Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Steven Avery »

The list starts with:

​John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983)
​John William Wenham (1913-1996)
Edward Earle Ellis (1926-2010)
James G. Crossley (b. 1972)
Martin Mosse
​Graham Jackman

Since we are including traditionalists, many more can be found (likely most scholars in the 1500s-1700s when they touch on the issue.)

Point proven for Stuart.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Stuart »

No point proven. I used "traditionalist" as a nice way to say apologist. It's just a list. Which is not what I asked for, rather your "essay".

You need to explain why these positions are correct, why the signatures are to be believed, why they are more probable than being added by a collector or editor at a later date. I could list dozens of individual problems with the position, but let's let you start by giving a summary of the defense, and then we can go through point by point.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by MrMacSon »

Steven Avery wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:40 pm You want a whole essay simply because you are ignorant on the topic and make bogus claims?
No. There is a principle, an ethic: "he who avers must prove''. The onus is on you to do so.

(your attempt at gaslighting is unsuccessful and unacceptable. all you've done is mark yourself as a potential malignant narcissist).
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Steven Avery »

I proved what I asserted.
A solid list of modern scholars with a pre-70 AD view.
And I never offered an essay - especially not to two annoying posters.

And I definitely enjoy the topic, and try to squeeze in time, for my own studies.
(Right now the studies around the Grantley McDonald threat to sue is way above in priorities.)

And I did not even go to the earlier centuries than 20th.
Before F. C. Baur, c. 1850, early dating was the norm.

Your posts are nonsense, since you moved the goal posts.
Are you always this silly and dense?

Anyway, it is good that you walked back your Acts-->Mark-ending claim.
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:26 pm
(your attempt at gaslighting is unsuccessful and unacceptable. all you've done is mark yourself as a potential malignant narcissist).
Punk-thug posting. :) Gave me a laugh.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Charles Wilson »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:26 pmThere is a principle, an ethic: "he who avers must prove''.
Aver:
to declare positively
to verify or prove to be true in pleading a cause

Usage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vFRB61xyls
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Steven Avery »

Stuart wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:28 pm You need to explain why these positions are correct,
Which positions?
Why would I take up a challenge to explain why various competing positions are all correct?

This team is really, really dense.

You are just as bad as the old IIDB team.
Worse, because you lack some of their smarts and logic.

Btw, my list was not "apologists".
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Stuart »

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:10 pm
Stuart wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:28 pm You need to explain why these positions are correct,
Which positions?
Why would I take up a challenge to explain why various competing positions are all correct?

This team is really, really dense.

You are just as bad as the old IIDB team.
Worse, because you lack some of their smarts and logic.

Btw, my list was not "apologists".
You have not defended a damned thing. You have asserted things, but not explained why they are probable or not.

Your word is not good enough.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Steven Avery »

More non-responsive stupidity from our triad of posters.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by perseusomega9 »

apologist be apologizing
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Why Paul is missing in the Gospels

Post by Steven Avery »

whatever, why are you folks so absurd in discussion?
And then you try to team up as a group of absurdists, so tacky.

Why not actually quote my words?
Then you could try to make a case that I offered more stuff.

And why would I try to apologetically convince a group of non-Christian mythicist and quirky ultra-late-date forum writers?
They start with paradigms that could never accept and understand early NT dating, which is a true pearl of understanding :).
Post Reply