Toto

You seem to be assuming that there must be some truth to these stories, or that the proposition that they are complete fabrications has the burden of proof. But there is no reason to assume this. In particular, the apocryphal Acts are full of fanciful, supernatural events. I know of no one who thinks that they must embody some historical core.

DevilsAdvocate

Yes. I understand the issues somewhat. The "selection" of the canon may very well have involved political or idealogical motivations. I would be interested in ideas on that.

Also, why is it assumed that the NT apocrypha are more than blown up here-say, attempts to aggrandize their messiah, or attempts to discredit the movement rather than complicated conspiracies. are problems with the simplest answers so severe that they had to be complicated?

spamandham

...some meat. Thanks!

Ok then, as I understand it, you assume Justin didn't know about Paul, because he never mentions him?

If so, in which of Justin's known writings would you expect to find Paul mentioned, and why?

Toto

Point of order, Klaus does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church viewpoint.

The period under consideration here is well before the split between East and West.


I'm having trouble following this. It is true that the NT seems to be about differences, both theological, philosophical, and organizational, between early Christians and Jews, and is aimed at a political unity of various Christian factions, if I read you correctly. Are you asking why they could not also have some historical core?

DevilsAdvocate

East west differences started long before the final break and even perhaps to the first Nicene conference which is in the time period being discussed. So when Klaus mentioned the Roman Catholics, it sounded a little like he was strictly referencing the Roman Catholic doctrines, and I thought it was worth mentioning that they are distinct in ways from early times... just to verify. The eastern church view is often lost in the west.

Yes, I was suggesting/asking about substantiated views on existence or degree of an historic core and the basis as well.

schilling.klaus

as opposed to the Gnostic and Ebionic and Montanist etc. communities
who all had different writings, corresponding to completely different understandings of Jesus, whereas the NT writings are wholly Roman Catholic and may only be used to express their christology.
If other communities use the same NT writings but try to dissociate it from the Roman hierarchy and magisterate, they do so without any historical justification.

Klaus Schilling

Chili

It is not their specialty but just proof that heaven is for Catholics only in that each one of them has a story to tell as Jesus.

The Stoics will never find this Logos nor will the Christians or it could not be for Catholis only.

Chili

Catholicism is a living faith wherein the original form was only good then and where now Eastern is Eastern and Roman is Roman.

They are infallible to say only that they are in charge of their own destiny which has nothing to do with the age of the documents.

DevilsAdvocate

I assume nothing. Therefore the possibility that there is some historic core in canon, and to some degree apocrypha, is extant, and so various explanations can be examined including the possibility that they are in some way authentic.

The burden of proof lies with those that want to understand without bias. Proofs are for mathematics and speculators, and frauds. Absolute proof of these stories is elusive at best and practically impossible. A rational, scientific aproach can help gain insight. If one seeks the truth behind a matter, they will seek understanding of the material, seek all possible explanations for their observations, posit their theories, and seek for ways to discredit them as well as arguments to support them (notice I did not say prove). This means they have to examine the issue from both (or more) sides even if one seems implausible to them.

Few, I would think find the NT apocrypha credible. That is one reason they are not considered canon. Political and theological reasons are also likely factors. The "canonized" and some other sources are less fanciful and more likely to reflect some actual people and events, even if they are massaged and edited for a purpose.

aa5874

I would expect "Paul" to be mentioned in First Apology or Dialogue with Trypho. If Marcion was using the "memoirs of the apostles" to propagate the phantom, the non-crucified Jesus, son of another Greater God, and since Justin mentioned Marcion, I would expect this writer to make some comment about "Paul's" epistles being corrupted by Marcion.

It must be remembered that the revelation of the crucified Christ, son of the God of the Jews and born of Mary, was the most significant theme and core doctrine of the "Paul" of the Epistles, the very OPPOSITE to Marcion's non-crucified phantom, unborned, the son of another Greater God, not of the Jews.

It should be remembered that, based on Eusebius, the Churches had in their possesion these Pauline epistles about 100 years before Marcion's propagation of the phantom, and "Paul" would be a direct witness and contemporary of the apostles of Jesus the crucified, so it seems highly unlikely to me that Marcion could so easily corrupt and manipulate documents in the Churches' possession upto 100 years and written by "Paul", probably the greatest missionary of the 1st century.

Tertullian's report of Marcion is very problematic, the Churches had about 100 years of confirmed history of "Paul" and the crucified Christ and Marcion, excommunicated from the very Church, corrupted and manipulated the history of Churches using documents and known historical figures of the Church to do so.

Just imagine, the Churches claimed Jesus was real, born of Mary, he was crucified, witnessed by the apostles, and that Paul, known by the apostles and the Churches, was the most significant missionary in their early history, yet Tertullian claimed, and wants his readers to believe that Marcion, using the very gospel and epistles of the Church, in their possesion for about 100 years, propagated a non-crucified Christ, not born of Mary or of anyone, and who was not from the god of the Jews.

I find Tertullian's story preposterous.

I propose that the Church had no real history, as described by the NT and Tertullian, and that up to Justin Martyr's extant writings of around the middle of the 2nd century, the "memoirs of the apostles" were anonymous. And in my opinion, Marcion could only be successful in undermining the core fundamental beliefs of the Church if they had no history.

Marcion did indeed undermine the Church, according to Tertullian, the Church, therefore had no real history before Marcion.

Marcion's doctrine was that Jesus was never born, never crucified, and was never from the God of the Jews. The Church may have responded with the fictitious history called Acts of the Apostles and fabricated the names for the anonymous "memoirs of the apostles".