Ben C Smith

Sixteen points for you, Clive! And a hundred thanks for asking for the evidence. May bad habits like asking for the evidence afflict everybody, one and all.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.3:

For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he seemed to have suffered in Judea, when he had not suffered.

Hippolytus, Refutation 6.14:

And so [Simon] appeared as man, when in reality he was not a man, and likewise he suffered in Judea as the son, though not actually undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so....

Someone on this board once argued that this was, in fact, the origin of the passion story of Jesus, that Simon Magus had suffered or perhaps pretended to suffer in Judea in some way and that this event later became attached to Jesus of Nazareth as the crucifixion.

(Just to clarify my position here, I do happen to think that Simon is copying an HJ here, but that is not necessary for my position on this thread; all that need be the case is that there be a clear connection between Simon suffering in Judea and Jesus suffering in Judea, and I do not think it is reasonable to ignore the obvious connection between these two claims. Clearly there is a link, and the link assumes that somebody suffered or pretended to suffer in Judea. This event is not taken as fiction; but it is certainly given wildly different spins.)

Ben.

spamandham

Are you suggesting that Paul's works, once written, were never modified by later editors? Are you suggesting such a thing in regards to Justin or Marcion?

If not, then it isn't enough to date Paul, Justin, and Marcion, we have to date the specific parts of the texts that are being discussed.

If that can't be done, and yet we agree that the texts were probably edited over a long period of time before we reach extant copies, then I don't see how any of these looping chains pose an problem.

Ben C Smith

No, I am answering the assertion that Justin had not even heard of Paul at all.

The part of the text being discussed in this case is any of it... at least any of it that was attributed to Paul.

You do not see how such a looping chain poses a problem for the following proposition?

If you cannot see the problem here, you are beyond what little assistance I can render.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

And the quote above says he is an angel.

Let us take this a step at a time.

I assume there is external evidence that Simon Magus existed. But is there?

Why did whoever make statements that this real person was not a real person?

What is going on? What is their agenda?

But we have many common tales of the gods and humans at the time - Hercules for example.

This feels like someone trying to fit square pegs into round holes by casting aspersions on others!

(Just checking and all the earliest references to him seem to be either New Testament or early xians....hmmmm. Especially as he is alleged to be the originator of gnosticism, that pre existing zoroastrian/ platonic idea!)

aa5874

So, whatever Justin Martyr did not write about is true!



Just say you are not sure why the translators used "first" instead of "most important".



We know Justin Martyr did not mention "Paul" in all of his extant writings, yet Justin mentioned Jesus, Peter, John the Baptist, Philo, Josephus, Marcion, Pilate, Felix, Herod, Claudius, and Tiberius, just to call a few.

And do we have all of everything, written or spoken? I can only investigate what I have before me, the extant writings of Justin Martyr and I don't see the words "Saul or Paul", but I see the names of his so-called buddies.

Julian

Egad, now what? There were no Scotsmen at the time...! Hmm, how about 'No true pict...'

In this case they mean the same thing. You can nickel and dime this issue ad nauseam, but you appear to be grasping or deliberately misunderstanding the obvious meaning that Ben is explaining to you.

Julian

aa5874

Maybe Simon was the first god and magician after all. No man can do these things.

spamandham

Let's go back to something you said a dozen or so posts ago>

There are two assumptions implied here:
1) Marcion knew Paul
2) Marcion preceded Justin

...and of course, under these assumptions, the only possibility is Paul->Marcion->Justin.

But, if we allow for the possibility that the works of Paul, Marcion, and Justin may have been edited after their initial writing, then both of these assumptions are thrown into question, as is the conclusion that follows.

Hence, it isn't enough to say "the writings attributed to Marcion indicate Marcion knew Paul", since it's possible that those aspects of those writings were inserted at a later date than the original writings. It also isn't enough to say "Marcion's writings preceded Justin's" for the same reason. Particularly in the case of Marcion and Justin, since they were contemporaries.

I'm making no claim as to whether Justin had or hadn't heard of Paul, I'm claiming that the arguments being made regarding the datings are too simplistic.

aa5874

I am not following you, but after reading Justin Martyr, it appears to me that there are some serious chronological problems with the gospels and the epistles.

angelo

According to Papias Mark was the interpreter of Peter. He wrote accurately, said Papias, but not in order. Mark had neither heard the lord nor been his personal follower, but he had followed Peter. According to Papias, Peter adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but he did not give a connected account. What Mark learned of Jesus, however, he learned from Peter. This assumption, whether accurate or not, surrounded Mark's gospel with the aura of apostolic authenticity, for Peter was widely regarded in the christian tradition as the first among equals in the apostolic band.

The gospel as a whole, reflected not so much the thought of a single person as the narration of accumulation of a whole community's faith tradition.
Mark, as the rest of the gospels, cannot be regarded as history, far from it in fact.