outhouse

sorry

I tried going back and following your intent



the epistles came after justin???

Duvduv

Well, if in all of Justin's writings (meaning whoever wrote them with a name of Justin the marytr) where he writes about Jesus he never once mentions the name Paul or any of the epistles, it stands to reason that he didn't know about them, i.e. that they had not yet been written.

And then the question is whether the author of the epistles knew about the Justin texts, which appears unlikely because the epistles never invoke anything mentioned in the Justin texts concerning the historical Jesus.

So the only explanation for the fact that "Justin" already had gentile-centered messianic movement and the abolition of the Law without the "apostleship" of "Paul" means that this idea emerged from somewhere else (which presumably Justin's Old Man knew about).

But the emerging church needed a FIRST CENTURY source for this idea, not Justin, which was accomplished by the epistles. However, we still don't understand how or where "Justin" got the ideology from according to his own beliefs because the Justin texts don't say anything about it. The texts take for granted that the Jesus movement and the abolition of the Law already existed since the "beginning."

And if "the beginning" means the emergence of the Byzantine empire after Constantine, then the gentile salvation was there from the start. But apparently they didn't want to explain how it developed because they wanted the people to believe it was from Jesus himself. But apparently this became unsatisfactory, and they then needed a FIRST CENTURY SOURCE to actually show that the messiahship of Jesus belonged to the gentiles without the Law, so along comes "Paul" and the epistles (composed of composite texts).

outhouse

pauls epistles were sent to private homes, there were no churches then. paul was just one guy in a varied movement who happened to be literate and wanted his version/opinion to be heard.

not everyone may have been game to paul's version of jesus, was Gmark? obviously not


yet we know by 150CE with Marcion that they had surfaced and were placed as important.



maybe this is where your in error.


there really were no churches early on.


the first christians healed and taught for dinner scraps and never charged any money, and thought the end was coming soon. they had no need for a church and were not organized enough at this point for such.



we know much more then you think.

oral tradion was wide and varied, many text existed then, that do not now.

what we have is not what they had.

and even by the end of the first century besides the 4 gospels we have were semi finished, we had others now lost to history.

by the end of the first century the movement had no definition at all and was multicultural despite it failing in judaism


not how it went down


the movement had failed in judaism very early, after the fall of the temple the hope that helped build the oral jewish mythology surronding jesus, proved itself to not be satifactory anymore, since he was seen as a failed messiah. This shooting star type of success was still enough to spark a movement in all directions. had it not taken off early on with the poor poverty stricken romans worshipping in synagogues, it all would have failed and there would be no chrsitianity



by the end of the first century this was a roman movement only

aa5874

Please, where do you get your stories from?? Name your sources immediately.

I am searching through Acts and the Pauline letters and there is NOTHING at all like you claimed.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a PERSECUTOR so the movement PREDATED the Pauline writer.

Please, EARLY Paul is FAKE Paul based on the Abundance of evidence from antiquity and the Recovered Dated Texts.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Duvduv

Looks like you and I are not on the same wavelength for this discussion. There was no first century movement among Jews or gentiles because no first century Jesus existed. And no first century Paul existed.

outhouse

and yet all evidence no matter how limitied it may be, points exactly to a first century jesus and paul.

there are plenty of earmarks in paul for accurate dating.


as of yet to date, thi sforum has not disproven any modern scholarships that have accurately dated paul.

Duvduv

Outhouse, this Forum has gone into this exhaustively. And it's hard to understand why it has all flown by you.
I guess we'll both just have to move on on our own way, which is the same case as with others, including AA. But I hope other participants will jump into some of the more interestin issues that are not discussed very often beyond scholarly politics, side issues and choosing favorite and least favorite academics.

outhouse

because the evidence for dating isnt there to support your position.

Duvduv

No, that is not true. What is true is that despite all valid arguments to the contrary you want to believe in an historical Jesus in the first century followed by a Paul in the first century. Plain and simple. At least say so.

aa5874

It is most remarkable that you are NOW making the very same claims which I have been arguing over THREE YEARS ago on this very forum.

And, only recently you have arguing about the "Indwelling Christ".

Please, state your position because it seems as though you are CONVENIENTLY piggy-backing on my position.