Even those who posit a late date for Thomas may very well still argue that it is independent of the canonical gospels (e.g. Bart Ehrman). J. P. Meier and Christopher Tuckett make some convincing arguments for dependence, but it is hardly a sure thing.

As for the vast majority of the other gospels, most acknowledge they are either far to late or just too incomplete to matter for this issue. There are minority exeptions, such as Crossan's vain attempt to convince anyone that the Gospel of Peter contains the earliest version of the passion.

For the most part, scholars interested in reconstructing the historical Jesus rely mainly (or even solely) on the synoptics, and many use John and Thomas as secondary evidence.

 

[dogsgod]

You can't. Virtually every ancient historian over the past century would beg to differ. But I know you are an expert given the many webpages you have visited.




I take back that expert remark. Surely one website you visited would have shown the above incorrect? Oh wait. You only visit those supporting what you already believe.

You are simply and obviously "not one word of Q is found in Paul." Paul "rejects" Jesus' teaching on divorce. THIS IS FOUND IN Q!!! From 1 Cor. 7:10-12:"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." What he DOES do is distinguish his teaching from Jesus'. This is important for two reasons: 1) This teaching, contrary to what dogsgod asserts above, is found in Q (The Complete Gospels p. 294) Lk 16:18/Mt 5:32. So it shows that Paul knew something of Jesus' teachings. 2) If dogsgod is correct, and all of Jesus' teachings Paul knows are through revelation, then there would be no reason to distinguish Jesus' teaching on divorce from his own addition. Both could be attributed to revelation.

Wow, one similar view on divorce. Is that it? Does this one paltry teaching confirm a connection between Paul and Q, or is it mere coincidence? It's the common wording in M and L (see below), that leads us to believe a common source is at work, but is this the case with Paul? Does Paul quote any lines that we can recognize as coming from Q?

Q is a gospel of the supposed words of Jesus. Q is recognized by the almost exact wording of Jesus quotes found in Matthew and Luke, not merely by the subject matter itself. None of the Q sayings can be found in any of the epistles. These words of Jesus are only to be found in the gospel writings.

Luke18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

 

[logician]

I disagreed with logician on his statement that Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John never existed. I fully agree that the Gospels are written by unknown writers; however, how logician tried to prove that simply, in my opinion, was false.

I agree with him that yes, the writers are unknown. However, rest of his statement I disagree with.

It's really all fiction, but if you consider hearsay 3 times removed as real evidence, I hope you don't end up on jury.

 

[fallingblood]

It's really all fiction, but if you consider hearsay 3 times removed as real evidence, I hope you don't end up on jury.

So then we should just ignore the majority of what was written about Tiberius then?

Just because you don't understand ancient history, doesn't mean it is all fiction.

 

[logician]

So then we should just ignore the majority of what was written about Tiberius then?

Just because you don't understand ancient history, doesn't mean it is all fiction.

Nothing that is hearsay only, w/o some other eyewitness confirming evidence, is reliable, whether 2 minutes old, or 2000 years old.

 

[Oberon]

Wow, one similar view on divorce. Is that it?

First, It's not similar. It's the same thing, and it unique in the ancient mediterranean world. Let's contrast this with your previous statement:

There is not ...one single word uttered from Q, (sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke), that we can find in any of the earliest Christian writings, (the epistles),

Oh wait! There is at least "one single word" uttered from Q in the epistles.

Does this one paltry teaching confirm a connection between Paul and Q, or is it mere coincidence?

Given the extreme rarity of this position on divorce, and given Paul's technical terms for oral tradition being passed on to him, and the fact that Paul explicitly cites Jesus as the authority for this teaching (and cites himself elsewhere), and given the time he spent with Peter learning the tradition, no, it isn't "mere coincidence."

It's the common wording in M and L (see below), that leads us to believe a common source is at work, but is this the case with Paul? Does Paul quote any lines that we can recognize as coming from Q?

Who cares? Paul gives various churches all sorts of advice. He doesn't say it all comes from Jesus. In fact, when he cites the teaching on divorce, he cites Jesus first, and then explicitly says for another matter he doesn't know if Jesus said anything, so he gives his own view which he distinguishes from Jesus'.

Forbidding divorce was not a part of Jewish, Roman, or Greek custom. The forbidding of divorce in Q comes from Jesus. It does so in Paul as well. Paul doesn't just say "don't get divorced." Unlike other advice and commands he gives, here he explicitly says "Jesus said so."

So, again, we have Q citing Jesus' forbidding divorce, and Paul citing the same teaching.

Q is recognized by the almost exact wording of Jesus quotes found in Matthew and Luke, not merely by the subject matter itself. None of the Q sayings can be found in any of the epistles.

You didn't say "Q sayings" you said "not a single word." What we do have is Q and Paul both saying that Jesus forbad divorce.

And do you have any idea how the study of history works? The reason the four gospels aren't counted as independent is because of things like Q. Paul IS independent of Q, yet contains the same teaching. Historians call that multiple attestation.

 

[Oberon]

It's really all fiction, but if you consider hearsay 3 times removed as real evidence, I hope you don't end up on jury.

I hope you one day learn to distinguish the legal system, designed to do everything to protect the innocent, from the study of history.

 

[fallingblood]

Nothing that is hearsay only, w/o some other eyewitness confirming evidence, is reliable, whether 2 minutes old, or 2000 years old.

I'm guessing you haven't taken many law classes then, or anything in the criminal justice area of study.

 

[Oberon]

It's the common wording in M and L

I was so concerned with pointing out the significant errors in your post with my reply here, that I completely missed this utter misunderstanding of NT scholarship. You clearly don't know what the designations "M" & "L" are. Let me explain for you:

The most commonly accepted theory for the relationships between the synoptics is as follows: Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke used Mark, and in addition they used a common (hypothetical) source referred to as Q. However, both Matthew and Luke have material unique to each. This unique material is referred to as M and L, M for Matthew's unique material and L for Luke's.

In other words, there is BY DEFINITION no "common wording" in M & L which forms the basis of Q, as M and L are those parts of Matthew and Luke not contained in either Q or Mark.

If you spent less time trolling the web trying to find support for the opinions you are already committed to, and more time reading actual scholarship, you might not make these sort of mistakes.

 

[blackout]

Jesus= intriguing
Paul= lame.

 

[dogsgod]

I was so concerned with pointing out the significant errors in your post with my reply here, that I completely missed this utter misunderstanding of NT scholarship. You clearly don't know what the designations "M" & "L" are. Let me explain for you:

The most commonly accepted theory for the relationships between the synoptics is as follows: Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke used Mark, and in addition they used a common (hypothetical) source referred to as Q. However, both Matthew and Luke have material unique to each. This unique material is referred to as M and L, M for Matthew's unique material and L for Luke's.

In other words, there is BY DEFINITION no "common wording" in M & L which forms the basis of Q, as M and L are those parts of Matthew and Luke not contained in either Q or Mark.

If you spent less time trolling the web trying to find support for the opinions you are already committed to, and more time reading actual scholarship, you might not make these sort of mistakes.

Thanks for the correction and thanks for the insults.

 

[Oberon]

Thanks for the correction and thanks for the insults.

You are most welcome. We all make mistakes (myself included) but if you want to avoid looking foolish in this particular area of scholarship you might try reading more scholarship and spend less time trolling the web to find whatever supports your view.

1) Contrary to what you stated, Paul does, in AT LEAST one instance, cite a teaching of Jesus which is also in Q.
2) You might want to spend a bit more time reading some of the thousands and thousands of pages of scholarship written by scholars from all sorts of religious backgrounds, and a bit less time simply seeking those sources which reinforce the conclusions you want to find anyway. After all, using your method, your are restricted to a tiny handful of experts, most of whom are only experts in related fields.

 

[dogsgod]

You are most welcome. We all make mistakes (myself included) but if you want to avoid looking foolish in this particular area of scholarship you might try reading more scholarship and spend less time trolling the web to find whatever supports your view.

1) Contrary to what you stated, Paul does, in AT LEAST one instance, cite a teaching of Jesus which is also in Q.
2) You might want to spend a bit more time reading some of the thousands and thousands of pages of scholarship written by scholars from all sorts of religious backgrounds, and a bit less time simply seeking those sources which reinforce the conclusions you want to find anyway. After all, using your method, your are restricted to a tiny handful of experts, most of whom are only experts in related fields.

Paul does not draw from Q and neither do any of the epistle writers. You should just stick to the insults because that's all you know.

 

[crystalonyx]

I have great doubt that there was a historical Jesus, not just because of the lack of historical data, but it is hard to put together the man "Jesus" separate from the miracles and have anything left worth looking at historically.

 

[fallingblood]

I have great doubt that there was a historical Jesus, not just because of the lack of historical data, but it is hard to put together the man "Jesus" separate from the miracles and have anything left worth looking at historically.

Not at all. Just look at John Dominic Crossan's books on the subject. Just those alone show that there is still a lot of information about Jesus besides just the miracles.

 

[blackout]

I don't really care if the character of jesus was real or not.
But then, I don't look at his character "historically"
(more "storiaclly" )

I love the kingdom teachings,
and the way his character speaks in riddles,
and even when you read the miracles
as metaphor
you can find some really neat stuff in there.

My interest in bible narrative could be narrowed down to....
oh.... well less than the 4 gospels....

and also I have divined other subjects by
asking my question and randomly opening,
then reading my answer in riddle like form.
(this was when I was still an out of church christian)
But .... that can work even in the phone book,
or anything else.

I really detest the character of Paul though.
Charlattan is the word that comes to mind.
The self proclaimed appostle snake oil salesman.
Dogmatic and domenering.
Not a character who interests me in any way.



(I also like MY interpretation of the garden of eden myth)

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Marcus Borg offers new perspectives on the historical Jesus. He's another liberal Christian scholar like John Dominic Crossan. Both of them are excellent, they've even authored books together. Marcus Borg wrote a book "Meeting Jesus Again the First Time." Excellent read. Also, "Reading the Bible Again the First Time". He also co-authored a book with Jack Kornfield: "Jesus and Buddha, the Parallel Sayings."

 

[blackout]

My brother refers to the proverbial "red letter bible".

Where only the words/actions/stories DIRECTLY attributed
to jesus are read.

I wish someone would print one of those.
Maybe he should.

Also the gnostic gospel teachings and accounts of jesus.

I would definately buy one.

I don't have the patience to sift. :no:

It would spark a whole new version of 'christianity'.

haha... the red line jesus heresy.
I like it. :rainbow1:

christians always say that jesus is enough... right?