Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 12-15-2012, 12:46 PM

Justin and HJ, and his silence with regard to Paul:

Copied from aa's thread:

It is ironic that some people rely so heavily on Justin to support their 2nd century Christian creation theory, because Justin is DEVASTATING to this argument.

Justin clearly believes in the Jesus of the Gospels, referencing them a number of times. He believed Jesus lived in the early 1st century too -- referencing his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

A few things suggest to me that the beginnings of Christianity had to be a century or so prior to Justin:

1. The well-established traditions. The fact that worship included reading from the memoirs of the Apostles, which were likely composed of multiple gospels (Justin says they were written in Gospels (plural)), suggests that those memoirs had existed for at least a couple of generations.

2. The number of Gentile Christians is significant enough to suggest the religion had existed for decades, beginning first with the Jews, and spreading out to the Gentile lands. In the First Apology LIII:

Quote:

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man, and unless we saw that things had happened accordingly--the devastation of the land of the Jews, and men of every race persuaded by His teaching through the apostles, and rejecting their old habits, in which, being deceived, they had their conversation; yea, seeing ourselves too, and knowing that the Christians from among the Gentiles are both more numerous and more true than those from among the Jews and Samaritans?

3. The number of False Heresies. He mentions four different groups by name that were called "Christians":

Quote:

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.

What would inspire four groups to arise over the preceding decades, all sharing a belief in a risen Christ? Most likely Christianity had existed for a century or more in order for this many movements to have gained such critical mass.

Now, on to Paul:

One of these heretical groups was Marcion's. While Justin's surviving works (8 of them) only mention Marcion 3 times, it is clear that he despised their beliefs. Iraeneas writes that Justin wrote an entire book against Marcion. It would be very interesting to know if/how Justin referenced Paul in that book. In the surviving works he only writes a few sentences on two occasions, and mentions the name on the other. The sentences indicate that Marcion still was alive, teaching a despicable theology about God.

In the brief paragraphs about Marcion there is no mention of Paul. If one assumes Marcion didn't really rely on Paul that is understandable, but there is NO BASIS for that assumption.

So, how to explain the absence of mentioning Paul anywhere in his 3 main 'Christian' works?

Justin's main 3 works are:
First Apology: The Gentiles are only briefly mentioned. No one should expect him to mention Paul in that context. He does mention Marcion twice though..keep reading..

Second Apology: Here there is no context for mentioning Paul.

Dialogue with Trypho: There are plenty of contexts here for mentioning Paul, since he discusses Gentile conversion a number of times.

There are three good reasons for Justin to have not mentioned Paul in the 3 surviving works. In conjunction they argue against mentioning Paul at all, and especially in the Dialogue with Trypho:

1. Paul was likely highly associated with Marcionism, as all sources indicate. Justin would have been well-served to avoid opening the can of worms regarding a debate about which of the writings were authentic to Paul and which weren't. In addition, the issue he mentions regarding Marcionism had to do with the OT God(s), and not Paul.

2. It wasn't Justin's style. Justin was reliant almost exclusively on 2 things: The OT prophets, and the Memoirs of the Apostles (Gospels). He explicitly stated:

Quote:

And that this may now become evident to you--(firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed;

That is what Justin used for his arguments.

3. Relying on Paul would have been like shooting oneself in the foot. He was arguing with Trypho, a JEW who favored keeping the LAW:

Quote:

.. said Trypho, " But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations."

The theology was completely at odds with Paul's writings. If Acts (and Paul's epistles) is to be believed, the pro-Law Jews HATED Paul. Jews of Justin's time would have HATED Paul's legacy. If Paul had existed, he would have been the LAST source for Justin to quote to a JEW, as it would have conjured up images of Benedict Arnold. And, it would have given FRESH FODDER for the Jew to use the Marcion-Paul connection against Justin to further the idea that Paul was a heretical figure. It was far smarter for Justin to use the OT to support his pro-Gentile case.

And that's exactly what he did.

PhilosopherJay · 12-15-2012, 01:39 PM

Hi TedM,

If we see Chrisitanity as a business model, the rate at which rival businesses grew would be determined by the market place. There is no reason to believe that ten or twenty rival entrepreneurs could have entered the market in a ten or twenty year period rather than a hundred year period.

From 1889 to 1894, all motion pictures were produced by the Edison company. However by 1909, there were eight major rivals. These companies were Biograph, Vitagraph, Essanay, Selig, Lubin, Kalem, Star film Company and American Pathé. Edison formed a trust with them to try and keep out the dozens of other rising film companies that appeared around this time. They were not successful and dozens of more film companies arose over the next decade.

The success of these new companies had little to do with the quality of their product, but much to do with their ability to attract capital from Bankers and Wall Street. It was necessary to revise their technology and product to compete with other motion picture companies on practically an annual basis.

In the same way, the success of Christian enterprises had less to do with any particular doctrine or story, but with the ability to constantly change doctrines and texts to attract wealthy Roman patrons. Lucian has indicated as much, suggested that the ability of Christians to daily rewrite their texts was well known, and the dozens of gospels texts also suggest as much.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Justin and HJ, and his silence with regard to Paul:

Copied from aa's thread:

It is ironic that some people rely so heavily on Justin to support their 2nd century Christian creation theory, because Justin is DEVASTATING to this argument.

Justin clearly believes in the Jesus of the Gospels, referencing them a number of times. He believed Jesus lived in the early 1st century too -- referencing his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

A few things suggest to me that the beginnings of Christianity had to be a century or so prior to Justin:

1. The well-established traditions. The fact that worship included reading from the memoirs of the Apostles, which were likely composed of multiple gospels (Justin says they were written in Gospels (plural)), suggests that those memoirs had existed for at least a couple of generations.

2. The number of Gentile Christians is significant enough to suggest the religion had existed for decades, beginning first with the Jews, and spreading out to the Gentile lands. In the First Apology LIII:

Quote:

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man, and unless we saw that things had happened accordingly--the devastation of the land of the Jews, and men of every race persuaded by His teaching through the apostles, and rejecting their old habits, in which, being deceived, they had their conversation; yea, seeing ourselves too, and knowing that the Christians from among the Gentiles are both more numerous and more true than those from among the Jews and Samaritans?

3. The number of False Heresies. He mentions four different groups by name that were called "Christians":

What would inspire four groups to arise over the preceding decades, all sharing a belief in a risen Christ? Most likely Christianity had existed for a century or more in order for this many movements to have gained such critical mass.

Now, on to Paul:

One of these heretical groups was Marcion's. While Justin's surviving works (8 of them) only mention Marcion 3 times, it is clear that he despised their beliefs. Iraeneas writes that Justin wrote an entire book against Marcion. It would be very interesting to know if/how Justin referenced Paul in that book. In the surviving works he only writes a few sentences on two occasions, and mentions the name on the other. The sentences indicate that Marcion still was alive, teaching a despicable theology about God.

In the brief paragraphs about Marcion there is no mention of Paul. If one assumes Marcion didn't really rely on Paul that is understandable, but there is NO BASIS for that assumption.

{snip}

And that's exactly what he did.

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Justin and HJ, and his silence with regard to Paul:

Copied from aa's thread:

It is ironic that some people rely so heavily on Justin to support their 2nd century Christian creation theory, because Justin is DEVASTATING to this argument.

Justin clearly believes in the Jesus of the Gospels, referencing them a number of times. He believed Jesus lived in the early 1st century too -- referencing his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

A few things suggest to me that the beginnings of Christianity had to be a century or so prior to Justin:

1. The well-established traditions. The fact that worship included reading from the memoirs of the Apostles, which were likely composed of multiple gospels (Justin says they were written in Gospels (plural)), suggests that those memoirs had existed for at least a couple of generations.

2. The number of Gentile Christians is significant enough to suggest the religion had existed for decades, beginning first with the Jews, and spreading out to the Gentile lands. In the First Apology LIII:

Quote:

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man, and unless we saw that things had happened accordingly--the devastation of the land of the Jews, and men of every race persuaded by His teaching through the apostles, and rejecting their old habits, in which, being deceived, they had their conversation; yea, seeing ourselves too, and knowing that the Christians from among the Gentiles are both more numerous and more true than those from among the Jews and Samaritans?

3. The number of False Heresies. He mentions four different groups by name that were called "Christians":

Quote:

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine.

What would inspire four groups to arise over the preceding decades, all sharing a belief in a risen Christ? Most likely Christianity had existed for a century or more in order for this many movements to have gained such critical mass.

Now, on to Paul:

One of these heretical groups was Marcion's. While Justin's surviving works (8 of them) only mention Marcion 3 times, it is clear that he despised their beliefs. Iraeneas writes that Justin wrote an entire book against Marcion. It would be very interesting to know if/how Justin referenced Paul in that book. In the surviving works he only writes a few sentences on two occasions, and mentions the name on the other. The sentences indicate that Marcion still was alive, teaching a despicable theology about God.

In the brief paragraphs about Marcion there is no mention of Paul. If one assumes Marcion didn't really rely on Paul that is understandable, but there is NO BASIS for that assumption.

So, how to explain the absence of mentioning Paul anywhere in his 3 main 'Christian' works?

Justin's main 3 works are:
First Apology: The Gentiles are only briefly mentioned. No one should expect him to mention Paul in that context. He does mention Marcion twice though..keep reading..

Second Apology: Here there is no context for mentioning Paul.

Dialogue with Trypho: There are plenty of contexts here for mentioning Paul, since he discusses Gentile conversion a number of times.

There are three good reasons for Justin to have not mentioned Paul in the 3 surviving works. In conjunction they argue against mentioning Paul at all, and especially in the Dialogue with Trypho:

1. Paul was likely highly associated with Marcionism, as all sources indicate. Justin would have been well-served to avoid opening the can of worms regarding a debate about which of the writings were authentic to Paul and which weren't. In addition, the issue he mentions regarding Marcionism had to do with the OT God(s), and not Paul.

2. It wasn't Justin's style. Justin was reliant almost exclusively on 2 things: The OT prophets, and the Memoirs of the Apostles (Gospels). He explicitly stated:

Quote:

And that this may now become evident to you--(firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed;

That is what Justin used for his arguments.

3. Relying on Paul would have been like shooting oneself in the foot. He was arguing with Trypho, a JEW who favored keeping the LAW:

Quote:

.. said Trypho, " But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations."

The theology was completely at odds with Paul's writings. If Acts (and Paul's epistles) is to be believed, the pro-Law Jews HATED Paul. Jews of Justin's time would have HATED Paul's legacy. If Paul had existed, he would have been the LAST source for Justin to quote to a JEW, as it would have conjured up images of Benedict Arnold. And, it would have given FRESH FODDER for the Jew to use the Marcion-Paul connection against Justin to further the idea that Paul was a heretical figure. It was far smarter for Justin to use the OT to support his pro-Gentile case.

And that's exactly what he did.

Your post is completely illogical.

You accuse me of making an Argument from Silence based on Justin because he did NOT mention Paul or the Pauline writings.

Well, it should have dawned on you that you CANNOT use Justin's SILENCE to argue that Paul existed and there were Pauline writings.

Your argument is based on Silence, Guessing, and Imagination.

Your argument is an article of Faith.

TedM · 12-15-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

If we see Chrisitanity as a business model, the rate at which rival businesses grew would be determined by the market place.

Yes, the speed of growth is determined by market demand. I think from the beginnings of the movement to the point of having 4 established, well-known philosophies would have taken a lot longer than you do.

TedM · 12-15-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, it should have dawned on you that you CANNOT use Justin's SILENCE to argue that Paul existed and there were Pauline writings.

And I agree with you. Unfortunately if you had understood anything I wrote you would realize that I didn't use Justin's SILENCE to argue that Paul existed.

What I did was to provide reasons as to why Justin did not mention Paul. I also began with indicating why your use of Justin is quite strange, since he supports the HJ hypothesis.

This is why I curtail discussion with you aa. You appear to be unable to understand the things I write.

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, it should have dawned on you that you CANNOT use Justin's SILENCE to argue that Paul existed and there were Pauline writings.

And I agree with you. Unfortunately if you had understood anything I wrote you would realize that I didn't use Justin's SILENCE to argue that Paul existed.

What I did was to provide reasons as to why Justin did not mention Paul. I also began with indicating why your use of Justin is quite strange, since he supports the HJ hypothesis.

This is why I curtail discussion with you aa. You appear to be unable to understand the things I write.

I will EXPOSE your absurd and illogical arguments.

You attempted to use Justin's Silence to argue for the existence of Paul and fabricated stories about Justin for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

Silence EXPLAINS Non-existence.

Silence does NOT provide history.

Non-existing entities provide SILENCE.

Non-existing entities have NO history.

Justin's SILENCE on Paul and the Pauline writings are compatible with entities and writings which did NOT exist at the time of Justin.

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 05:05 PM

Once Justin's writings are examined it is rather easy to understand that Justin's Jesus did NOT exist and could NOT have existed as he described.

Up to the mid 2nd century, Christians of the Jesus cult argued that Jesus was born WITHOUT Sexual union--born of a Ghost and A Virgin just like Greek/Roman mythology.

First Apology

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven...

It was NOT established that Jesus was a human being with a human father.

It was established that the Jesus story was a Myth Fable and was only BELIEVED.

Now, if Jesus did NOT exist and had NO disciples then it must be obvious that Paul could NOT have met the Apostles called Peter and James.

The Pauline writer attempted to historicise the resurrection story of Jesus which is absolute fiction.

How could the Pauline writer be in contact with Jesus if he was already dead??

How did Paul meet never-existing apostles??

The answer is rather simple.

The Pauline writings are historically bogus.

TedM · 12-15-2012, 05:30 PM

I thought you were going to respond to the thread topic, aa. What a shock!

I'll play one last time though..

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was NOT established that Jesus was a human being with a human father.

You continue to play this semantic trick as if you think people will fall for it.

Once again, it WAS established that he was born of a human mother and lived on earth. That's a HJ whether you like it or not, according to those who support the HJ hypothesis, because they reject the 'ghost' father part, and assume a human father was involved.

Quote:

How could the Pauline writer be in contact with Jesus if he was already dead??

The same way people believe they are today -- through scripture.

aa5874 · 12-15-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was NOT established that Jesus was a human being with a human father.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You continue to play this semantic trick as if you think people will fall for it.

Once again, it WAS established that he was born of a human mother and lived on earth. That's a HJ whether you like it or not, according to those who support the HJ hypothesis, because they reject the 'ghost' father part, and assume a human father was involved.

You cannot reject evidence for Myth and then claim Jesus was human. Such a thing is unheard of in any investigation.

It is wholly illogical and absurd that only evidence that support historicity is considered when attempting to resolve whether or not Jesus did exist.

The FACT that Jesus was not known to have a human father by the very Christian writers of the Jesus cult is evidence that their Jesus story is NOT history but a Myth Fable.

You appear not to understand that it is biologically impossible for Jesus to have been born as described in the NT.

I am NOT amused with your "Stone Age" mode of reproduction.

Quote:

How could the Pauline writer be in contact with Jesus if he was already dead??

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The same way people believe they are today -- through scripture.

Exactly, Exactly, Exactly. Nothing was revealed by God to Paul. NT God does NOT exist.

Paul merely read the Jesus stories sometime in the 2nd century or later and then claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus, that he had Revelations from Jesus and that he Met the Apostles Peter and James.

Origen and Eusebius admit that Paul Commended gLuke.

There was actual NO Jesus of Nazareth--there was only Scriptures.

The Pauline writer READ gLuke like people today and then LIED about being a witness of the resurrected Jesus.

No actual person gave Paul the authority to preach that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. Paul admitted he CONSULTED with No-one--See Galatians 1-2

God and Jesus were ONLY words from the start.

John 1

Quote:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.......And the Word was made flesh...

The Pauline writings are sources of Fiction--His God and Jesus were a literary construct to Deceive people into thinking that Jesus did actually resurrect when the Entire Jesus story was not history at all.

TedM · 12-15-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You cannot reject evidence for Myth and then claim Jesus was human. Such a thing is unheard of in any investigation.

Scholars and skeptics do this all the time, aa. Ever hear of the Jesus Project?

Quote:

How could the Pauline writer be in contact with Jesus if he was already dead??

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The same way people believe they are today -- through scripture.

Exactly, Exactly, Exactly. Nothing was revealed by God to Paul. NT God does NOT exist.

Paul merely read the Jesus stories sometime in the 2nd century

All of Paul's theology can be derived from the OT. That's the scripture that revealed Jesus' divinity to Paul. Paul believed that the prophecies of a Messiah applied to Jesus. Paul believed that the prophecies for the salvation of the world applied to Gentiles through faith in Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.