Why Did Paul Get Precedence Above the Disciples

[Spartan]

Luke's Sermon on the Plain? I skimmed through the comparison...how do explain the fact that text is so precisely similar in some places and so different in others? How do you explain that one sermon is clearly on a mountain, the other in the plain?

Jesus gave two sermons. Wouldn't be the least bit unusual.

 

[sealchan]

I think you're grasping at straws.

Not so much as questioning unquestioned traditional assumptions IMO.

 

[sealchan]

Jesus gave two sermons. Wouldn't be the least bit unusual.

If you are okay with that then good. His words changed on any given day.

Should we look at the differences in his words between similar stories as anything significant? If he changed the Beatitudes from one set of ideals to another, is that important?

 

[shmogie]

There are more than two choices with respect to either eyewitness or a "conspiracy"...there is a the shared written source...each gospel author may have had their predecessor's gospels as source material. They then intentionally altered the accounts based on their own research/understanding. In dating the gospels the date indicates when that gospel was likely first written. Writing down events that took place decades ago can't be seen as reliable I would think in a criminal investigation.

Matthew's unique content evidences a familiarity with and a desire to compare and contrast a Christian belief with not only Judaism but other religions. The story of Jesus going into the wilderness, facing three temptation and then proceeding on to teach mirrors that of the Buddha. It may be that the Sermon on the Mount itself is also modeled after the first teachings at the deer park in Sarnath. While this was used implicitly, Matthew explicitly added unique material regarding the Magi who followed the star and through their more ambitious following of God's sign (pointedly so when compared directly to leadership in Jerusalem) were able to witness a special moment in the development of this new religion. Indeed Matthew pointedly contrasts "city" Judaism to that of John the Baptist as far as how people came from far and wide to get their spiritual needs met where a much closer synagogue might have sufficed.

The temptation scenes...Matthew didn't witness so they would have been made know to him via Jesus and it was likely other apostles...yet none of the other apostles mention this as important accepting Luke who confuses the order of the temptations. John even seems to drop the whole scene in his narrative...maybe he forget in the very old age he must have been before he chose to write down his account.

Then again I expect that witnesses, while they may describe the same event, don't describe it "word for word" identically. I would expect that this would be a sign that a witness was tampered with.

The Gospels are not identical statements by any stretch of the imagination. That is one identifying factor of true witness statements.

Not one Gospel mentions the destruction of the temple in AD 70, Why not, since they would be able to substantiate Christs prophecy ? Had they already been written ?

There are a number of facts that establish the Gospels, and their early date of writing, if you are interested, I can share them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are many theories out there, including that Paul did NOT get precedence, but only that his writings were better preserved because they were copied by the more numerous Gentile churches.

However, one of the more compelling theories is that of Robert Eisenman of CSU Long Beach. He pits James the brother of Jesus (bishop of the Church at Jerusalem) against Paul as bitter enemies, each hawking a completely different brand of the religion. He presents this in his book, "James the brother of Jesus."

 

[sealchan]

The Gospels are not identical statements by any stretch of the imagination. That is one identifying factor of true witness statements.

Not one Gospel mentions the destruction of the temple in AD 70, Why not, since they would be able to substantiate Christs prophecy ? Had they already been written ?

There are a number of facts that establish the Gospels, and their early date of writing, if you are interested, I can share them.

I skimmed through the comparison link you sent...some of the stories are almost exactly the same, word for word. Others are not. That difference in and of itself suggests that material was copied from another source in one case and embellished or altered in another. The material is too similar, too well-composed where it is different.

I have read enough of the New Testament that at this point I am fairly settled in my perspective. We can probably just agree to disagree here.

 

[shmogie]

I skimmed through the comparison link you sent...some of the stories are almost exactly the same, word for word. Others are not. That difference in and of itself suggests that material was copied from another source in one case and embellished or altered in another. The material is too similar, too well-composed where it is different.

I have read enough of the New Testament that at this point I am fairly settled in my perspective. We can probably just agree to disagree here.

Hmmmm, I don recall sending you a link.

Yes, what you propose is best

 

[sealchan]

Hmmmm, I don recall sending you a link.

Yes, what you propose is best

It must have been another poster. My apologies. It was a side-by-side comparison of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount to the similar passages in Luke.

 

[shmogie]

It must have been another poster. My apologies. It was a side-by-side comparison of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount to the similar passages in Luke.

OK , no problem.