Iskander

Ah. It is a historical ad hominen., which reflects on the living.

The Hasmoneans were worse than the “regime of attack dogs” ., and later, in spite of not facing the problem of ruling a complex commonwealth, the domestic rabbis of the Talmud often speak of the evil heretics .


Are you aware that repeating insulting propaganda is the obsession of attack pigs?

Iskander

As it is written, so it will be done, says the Talmudist constructing the regime of attack pigs.


He warns against heretics and he calls me a fool—an evil fool like this one: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. ---Were these aggressive, ignorant rabbis better than the rabbis of the heretic breakaway Jewish Christian sect?


Talmud - Mas. Berachoth 12b page 45



http://halakhah.com/pdf/zeraim/Berachoth.pdf

EarlDoherty

(I’m a week late responding to this particular posting—been out of the country—and haven’t read through subsequent parts of this thread.)

The trouble is, when one’s “logical explanation” involves problems that are greater than the one your explanation is supposed to solve, you face a dilemma. The claim that all the Pauline epistles were written following Justin is far more problematic than Justin’s silence on Paul. The content of the Pauline epistles as we have them is simply not compatible with the second half of the 2nd century and certainly not as authored by orthodox forces seeking to reclaim a Paul figure for orthodoxy and away from Gnostic usage (which is the standard scenario).

Shesh is indeed right that there seems to be no evidence in Justin of the existence of whatever circles “Paul” moves in and “seeds” according to the epistles. But then, if they did not exist in the time of Justin, how does their content end up being presented and portrayed in the Paulines if the epistles were a product of the latter 2nd century? The picture in the Paulines is supposed to reflect a latter second century scene? For all that “aa has made his opinion and position quite clear” that simply doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make sense that these alleged latter-second-century products present no historical Jesus (sorry, “brother of the Lord” and “born of woman”, aa’s mantras, won’t bear that weight). It doesn’t make sense that there is no apostolic tradition in the Paulines, no tracing “proper” ideas through a chain leading back to the genuine apostles of Jesus. It doesn’t make sense that the Pauline soteriological concepts (Christ in you, baptism into the death of Christ, etc.) show up nowhere in any writings clearly identifiable from the second century. Where do they come from out of the blue if the Paulines are products of the post-Justin era?

In other words, Shesh and aa, your position on the Paulines makes no sense and is untenable. It creates far more problems beside allegedly solving the silence of Justin, which is readily explainable by other means.

Let’s place the bulk of the Paulines into the first century, reflective of its time, a period before any concept of an incarnated Son on earth. First of all, if the scenario presented in the Paulines (whether one calls them “study groups/symposia” or “Jewish mystery-cult style faith groups” or anything else you like) represents the situation in, let’s say, the mid-first century, why should we expect to find that scenario persevering one hundred years later, let alone in all circles? Time does move on. Sects evolve and change. They syncretize, add and drop features. Indeed, NT scholarship has long noted that Paul himself, his world and its ideas, seem to drop largely out of sight around the beginning of the 2nd century and basically resurface in orthodox circles only after the mid-point of the century. In the interim he seems to have been picked up by Gnostic circles, notably Marcion, although our evidence that proto-orthodoxy even noticed this begins only around that mid-point. So for Justin not to have been aware of Paul, is probably not surprising.

And from what circles did Justin emerge? I have made the case that like almost all the second century apologists, he emerged from a basically philosophical movement, a kind of religious Platonism, based on belief in the Logos as a revealing and salvation figure, one which had no historical Jesus: that Logos religion is visible in Athenagoras, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, and early Tatian (to which we can add Aristides, since his gospel-like passage is clearly an insertion). In other words, it was decidedly not Pauline. It had no sacrificial Son, no atonement doctrine. Again in other words, it was not derived from Paul and his circles. Justin’s own account of his conversion experience at the beginning of Trypho shows that this is what he was converted to: a religion of a heavenly Logos, who saved by revealing the Jewish God, aided by the writings of the Jewish prophets.

Now Justin, alone of all those major pre-180 (if that late) apologists, came to adopt the incarnation of the Son on earth and his atoning crucifixion. But this was not via Paul or Paul’s legacy. It was via at least a couple of the Gospels, which Justin, some time after his conversion (which had happened around 130), encountered (his “memoirs of the apostles,” probably in pre-canonical form) and accepted them as historical accounts, incorporating them in his Apology and Trypho during the 150s. He was the first major apologist extant to do so. (Tatian and others later show signs of being aware of such literature, but not of viewing it as history. For Tatian they are just "stories" in much the same category as the Greek myths.) Not having any direct contact with or derivation from Paul, Justin was also unaware of Paul’s stance on circumcision.

The following principle cannot be stressed enough. Once one perceives and accepts the great diversity of the faith movement in an intermediary Son current in the first and second centuries (gurugeorge styles it a kind of “New Age” movement, which I like) then we can understand the variety visible in the documentary record of that period and eliminate its supposed anomalies (created by traditional orthodox views of the development of Christianity which have to be jettisoned). The silence on Paul (and much else) in certain swaths of that early ‘New Age’ faith in the Son (heavenly, earthly, Gnostic, Revealer, sacrificial, champion of the Jewish Righteous, Beloved of the Odes of Solomon, even Philo’s “first-born”, etc., etc.) presents no problem at all.

We might also note that NT scholarship has moved beyond the naivete of former eras and is now coming to realize that the Gnostic faith in a range of saving intermediaries is independent of Christianity proper and that such figures are not derived from Jesus of Nazareth (though there are certain “Jesus” figures which developed in some Gnostic sects which are dependent on the Gospels, creating a category of “Christian Gnosticism”—again, more variety and fluidity and syncretism going on). Considering that there are proto-gnostic elements in Paul and that he seems to have survived through the first half of the 2nd century primarily within Gnostic circles, the relative void found on him in different, proto-orthodox circles fits the diversity scenario I have just presented.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You are years late. It is early Pauline letters that are extremely problematic and without corroboration in the Canon.

The fact that Justin did not mention Paul, the Pauline letters and the Pauline Revealed Gospel is problematic ONLY to those who are holding to the long held presumption that the Pauline letters were composed even before c 70 CE without a shred of credible or corroborative evidence from the very Canon of the Jesus cult.

There is absolutely no problem at all that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

It is those who claim the Pauline letters were early, before c 62 CE that have many, many problems.

In fact, Apologetic writers of antiquity who claimed or implied the Pauline letters were composed before c 68 CE pose many many problems with respect to the authorship, date and chronology of the very same Pauline letters.

1. Examine the writings attributed to Justin

Justin showed that the Jesus cult developed WITHOUT the Pauline Revealed Gospel, and WITHOUT the Pauline letters.

Justin's conversion to the Jesus cult was NOT influenced at all by Paul.

Justin claimed it was 12 illiterate men who preached the Gospel to all the world.

2. Examine Acts of the Apostles.

The author of Acts had no problem when he did NOT mention the Pauline letters and the Pauline revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus. Up to at least c 62 CE, the author of Acts did not acknowledge Paul as a letter writer but claimed the Jerusalem Church wrote letters and gave them to Paul.

In Acts, the Jesus cult was developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

3. Examine Aristides' Apology.

Aristides did not have any problem when he did NOT mention Paul and did not include him as the pioneer evangelist who was commissioned to preach Christ to the uncircumcised. Aristides claimed that it was the 12 disciples who preached the Gospel to all mankind.

In the writings of Aristides, the Jesus cult of Christians was developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters

4. Examine the writings attributed to Theophilus of Antioch.

NO problem is encountered when he did not mention Paul, the Pauline letters and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

Theophilus of Antioch showed that the Pauline letters had NO influence on his belief that he was a Christian.

5. Examine the writings attributed to Athenagoras of Athens.

No problem at all is found when this Christian did not mention Paul, the Pauline letters and the Pauline revealed Gospel.

Again, Athenagoras showed Christians of antiquity were not influenced at all by the Pauline letters and Revealed Gospel.

6. Examine Minucius' Felix "Octavius"

The author of "Octavius" showed that the Pauline letters were NOT needed at all for the conversion of Caecilius.

Essentially, Octavius did not have any problems at all WITHOUT Paul.

7. Examine Arnobius' "Against the Heathen"

Arnobius showed no influence by the Pauline letters and again showed that the Jesus cult of Christians developed WITHOUT them.

There is NO problem at all the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr.

Now, the writings attributed to Irenaeus, the first to mention that Paul wrote Seven letters to Churches, have been Rejected by you and almost all Scholars.

You have even argued that the Pauline letters that are presumed to be authentic are really later manipulated letters.

Essentially, you are admitting that the Pauline letters themselves are highly problematic and do not reflect history.

You are admitting that you cannot trust even supposed authentic Pauline letters.

It is most fascinating that you do not seem to realize that you are actually confirming that the Pauline letters as we have them today cannot be accepted as early.

The Pauline letters as we have them are LATE MANIPULATED writings once they were interpolated.

You have lots of problems.

You argue that supposed authentic Pauline letters are manipulated but has NEVER shown any "early" Pauline writings that are NOT interpolated.

Your problems will never go away once you argue the letters of Paul that we now have found are interpolated but never produce those WITHOUT the interpolation and Reject those who claim all the Pauline letters were authentic.

And your problems are far more serious than previously anticipated.

The author of the first source, "Against Heresies", to claim the Pauline writer composed ALL Seven letters to Churches and the Pastorals did not even know when Jesus was crucified.

Essentially, early Pauline letters are extremely problematic and will continue to be problematic.

EarlDoherty

aa, this is to notify you that I am ignoring anything said by you in response to my postings. You never address anything I present except by way of repeating your mantras without any counter-argument. Consider yourself non-existent in my books.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You are the one who has not addressed anything that I have presented in your post. You seem not to accept any challenge which I find extremely strange.

This is to notify you that I will always expose your errors whenever they have brought to my attention.


Now, Your claims about me are fundamentally erroneous.

I have addressed your Mantra that "The claim that all the Pauline epistles were written following Justin is far more problematic than Justin’s silence on Paul."

Did you not make reference to Justin Martyr's silence on Paul?

I also did make mention of Justin's silence on Paul.

I did state that Justin Martyr wrote nothing of Paul, the Pauline letters, the Pauline revealed Gospel and that Justin Martyr showed that teachings of the Jesus cult were developed WITHOUT the Pauline letters but from the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels and the books of the Prophets--See the works of Justin Martyr.


I have merely exposed your erroneous argument. The silence of Justin on Paul only creates a problem for those who have presumed the Pauline letters were composed before c 68 CE without a shred of corroboration.

I will ADDRESS more of your blatant errors.

Again, you make erroneous claims or implications about my position. I have NOT claimed that the Pauline writings reflect a 2nd century scene.

I must defend myself against your mis-leading statements about me.

Please, why can't you repeat what I have written?

I have stated that the Pauline letters are WITHOUT corroboration in the very Canon of the Jesus cult.

It is a fact that Acts of the Apostles does not mention the Pauline letters to Churches or the Pastorals.

I have stated that the Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus and were written AFTER c 180 CE and even as late as c 305-362 CE or AFTER the writings of Arnobius and BEFORE the writings of Julian the Emperor.

Essentially, if we removed ALL the letters under the name of Paul from the Jesus cult Canon there would virtually be no author of the Canon that used any details from the Pauline Canon.

If we remove ALL the letters under the name of Paul the Canon would be far less problematic.

The letters under the name of Paul are NOT compatible with the details in the Gospels and the Apocalypse of John.


The Pauline letters essentially do not really represent any stage of the Jesus cult movement in any century.

Let me make it extremely clear. The Pauline letters are historically bogus--of no historical value except that they are actual documented forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

I have examined writings attributed to a writer called Clement of Rome. When there was a Great Dissension in Corinth it is claimed Clement, supposedly the earliest writer to mention a Pauline Epistle, wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians.

Up to the 5th century, the supposed 1st Epistle of Clement was unknown by Bishops of the Church.

First Clement is a forgery or false attribution. First Clement is extremely problematic. In other words--sources that mention Paul create MORE problems for the Pauline writer and those sources are in a far worse condition than the Pauline letters.

All writings that mention the so-called 1st Epistle of Clement were most likely composed AFTER the start of the 5th century or AFTER the writings attributed to Alexander of Hippo and Rufinus.

I have examined writings attributed to Irenaeus. The writing called "Against Heresies" which is supposedly the first to mention the Seven letters of Paul to Churches Paul and Clement of Rome is a massive forgery--the original author of Against Heresies 2.22 knew nothing of the supposed Pauline letters and that Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

Again, we see that that although writings attributed to Irenaeus mention Paul those very writings are in a worse condition than the Pauline letters and create MORE Problems for Paul.

When it was argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age, about c 48-50 CE, under Claudius after being 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius then the Pauline letters become extremely problematic.

There is NO evidence of a Jesus cult of Christians in Jerusalem in the 1st century or any century up to at least the 4th century and no evidence of a Jesus cult Christian called Paul a Hebrew of Hebrews who was formerly a Pharisee.

The Jesus cult of Christians are of the 2nd century and were not originated in Jerusalem by Jews.

Sheshbazzar

And your position on the Paulines makes no sense. 'Paul' explicitly states his relationship to the original Apostles and the early Church repeatedly, that these came first, and that he came last.
And I will not even bother repeating all of the chronology that is so explicitly laid out it Acts.

You have a big problem on your hands Earl, if you attempt to place the 'Pauline writings' writings before the foundation of the church and the propagation of the gospel by the original Apostles.
To do so you must ignore or discount many of the statements made by 'Paul' in his Epistles, as well as virtually the entire sequence of events as they are presented in The Book of Acts.
It does not speak well for the credibility of your 'witness' when you must begin by either ignoring, or impugning and discrediting his own testimony about these matters.
Care to explain to us what "other means" you resort to to explain away the accounts given in Acts, and of 'Paul's own statements as to his late coming to the Christian faith?

As aa above points out, the Christian Gospel was accepted and received without any knowledge, acceptance, or utilization of any of these 'Pauline' writings.
Which strongly argues that they weren't among the writings known to, or were not accepted by the church's known writers until sometime after 180 CE.

As pointed out with Justin circa 150 CE, with his extensive exposition on circumcision, it is virtually inconceivable that had 'Paul's words and authority on circumcision had been around and been familiar to the gentile churches since the first century, that Justin would neither cite his writings, nor acknowledge the existence, and testimony of such a well known and established authority, second only to Jesus Christ himself.

A lot about 'Paul' and his alleged writings 'doesn't make sense'.

What makes even less sense, is you trying to hold on to these bogus 'Pauline' writings as being either credible or the genuine writings of an authentic 1st century 'Paul'.

MrMacSon

At least half, if not all, the writings attributed to Paul are by unknown authors.

Paul is unknown.

Sheshbazzar

1 Corithinans, and Galatians are among the claimed to be "undisputed" Pauline Epistles.

Does that mean that what 'Paul' writes in them is to be taken as authentic to 'Paul'?

Can we take 'Paul's' word in these "undisputed" epistles on these matters Earl?

Duvduv

By their own methodology it is preposterous to claim that any epistles are authentic because they cannot empirically prove any were written by someone named Paul or that he existed. Furthermore, the whole debate over the mythcism of the epistles assumes they can be taken as unified letters written by single individuals with singular intention with no room for the possibility that epistles were composites of different sources.