Duvduv

Wrong you are.
I have pointed out facts of what a second century Justin should mention but DOESN'T, thereby calling into question the integrity of the so called author called Justin. Which is exactly what you do concerning the authors of the epistles.

aa5874

Again, you are NOT making much sense. I am NOT really interested in what you care or don't care about.

Based on the Abundance of evidence my argument is that the writings attributed to Paul are a PACK of LIES and were UNKNOWN up to the mid 2nd century.

Why do you use Sources that Admittedly are Filled with Discrepancies, Contradictions and events that most likely did NOT happen???

See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182-184

Whether it went Swoosh or Woosh is of no concern to me.

My argument is that the Pauline writings are a Pack of LIES.

The Pauline writer gave the impression that he was ALIVE during the reign of King Aretas but even Apologetic sources claimed PAUL was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.

gLuke is supposedly mentioned by name for the first time by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century and NOT by Justin Martyr of the mid 2nd century.

There is NO mention of any character called Luke even in Acts of the Apostles, the supposed author of Acts and NO Jesus story according to Luke has been recovered and dated to any time in the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

The claim that that the Pauline writer was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written is compatible with the recovered dated texts.

gLuke is dated to the late 2nd century or after. The Pauline writings P 46 are also dated from late 2nd century to the 3rd.

J-D

That's fair enough if those writings have only one single author.

But if those writings are the work of multiple authors, then references to the author of the Pauline writings are mistaken (whether they use the name 'Paul' or not).

MrMacSon

It would seem appropriate to refer to 'the writer/s of the-writings-attributed-to-Paul'.

Many to most of them are of disputed, even the so-called authentic ones.

Duvduv

But epistles written in the second century are essential pillars based on a second century Irenaeus and nonexistent writings of Marcion in order to maintain the conviction of Christian sects reaching back to the second century. Without adhering to claims of ancient church propagandists there are no epistles in the second century, just as there are no gospels in the second century without adhering to a very questionable Justin in the second century.

TedM

Very interesting. Who makes this claim--sources please?

aa5874

Again, you have ONLY stated what you IMAGINE. You have NO Facts of what a 2nd century Justin should have mentioned.

You appear to have NO intention of presenting any actual credible source or evidence from antiquity-- just unsubstantiated assertions.

aa5874

Again, you appear to have NO intention to read or attempt to understand the evidence.

The Pauline writings [P 46] are DATED by Paleography from the 2nd-3rd century.

Please, your statements can be seen through out the world and it is evidennt that you are attempting to be Myopic.

Duvduv

Can't you see that your contextual arguments about the epistles are not relevant to whatever paleography suggests? Whether or not "Paul" existed in the 1st century has nothing to do with a paleographic dating of a piece of parchment. But if you want to be concerned about that, then be concerned that there are NO parchments of Justin's writings for paleography to work on........Yet here you go, religiously committed to the idea that the original Justin writings were written in the second century with no paleographic evidence for that assertion. Make up your mind, AA.

aa5874

Please, I Have repeated over and over that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with the Recovered DATED Texts which show NO actual history of Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Do you have any paleographic or C 14 evidence that the Jesus story was unknown in the 2nd century and was originated in the 4th???

YOU DON'T. You are arguing yet have NO evidence whatsoever to support a 4th century origin of the Jesus cult.

I have presented Sources with DATA which show that the Jesus story was known before the 4th century and the writings of Justin Martyr are COMPATIBLE with those Recovered Dated Sources.

1. Justin Martyr mentioned a Jesus story---a Jesus story has been dated to the 2nd century.

2. Justin Martyr did NOT mention Acts of the Apostles---Acts of the Apostles have been dated to as late as the 3rd century.

3. Justin Martyr did NOT mention the Pauline letters---the Pauline letters [P 46]have been dated as late as the 3rd century.

4. Justin mentioned Revelation by John but did NOT mention the Pauline letters---in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were COMPOSED AFTER Revelation by John.


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