tanya

:thumbs:

Thanks George, you are correct, I am wrong.

Justin Martyr does employ the Greek word mathetes, "disciple", paraphrasing the text of Matthew, I believe, explaining the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem. I don't quite yet understand the reference to Zechariah, but that is not important to me, at least.

Logic: you have explained, patiently (thanks!), that in your opinion, the absence of the word mathetes in Paul's epistles, suggests an earlier date of composition, than the synoptic gospels.

I am asking whether one should then suppose that Plutarch wrote before Aristarchus, since the latter writes of heliocentrism, while the former does not?

I don't agree, in other words, with the notion that absence of a single word indicates date of authorship. I do share your opinion, that mathetes, disciple, is a significant word, and I do not have a good explanation for why the word does not appear in Paul's writings.

aa5874

Again, your statement is illogical and contradictory.

You admit the evidence makes it is possible that there was no Pauline letters before c 150 CE yet absurdly and simultaneously state the evidence suggests nothing of the kind.

There is an abundance of evidence that suggests the Pauline writings were composed AFTER c 150 CE.

1. The author of Acts wrote about Paul but did NOT mention the Pauline letters--the first mention of Acts is AFTER 150 CE.

2. Aristides, writing 117-138 CE did NOT acknowledge Paul as one who preached to the Gentiles.

3. Justin Martyr writing around 150 CE did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters.

4. Origen, in "Against Celsus" claimed Celsus wrote Nothing about Paul. Celsus wrote "True Discourse" AFTER 150 CE.

5. Minucius Felix's Octavius written AFTER 150 CE did NOT acknowledge or use the Pauline letters when he attempted to convert Caecillius to Christianity.

6. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries.

7. An Apolgetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claims the Pauline letters to Churches was composed AFTER Revelation by John---Justin mentioned Revelation but not the Pauline letters.

8. Apolgetic sources, Origen and Eusebius, claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed--the first mention of gLuke is AFTER 150 CE in "Against Heresies".

9. An Apologetic source, Hippolytus, AFTER 150 CE claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles.

10. The percentage of textual variants in the Pauline letters to Churches MATCH the textual variants in admitted LATE writings.

11. Thousands of Codices place the Pauline writings AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

12. The Pauline letters that have been found are dated 175-225 CE.

Again, do you NOT understand that your imaginary early Pauline letters have NOT been found and will NOT ever be found??

You will have to argue from Silence all the time.

Do you not understand the P46 could have been composed around c 175-225 CE which still leaves around 24-74 years for your imaginary manuscripts to have been composed and still AFTER c 150 CE??

I expected that ALL PAULINE writings that are found and Dated will be Later than the writings of Justin Martyr and that is PRECISELY what has happened.

aa5874

For Earl's Celestial Never on Earth Jesus to make sense then ALL of Apologetics and the Church would be known ASSES.

For hundreds of years the Jesus cult and the Church used the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus, the Son of God was NOT a Phantom when they should have known that they were ASSES if Paul preached that the Son of God was NEVER on earth for over 17 years.

From the author of Mark and the very Church today place Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem on EARTH during the time of Pilate.

They are all DUMB ASSES if the Pauline writer did TEACH them and wrote Letters to Churches for over 17 years that Jesus was completely Celestial and Never was on Earth.

Examine the words of Dumb Ass author of the Epistle of John supposedly writing AFTER the Pauline letters.

2 John 1:7 KJV According to the author of the Epistle John, the Pauline writer would be a Deceiver-- the very AntiChrist if he preached and taught the Church that Jesus was completely Celestial and NEVER came to earth in the Flesh.

aa5874

Once you admit that there are inauthentic "Pauline" letters to Churches and manipulated "genuine" Epistles then the Pauline Corpus are questionable sources and cannot be trusted.

The Pauline corpus is among the least attested books of antiquity--Not even the Church knew when Paul really lived, when he died, and when he preached and what he wrote.

The very first writings to mention the history of Paul and all the Letters to Churches also claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age.

This would mean Paul was NOT a Persecutor of the Faith and did NOT preach Christ Crucified c 37-41 CE as stated in the Epistles.

See "Against Heresies" 2.22 and "Demonstration of Apostolic Teachings" attributed to Irenaeus.

The Pauline letters are historically bogus--products of fraud and fiction.

Toto

Unless, of course, those "in Christ before me" had received their own personal revelations.

Duvduv

.....SO then maybe the Lord spoke to them also about the Eucharist ceremony........

But notice the CONTEXT of how this appears in 1 Corinthians. It seems to interrupt the flow of what appears to be a totally unrelated statement about an ordinary Lord's Supper whatever that means. Read below and note how it looks if you jump from verse 22 to verse 30 with the interrupting section starting with prepositions:

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions.

EarlDoherty

The pre-Gospel writings are, of course, the epistles. And when I say an understanding was imposed on them, I am talking about interpretation, not forgery, rewriting, alteration, adjustment or interpolation, although some of that did occur. (Look at 3 Corinthians which imposed the Gospel storyline on Paul.) That imposed understanding has been going on for almost two millennia.

If you can't see any degree of persuasive logic in that, I can't beat it into your head.

I don't know offhand, but I haven't seen a case for being unable to accept it. Note that it occurs in a context of Justin spelling out his belief in an HJ, something which Paul does not supply. Also, there is a huge difference between Justin's context and that of Paul. Paul was in conflict with other apostles, including the Jerusalem group, in which there was every reason for the topic to come up that others had been disciples (meaning followers) of a human Jesus on earth. It never does. THAT is what makes the argument from silence a strong one in the case of Paul. Such a consideration does not figure in the absence of the term "disciples" in Justin.

And now I see that gurugeorge has pointed out that the word "disciple" DOES appear in Justin's Trypho. So much for that. (I'll look it up myself, I have an electronic copy of the entire ANF.)

Earl Doherty

Sheshbazzar

'Cooked' Books. 'Paul' never wrote even 10% of the content of these alleged Pauline Epistles.

Duvduv

Then of course it says in Galatians 1 that there were "apostles before me." What kind of ass would he sound claiming a special revelation but that there were others who were apostles before him in relation to a Christ who had been gone for a number of years?!

Sheshbazzar

'Paul' is a puppet who 'wrote' whatever the church's writers wanted him to 'write' ......employing their pen and their hand of course.
What a bunch of horse shit.