Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I have found a good reason to know why Paul is strangely absent in the our Gospels, i.e., he is found there only in an allegorical way, behind allusions, symbolisms, etc, even in a pauline gospel as Mark.

Please ignore absolutely this thread if you consider as entirely normal the absence of Paul in the gospels because you think that it was "normal" since Paul himself says that he didn't know Jesus "according to the flesh" et similia.

At any case, the true reason is the following:

Paul was introduced to universal knowledge among Christians the first time in Rome by Marcion.

Since Marcion raised a lot of polemics, then Paul was observed with much suspicion and lack of confidence about his real side of membership (was he identified tout court with Marcion?, was he a pious Jew falsified by Marcion?)

Basically, in virtue of the same reason Justin et company ignored Paul (he was known as the apostle of the heretics), Paul was ignored in the same gospels.

Therefore: the authors of the Gospels ignored deliberately Paul and omitted him from the Gospels.

The corollary is that, by need, any Gospel was written after Marcion.

The same Gospel of Mark, despite of his being a pauline Gospel, considered it as necessary to allude only allegorically to Paul's teaching, to avoid any suspicion and hostility A PRIORI among his Readers. Hence, the Gospels were written in a time when the growing "Great Church" was already going to be dominant and capable of rejecting unwanted gospels.

My argument assumes a particular force when you ask yourself:

why did the blind Bartimeus have, even him, the great privilege of a vision of the true Jesus, in opposition to the 12, and not Paul in his place ?

Better answer: being the name of Paul strictly connected with marcionite propaganda, then even in a marcionite Gospel or in a pauline Gospel the name of Paul had to be not mentioned, but only alluded.

Hence, all the gospels were written to win followers among the members of the growing Great Church, i.e. people a priori hostile to Marcion.

Giuseppe, one day when i was drunk i came up with a really bizarre reason for this. it's crazy but i'll lay it out for you
What if Paul was considered an enemy by some, well we know he was
What if the gospel accounts came from those same people but written in such a way as to be acceptable to Paul's churches later on?
They could hardly openly write against him, yet why couldn't he have been disguised as Judas?
The betrayal 'with a kiss', ties in with Paul's professed love for Christ but persecuted his church which in a way is his betrayed body?
This idea might be more appealing to you if you don't see any historical Jesus as well
There's some curious parallels between Paul and Judas i can't be bothered to enumerate but are pretty obvious
The basic idea is simple. Paul destroyed the church, converted later on, was not accepted, his followers came to the remnants for gospel accounts, Judas became Paul in them... thinly disguised
In Paul's defense his conversion does appear genuine

Without disturbing Judas, you have already a parody of Paul behind the Gerasene demonic. So again, the rule is, if you want to sell a Gospel: don't mention explicitly Paul.

Yes, that's the rule, play safe, stick to Jesus
what about the Shepard of Hermas, does that infer references to Paul?
I think it does

The simple answer is that the Gospels were written c. 40-50 AD, about the events of c. 30-33 AD.

Paul's letters were written c. 55-60 AD.

Only if you assume the errant modern late dating paradigms do you run into a question.
Thus we have another evidence for early NT dates.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:45 am The simple answer is that the Gospels were written c. 40-50 AD, about the events of c. 30-33 AD.

Paul's letters were written c. 55-60 AD.

Only if you assume the errant modern late dating paradigms do you run into a question.
Thus we have another evidence for early NT dates.

You are assuming the documents are historical and also that the church timeline is correct. Implied also is the assumption that the signatures are authentic. You assume the events and place setting of the gospels are other than fiction. This is in sum a positive arguments, which is not valid, and requires that you defend it. You cannot assume it or declare it true. And citing a billion people making that same declaration does not get you one step closer.

Note, "errant" here is another unsupported declaration, so invalid, simply your opinion, based on ???.

Finally you flip the order of composition of the traditionalist view, making the gospels before the letters. This is something you need to explain also, as you deviate from the view you assert is valid.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:00 pm.... you flip the order of composition of the traditionalist view, making the gospels before the letters. This is something you need to explain also, as you deviate from the view you assert is valid.

And what do I assert is valid?

And what is the traditionalist view from which I deviate?

Thanks!

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 2:14 pm

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:00 pm.... you flip the order of composition of the traditionalist view, making the gospels before the letters. This is something you need to explain also, as you deviate from the view you assert is valid.

And what do I assert is valid?

And what is the traditionalist view from which I deviate?

Thanks!

Assertion is not an argument. It is an attempt to define yourself a winner by definition. But actually it makes you a loser inability to support your statement.

You deviate by placing the gospel composition before the letters. Even traditionalist accept the destruction of the temple references place the gospels after 66 CE.

Now I am going to help you, so that you can avoid faith based arguments and add something of value. Regardless of whether you accept the 4th century traditions of the church leadership as factual or not, it is inescapable that the gospel narratives place events of Jesus prior to the mission of Paul. Thus it would make no sense for Paul to appear in the gospels. This is an argument that does not rely upon faith of the Roman Catholic dogma, and it works regardless of whether you late date or early date the NT.