Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 04-27-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No such thing happened during that time.

Thank you for the mantra...

During the time of President Bush... The US invaded Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan...

true or false?

aa5874 · 04-27-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, where does Paul fit into your scenario? And when did Jesus have followers before or after Paul?

Based on Philo, Josephus and Justin Martyr it would appear that it is unlikely there was anyone called Saul/Paul in the first century and there is no indication that Jesus of the NT existed.

You seem to think that Jesus' teachings were unique but as the story goes he was executed for blasphemy.

Based on Fred Flintstone there is little or no evidence of George Washington, either.
NO indication that Jesus existed? ok.

He was not executed for blasphemy, he was executed for treason against Rome.

So, where did you get your evidence from to claim Jesus was executed for treason against Rome?

From your imagination.

In the NT, no such thing happened.

Look at Mark 14.61-64

Quote:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

You are just blatantly fabricating information. In the NT, the Romans were not trying to capture, arrest, or execute Jesus, in the NT story, Pilate found no fault with Jesus.

Lu 23:4 -

Quote:

Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

It is not true at all that Jesus was executed for treason against Rome based on the NT.

And by deduction it is false that Jesus was executed for treason against Rome, Jesus of the NT did NOT exist at all.

Loomis · 04-27-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original?

No. Of course not. It looks to me like the original ending of Mark is now in GJohn 21 - thanks to bad editing.

There is an excellent article on that subject here:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/Mark/

Loomis · 04-27-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

That supports this chronology:

Gospel of Mark -> Gospel of the Hebrews -> 1 Corinthians 15.3-8

But now prove Paul was familiar with Luke or Matthew.

Note that Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15 omits any mention of appearances to Mary of Magdala or to "women" as in Matthew, Luke, and John.

So wait, when was Mark written according to this timeline? More specifically, do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original (which includes the actual resurrection appearances, ascension, and talking in tongues), even though Justin Martyr seems to be unaware of it?

Btw, I’m not married to the idea that Paul was written after Mark. I’m just arguing that ‘the writings of Paul’ were in place before Matthew, Luke, and John.

To be honest it looks to me like 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 was added much later.

aa5874 · 04-27-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So wait, when was Mark written according to this timeline? More specifically, do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original (which includes the actual resurrection appearances, ascension, and talking in tongues), even though Justin Martyr seems to be unaware of it?

Btw, I’m not married to the idea that Paul was written after Mark. I’m just arguing that ‘the writings of Paul’ were in place before Matthew, Luke, and John.

To be honest it looks to me like 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 was added much later.

So, any information that clearly indicates that "Paul" was aware of the gospel story are interpolations just to satisfy your hypothesis.

It is not 1 Corinthians 15.3-10 alone that was written much later, it was all the Pauline letters.

You cannot honestly prove 1 Corinthians 15.1-2 and 15.11-58 was written at any other time different to 1Corinthians 15.3-10.

andrewcriddle · 04-27-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So wait, when was Mark written according to this timeline? More specifically, do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original (which includes the actual resurrection appearances, ascension, and talking in tongues), even though Justin Martyr seems to be unaware of it?

Although I don't regard the longer ending as original, IMO Justin probably knew it First Apology chapter 45

Quote:

That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it.

Mark 16:20

Quote:

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen

(The parallelism is exact in Greek)

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy · 04-27-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So wait, when was Mark written according to this timeline? More specifically, do you accept that the longer ending in Mark is original (which includes the actual resurrection appearances, ascension, and talking in tongues), even though Justin Martyr seems to be unaware of it?

Although I don't regard the longer ending as original, IMO Justin probably knew it First Apology chapter 45 Mark 16:20

Quote:

And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen

(The parallelism is exact in Greek)

Andrew Criddle

Justin seems unaware of any ability or tradition for Christians to talk in tongues. The tradition of glossalia stems from Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, and Mark 16:17. Justin was unaware of Acts and was antagonistic towards Marcion, thus to Paul and his epistles. If Mark 16:17 was part of his "Memoirs" then he would have mentioned the gift of glossalia in one of his works.

So it might just be a coincidence, or Justin's "Memoirs" might have simply had some other narrative after 16:8 that included 16:20 but didn't have anything about talking in tongues (and thus our current longer ending wasn't around during Justin's time).

Amaleq13 · 04-27-2009, 01:37 PM

Andrew,

Previously, I had thought that double-aa's repeated assertion that Justin did not know Paul is generally accepted but I've found several references that claim otherwise. Most have been from "conservative" religious sources but I also found the claim in the online Britannica Justin Martyr article as well as a paper from Harvard Theological Review.

From the latter (emphasis mine):

In his Dialogue with Trypho,(1) Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them.(2) Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95-96.(3) Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX.(4) He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2-4 and 9-11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue.

Is this a controversial subject still under debate?

Clivedurdle · 04-27-2009, 01:39 PM

Is there not an issue of who is first, or are they both quoting something else or coincidentally creating the same phrase?

spamandham · 04-27-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

From the latter (emphasis mine):
[indent]In his Dialogue with Trypho,(1) Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them.

....or is it the other way around? I think I have seen aa argue that the writer of the epistles was familiar with Justin.

04-27-2009, 01:37 PM	#158
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Andrew, Previously, I had thought that double-aa's repeated assertion that Justin did not know Paul is generally accepted but I've found several references that claim otherwise. Most have been from "conservative" religious sources but I also found the claim in the online Britannica Justin Martyr article as well as a paper from Harvard Theological Review. From the latter (emphasis mine): In his Dialogue with Trypho,(1) Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them.(2) Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95-96.(3) Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX.(4) He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2-4 and 9-11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue. Is this a controversial subject still under debate?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-27-2009, 01:39 PM	#159
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is there not an issue of who is first, or are they both quoting something else or coincidentally creating the same phrase?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.