aa5874

I know that he mentioned Peter who is named as one of the original 12 apostles in the Synoptics, and since Justin Martyr seemed to be aware of writings called "Memoirs of the Apostles", I can understand why he mentioned Peter and not "Paul" or James, because in the Synoptics "Paul" is never even mentioned anywhere, totally absent ,and James was not called an apostle.

And also bearing in mind that all the Synoptics appear to have been written, in some cases, long after the so-called "Paul", the man who, through revelations from Christ, it is claimed evangelised the gentiles, yet no author, including the so-called Luke, made any reference to 'Paul" in the Synoptics.

By the way, the so-called "Paul" was already dead, according to Eusebius in Church History, by the time of Ignatius and Clement.

And just because someone name IS mentioned, doesn't mean they existed.

If the "Memoirs of the Apostles" did not mention "Paul", I am not sure "Against Marcion" would fare any better.


The problem I have with your questions is that you bring up highly speculative scenarios and then expect me to decipher them.
Do you have answers for your own questions?

TedM

Read the bold above..It is understandable that he didn't mention Paul or James. You said it yourself! That doesn't mean he didn't know of Paul or James. I mentioned James because he was the first leader of the Jewish Christian Church. Do you doubt that? Yet, Justin didn't mention him. Not being mentioned by Justin is a weak argument therefore for non-existence. As I said, even though he clearly knew of the gospels, and quoted from them many times, he still only mentioned Peter 2 times. He didn't mention Andrew or Philip by name--does that mean they didn't exist? Not mentioning someone is only significant if the works indicate a HIGH EXPECTION for mention. Show me why and where you would have expected Justin to mention Paul in his writings, and then you'll have a real argument.


And both mentioned him. What's your point?

Sure, but both quoted extensively from his works too...


If Marcion never spoke of "Paul", sure. IF he claimed Paul was the true apostle and the writer of his epistles--which is what history records him to have done, you can bet Justin discussed him.



I assume from your answer that you believe Marcion did NOT make up Paul and didn't even mention him in his epistles. Given that Marcion had a huge following, don't you think his prior congregations would have known WHO Marcion's epistles were ALLEGED or claimed to be written by according to Marcion? If so, how possibly could the Catholic church have gotten away with saying they were written by someone else (ie..Paul). It makes no sense. I'm asking basic common sense questions that flow from your hypothetical fictional Paul. IF you aren't willing to address it, then you appear to be unable to think through the implications of your conclusions.., and your argument will never be taken seriously.

ted

aa5874

As, I said before "Paul" is not in the Synoptics and according to these books, "Peter" was hand-picked by Jesus to be the "Rock" of the Church, not "Paul", so from what writings would Justin Martyr know about "Paul".

Justin Martyr appears not to be aware of Acts, even though Acts appears fiction.

When was Acts written and ciculated? After Justin Martyr writings?


Well, if "Paul" was probably one of the most significant figures of the early Church, based on the Church Fathers ,and Justin Martyr did not mention him one single time in all his extant writings, but mentioned others, then it is reasonable to think that he may have been fabricated after Justin Martyr.


In Church History, Eusebius, writing in the 4th century, mentioned Peter, Paul and Marcion, I find it odd that Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, in all his extant writings only mentioned Peter and Marcion. I think "Paul" may been fabricated after Justin.

TedM

It is debatable, but the range is between 80 and 130AD. Before Justin. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html




You could say the same thing about James (though he is mentioned possibly by Josephus). James was the first leader of Christianity! Was James real?


Don't you find it odd that he never mentioned James, the first great Christian leader? And that he only VERY briefly mentioned Peter, who was the key player (after Jesus) in the gospels? You simply have to have a better reason for Justin to have mentioned Paul than "because Eusebius mentioned him" or because he mentioned Peter and Marcion. Has it occurred to you that Justin may have known of Paul's epistles but considered them to be less informational for his purposes than the "memoirs of the apostes"?

So, now I've given you 3 sources that mention Paul prior to Justin: 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Acts. How many more do you need in order to reevaluate the weight you are giving to Justin's silence? Perhaps the most significant point is one I haven't made yet:

Paul of the epistles is CLEARLY the same Paul we find in ACTS. No question about that, though there are some minor differences. Let's say Paul's name really isn't in the epistles, and the writer is unknown. Scholars are in agreement that the SAME PERSON wrote all of Paul's "authentic epistles". That is, they weren't written by several different people. That means that whatever his name was, his actions in the epistles make it clear that he is the same person called "Paul" in Acts. And, that person was very prolific in Gentile missionary work. And, would have been known by name to Christians throughout Rome.

ted

aa5874

But, Acts is considered fiction, and Clement and Ignatius wrote at a time when "Paul", if he lived, had died many years ago.

And if Acts was written between 80-130CE, perhaps Justin Martyr realized that "Paul" was fake and never mentioned him.


A very lame solution. If the name of the author of the Epistles is not known, it is very difficult for me to understand how you could say that he is the "Paul" in Acts.
"Paul's" conversion in Acts is fictitious, are you also claiming that the author of the Epistles conversion is also fictitious?

TedM

You reject Paul because Justin didn't mention him. Yet, when I give you 3 sources that do mention him prior to Justin you reject on some other basis. I can't figure out what your reasoning is for rejecting him because of Justin's silence.




Because no one else would have had so many things in common with the Paul of Acts. There are too many similarities to be two different people. Yet there are too different on some major points to say that the epistles were inspired by Acts or vice versa.


No, I'm just saying Acts and the epistles are writing about the exact same person. The differences, such as conversion don't change that reality. They are explained by some different reason, but NOT by saying it must have been a different person. There are WAY too many similarities to say he was a different person.

ted

schilling.klaus

Those who still believe this, even 150 years after Bruno Bauer, are either naivelings or deceivers, scholars or not. I have zilch respect for them.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus

all of them are fraudulent forgeries not older than mid second century.
quoting them as a proof for Paul is as absurd as it can get.


Klaus Schilling

TedM

Well, I'm here to learn....What are the main reasons you think there were multiple original authors of the "authentic" epistles? The style, wording, and theology sounds the same to me, but I'm no expert. What do the experts say?

thanks,

ted