The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible

[Drich]

I don't claim to know for certain that the OP is right that the Gospels came after Paul wrote his letters, but what you're suggesting is that Paul preached the Gospels that hadn't been written yet.

No one really knows when or what order the books were written. What I am saying is that the Gospels are the personal accounts of Matthew and John both a Deciples/Apstoles of Christ, Mark a deciple of Peter, and Luke a deciple of Paul. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke

Paul did not write an gospel because he taught the gospel with the authority that only an apstole of Christ has. What Paul taught was what seeded his church and what ultimatly his deciples taught. In short, Luke's written account was Paul's gospel. Where else would a gentile doctor get the information he penned down in his Gospel account 20 years after the fact?

This is the point you need to address: that the Gospels existed in the same form as they were presented in MMLJ when Paul was preaching his schtick. This is your claim, and I find it hard to support in light of the OP's research about how the Gospels actually came after the works of Paul.

The reason these works ALL came after the fact is because people back then did not prize the written word as they do today. A man's verbal word was his bond. In a soceity where there is less than a 10% literacy rate, the written word becomes a shady way to communicate to most folk. It wasn't till everyone started to die off that it became nessary to write stuff down.