TedM

you also presented arguments from silence. That's what the above addresses, not your variants data.


Such inferences should not be made when they exclude mention or analysis of early sources which would on their face disprove your theory. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE SOURCES, AA. Otherwise, your theory appears very unformed, weak, and biased.

Just a quick glance shows references from Polycarp, Ignatius, and 1 Clement, the latter two considered to be late 1st-early 2nd century. That is not a silence, AA. That is evidence. You have to address it. Go ahead and dismiss those sources if you will or can, but you shouldn't just behave as though they don't exist if you are going to make claims that almost all scholars would consider outrageous regarding Paul. For your inferences to be taken seriously, they need to show a willingness to consider the opposing evidence, because it DOES EXIST.

aa5874

Your mis-leading statements are rather pathological. You MUST point out PRECISELY where I made an argument from silence.

Which one of these statements are from silence??

1. The Muratorian Canon states the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation.

2. Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings or Paul but acknowledged Revelation.

3. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

4. The author of "Commentary on Matthew" claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

5. The author of "Church History" claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

6. Letters to place Paul in the time of Nero have been deduced to be forgeries--the Paul/Seneca letters.

7. The author of the Short gMark did NOT use details of the Post-resurrection visits in the Pauline writing.

8. The author of the Short gMark did NOT write that Jesus died for remission of sins as stated in the Pauline writings.

9. The authors of the Gospels were Heavily influenced by the Short gMark NOT the Pauline letters.

10. The Pauline writer claimed there was Written Scripture that stated Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the Third day.

11. In" First Apology" it is written that the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the Churches.

12. Hippolytus, in "Refutation Against ALL Heresies" claim Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

13. Ephraim the Syrian appears to show that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Epistles in his Three Prose "Against Marcion".

You promote propaganda. What early sources are you talking about??

Please, there is NO early source. ALL Sources which mention Paul are LATE Sources, that is, they are all claimed to have been written at the end of the 1st century or later.

First of all, 1st Clement is really an Anonymous letter and is itself highly questionable. In fact, it can be shown that the supposed Clement is a product of Fiction and the Anonymous letters was fabricated.

For hundreds of years the time period when Clement was Bishop of Rome would alternate from c 68 CE to 95 CE.

Now, the Church has NOT denied that the Anonymous letter originated within the Roman Church.

The Roman Church originated in the 4th century under Constantine.

Now, the letters attributed to Ignatius are also questionable but in any event there is NO mention of the date of authorship of the Pauline letters. The very same applies to Polycarp. Even if Paul is mentioned there is NO date of authorship for the Pauline letters.

TedM

I have bolded the arguments from silence. Those all are implying that the absence of the mention of Paul or his works means something. That's an argument from silence.



The end of the 1st century, which would apply to the 1 Clement and Ignatius sources (if legit) are before when you think the Pauline epistles were forged, would they not? You wrote this:


So, now I've shown you your heavy reliance on arguments from silence, and I've shown you sources that pre-date when you said the writings attributed to Paul occurred. Your dismissal of Ignatius and 1 Clement was predictable, but its ok if you have a real argument. I didn't see one though.

I've lost interest in discussing this any further. Again, if you haven't yet read the Pauline epistles, you may want to do so in order to see how wonderfully obtuse the forgers must have been.

aa5874

You don't know the difference between a 'FACT' and an 'argument from silence'. You have bolded FACTUAL statements or Inferences.

1. It is a fact that Justin did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline writings.

2. It is a FACT that The author of the Short gMark did NOT use details of the Post-resurrection visits in the Pauline writing.

3. It is a fact that Acts of the Apostles did NOT acknowledge that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches.

4. It is a Fact that The author of the Short gMark did NOT write that Jesus died for remission of sins as stated in the Pauline writings.

5. It is a FACT The authors of the Gospels were Heavily influenced by the Short gMark NOT the Pauline letters.

6. It is a Fact that Hippolytus, in "Refutation Against ALL Heresies" claim Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.[/B]

7. It is an INFERENCE that Ephraim the Syrian appears to show that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Epistles in his Three Prose "Against Marcion".


The end of the 1st century is NOT early and I have ADDRESSED each writer.

You PRESUMPTIONS are worthless. What you assume has NO bearing on the actual date of authorship. There are No actual writings of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement that was dated by Paleography or C 14 to the 1st century.

Again, you do not understand the difference between FACTS, INFERENCES and 'arguments from silence'.

You seem absolutely naive. You think that you can introduce Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement as evidence for early Pauline writings WITHOUT having your "witnesses" cross-examined for credibility, authenticity and historical reliability.

You seem to live in the 4th century.

Nowadays, it is extremely foolhardy to accept Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement as credible Sources.

Please, I have done my research and Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement are historically bogus.

You have NOT lost any interest. You really want people to believe in an HJ and become frustrated when you see you are not getting anywhere.

TedM

I'll respond to this, and then I'll let Jay have his thread back.

This is what the Muratorian Canon says (from http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html) :

I can see why you think this says Paul wrote after Revelation was composed. But, when did he think that Revelation had been composed? He doesn't say. However, he says the author was John, and makes no distinction with John he had just mentioned previously, describing him as having known Jesus personally:

So, he first mentions John the disciple. Then he mentions John as the predecessor of Paul: It reads as though the author thought John wrote Revelation before Paul wrote his epistles, but he also stresses John's early eyewitness (above). So it is possible that the author thought John wrote Revelation early on. It is also possible that the word 'following' doesn't imply a chronological following as much as it sounds like: It may mean 'in the same manner of': Read in this way, it implies nothing about the timing of the Revelation, and just that John HIMSELF preceded Paul, which is the orthodox position. In this manner of reading, the author can be seen as silent on whether Paul's predecessor John actually wrote Revelation before or after Paul wrote his epistles.

It doesn't really matter for your case, however:

The Muratorian Fragment provides enough information to support the author's belief that Paul lived and preached and wrote when the orthodox church says he did:

1. He mentions the book of Acts as part of the canon, which clearly places Paul during the mid 1st century:

2. He believed the author was Luke, who knew Paul:

3. He believed Luke wrote about events in Acts (Paul's missions) he actually witnessed first hand:

The author of this fragment clearly thought Paul lived in the middle of the 2nd century. This should be ample evidence that your interpretation of the Muratorian Fragment as implying that Paul's writings were after a later writing of Revelation and therefore consistent with the invention of Paul and his writings in the mid 2nd century, is outright wrong.

You need to remove this claim from your list, as it is misleading, and clearly is not implying a late date for the epistles.

I could go through the others on your list but frankly I found this one interesting, looked at it, and quickly surmise now that you probably never looked into what it really says and instead have just copied myther stuff that you've picked up from amateurish websites or books.

If you persist in pushing this wild theory about Paul, please at least think what I've written and consider the wisdom in removing your claims about the Muratorian Fragment from your list of support for your theory.

aa5874

I NOW present SIX translations of the the Excerpt of the Muratorian Canon and it is CLEAR that they all state the Apostle Paul IMITATED his Predeccessor John or followed his example and wrote to Seven Churches.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html

Do you understand what "Imitate" means?? Do you understand what it means "to follow the example"??

It is certain that NONE of them say John IMITATED the apostle Paul.

It is Certain that None of them say John followed the example of the apostle Paul.

Translation by TheronTranslation by Roberts-Donaldson Translation by Bruce MetzgerTranslation by Glenn DavisTranslation by Kenneth JohnsonTranslation by Frank Daniels Revelation by John to the Seven Churches was first composed BEFORE it was IMITATED by the apostle Paul.

tanya

To the best of my (very limited) knowledge, it was Irenaeus, writing in late second century (or later) who first created the term "Acts of the Apostles" Πράξεις ἀποστόλων
and who also, created the FIRST christian "canon" κανών.

So, please explain to me, where is your first century source identifying even one document "which clearly places Paul during the mid 1st century".

By way of illustration, to show how very difficult this task is, consider what we know of Alexander of Macedonia. Here is a description of Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική by Diodorus Siculus, written two centuries after Alexander's death.

Ted, this is our OLDEST extant account of accounts of, hearsay evidence concerning Alexander. Two centuries after the fact.

There are those who believe, I can not explain the basis for their belief, (for I know not why), that ACTS of the Apostles, is based on a play by Euripides.

TedM

I don't know what you are looking for tanya. All I was doing was showing that aa's use of the fragment as support for a later Paul/epistles -hinging on a questionable interpretation of the author's phrasing regarding Revelation was ridiculous because of the irrefutable fact that the fragment clearly places Paul in the first century.

TedM

Yes aa. To imitate something means to do something in the same way. It doesn't require that it 'follow' chronologically. In any case I clearly showed that the author of the fragment did not place Paul in the time frame that your interpretation implies. NONE of those authors you posted would say that the author thought Paul wrote in the 2nd century. The rest of the passage makes that interpretation impossible.

If you don't remove it from your list then that tells me that you aren't interested in discovering the truth.

TedM

What a fallacy. Arguments from silence can be FACTS too aa. It is a FACT that Paul doesn't mention Judas or a betrayal by Judas. It is an 'argument from silence' to claim that Paul never heard of Judas or that Paul didn't think Judas betrayed Jesus.

The 7 FACTS you listed are arguments from silence. There is no getting around that. There is no denying that, so don't even try to. Arguments from silence generally hold less weight because they require assumptions as to WHY the writer did not mention something. Not facts, but assumptions. You of all people should be aware that your FACTS about silences require ASSUMPTIONS regarding those silences.

I haven't said that it is not proper to use arguments from silence. But I do believe they are much less meaningful than direct contradictory statements. For example, which if the following would be more meaningful for determining whether a person named Judas betrayed Jesus?:

A. Paul is silent about Judas betraying Jesus.

B. Paul says that a guy named Howard betrayed Jesus.

C. Paul says that Judas did not betray Jesus.

Obviously the weight of A is the least, B is greater than A, and C is the most meaningful of all.

7 of your 13 points fall under the 'A' category.


A correction: I mistakenly wrote:

Obviously I meant to say 1st century.