The Septuagint contains deuterocanonical books.
You act as if that would be absolutely critical to their understanding
I don't act, FK. And, yes it is absolutely critical.
The point is that you were attacking the scriptures and I said that Paul taught that they should be consulted above oral teaching.
Attacking scriptures? LOL! Informed critique is an "attack?"
Ridiculous. You leave out: Mark 9:30-31
Mark wasn't written either when 1 Corinthians was written. Paul wrote according to the Scriptures and my question is what Scriptures? Don't quote Mark to me because it wasn't written yet. We know that from external sources.
There is absolutely no way you can sell it as a certainty that Mark was not written and known to Paul before 1 Cor. No way
I am worried because your statements are becoming overtly dogmatic FK. When was Mark's Gospel written? Where was Mark and where was Paul when it was written?
I am worried because your statements are becoming overtly dogmatic FK. When was Mark's Gospel written? Where was Mark and where was Paul when it was written?
I don't know what is dogmatic about my saying YOU can't be dogmatic about this! :) I just said you can't prove that Mark WASN'T written first and known to Paul. There are differing reasonable views about when it was written. One of those views is that if Acts was written some time around 61 AD, and Luke preceded it, then Mark must have been even earlier since Luke probably borrowed from Mark in writing his Gospel. That would put the date anywhere in the 50's or earlier. 1 Cor. was probably written in the mid 50's, obviously after his first visit there in 50. So, it might have been after, but it might have been before. If Mark was before, then the whole problem goes away just for that.