aa5874

Please, state the source of antiquity that support your belief that the Pauline writings were composed Before c 70 CE???

Your statement that you do not share my belief has ZERO value in the discussion unless you are prepared to SHOW THE SOURCES of antiquity that support your belief.

My argument that the Pauline writings are AFTER c 70 CE is EXTREMELY stong and cannot be overcome by Mere faith.

1. Letters to place the Pauline writer at the time of Seneca have been deduced to be forgeries.

2. Pauline Letters believed to have been written by Paul have been deduced to have been composed by some other character.

3. The Jesus story, conception, the miracles, and trial did NOT originate in any Pauline letter.

4. The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of those who PREACHED and BELIEVED the Jesus story [the Faith]

5. The Pauline writer CLAIMED he MET Apostles found in the Jesus story.

6. No Jesus story have been recovered and dated to any time BEFORE c 70 CE.

7. Non-Apologetic sources SHOW NO awareness of Paul or any impact of the Jesus story on the Roman Empire in the 1st century

8. The Jesus story IMPACTED the Roman Empire around the Mid 2nd century.

9. 2nd century Non-Apologetic writers that mentioned the Jesus story did NOT mention Paul.

10. There is NO credible corroboration of PERSECUTION of any Jesus cult SINCE c 33-41 CE.

11. The author of the short gMark CLAIMED NO-ONE was told the story of the Resurrection of Jesus.

12. In Acts, the Jesus story was NOT preached UNTIL the Holy Ghost came when Jesus had ALREADY ascended.

13. Apologetic sources that mentioned the Pauline letters are themselves questionable.

14. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.

15. An Apologetic source claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation by John.

16. Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul or his letters.

17. Justin, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras show that the Christian Faith did NOT need the Pauline letters.

18. The claim by Tertullian that Marcion used the Pauline letters have been CONTRADICTED by Hippolytus--Marcion used Empedocles.

19. No author of the Canonised Jesus story mentioned the supposed Gospel of Paul--Salvation by the Resurrection.

20. The Jesus of the short Mark CONTRADICTS the Pauline Jesus--short gMark Jesus did NOT want the OUTSIDERS to be Converted.

21. No Pauline letter have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Stringbean

Great stuff aa!

Duvduv

Well, I don't think that the same person wrote the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho. Indeed, one could assume that had it been the same person early on the author of the epistles would certainly have known about them and used them for the letters, which is not the case, not even for a number of "proofs" used for the messianic status of the Christ.

There is no evidence from the Justin texts that the (unnamed and probably non-existent) Justin community knew of the epistles but rejected them. And for that matter there is no evidence that the author of the epistles knew of the Justin writings either.

What I have suggested is that since the Justin writings were not "scripture," the emerging church needed a FIRST CENTURY source for the idea that this messiah was for the gentiles and abandonment of the law. This was provided by the "first century" (composite) epistles identified to a guy named Paul. Of course the author of Acts didn't know about any set of epistles or specific ideology of the epistle writer Paul. Too bad they didn't yet have a centralized Vatican Office of the Doctrine of the Faith.......

aa5874

Your suggestion is total confusion because the Pauline writer did NOT claim he wrote letters before c 70 CE, the author of Acts did NOT state Paul wrote letters in the 1st century and Justin did NOT acknowledge Acts of the Apostles NOR the Pauline letters up to the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

So what? The fact is that the regime church wanted to have a first-century source for everything they believed in after the occurrence of the destruction of the Temple and the apparent "rejection" of the Jews by God.
Poor Justin couldn't even provide a first century source from his Old Man for their ideology of the abandonment of the Law and the messiah for the gentiles. So they got together the "first century" epistles for starters.

aa5874

To reconstruct the past is a rather simple matter. We just have to IDENTIFY Credible sources of antiquity.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and NT Manuscripts have been Recovered and Dated and NOTHING about Jesus and Paul have been dated to any time before c 70 CE and the end of the 1st century.

There are sources of antiquity that are COMPATIBLE with the Recovered Dated Texts.

1. Justin mentioned Revelation by John Without mentioning the Pauline letters.
A. In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed Revelation by PREDATED the Pauline letters.


2. Justin Matyr did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters to Churches.
A. Even the author of Acts did NOT acknowledge Paul letters to Churches.

3. Justin did NOT acknowledge any Bishops of the Church but mentioned Presidents of the Brethren.
A. Lucian of Samosata Corroborated Justin and claimed Peregrine was made President of Christians in Palestine. See Death of Peregrine.

4. Justin claimed Marcion preached Another God and another Son and that God was NOT the Creator. See First Apology
A. Ephraim the Syrian corroborated Justin and made a similar claim. See Ephraims "Against Marcion.

5. Justin's Memoirs contain a story where Jesus was born in a CAVE.
A. Origen claimed there was a Jesus story with a CAVE birth--See "Against Celsus.

6. Justin wrote about Simon Magus the Magician in Samaria but NOT Paul.
A. The author of Acts wrote about Simon the Magician in Samaria. See Acts 3.

7. Justin claimed there were Christians who did NOT Believe the Jesus story.
A. Apologetic sources corroborate Justin.

8. Justin claimed Jesus was SECOND to God.
A. Hippolytus claimed the Heresy that Jesus was EQUAL to GOD was First introduced by Callistus in the 3rd century--that is AFTER Justin.

Once Credible sources have been found then the past can be reconstructed.

Surely, this methodology is practised throught the world at any level and is widely accepted as reasonable.

Based on the DATED Texts of antiquity and sources compatible with them the Jesus story and cult are of the 2nd century--NOT the 1st century..

Duvduv

The entire existence of a second cenntury movement or movements is dependent on the claims found in poorly written propaganda texts which say very little at all......

aa5874

Why do you persist in making unsubstantiated claims???

You are DEAD WRONG.

Please, I have shown you the Hard Evidence.

Again, Paleography is an accepted method of dating ancient writings.

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

The HARD EVIDENCE suggest the Jesus story and cult were originated in the 2nd century NOT the 4th.

Duvduv

I guess you agree with me that the "evidence" from "Justin" is pretty flimsy, and now it's back to the paleographic information which is also not definitive as we have discussed. And that cannot ignore the fact of the confusion and contradictions of what is found in texts attributed to the 2nd century such as the Dialogue and Apology.

aa5874

You are the one who is making UNSUBSTANTIATED claims. How in the world are you going to show that Christianity started in the 4th century when you have NOTHING to support you???

I have the HARD EVIDENCE regardless of what you think about Justin, Parts of the Jesus story has been RECOVERED and DATED to the 2nd century and BEFORE the 4th century.

You are still operating in the IMAGINATION stage.