aa5874

You cannot claim that Justin Martyr was aware of Paul, the Pauline writings, the Pauline churches when he NEVER mentioned them so you don't make any sense.

It is completely erroneous that Justin quote Paul when you have been shown that Justin made reference to Elijah, Moses and the Law of Moses in Dialogue 39, 95 and 96.[/b]

There is ONLY ONE SINGLE way that I can argue that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN up to the mid 2nd century and that is if I can locate an apologetic source that did NOT mention, was NOT aware of or INFLUENCED and Contradicted the Pauline writings, Paul, and the Pauline churches.

There is JUST no other way. This is BASIC

I have FOUND EXACTLY what I needed.

I have FOUND the Short-ending gMark, the Interpolated gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, Philo, Josephus, Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Lucian, "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, and "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Those sources as a whole do show that there was NO Pauline writings, No Pauline Churches, No Pauline Gospel and NO Paul before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Examine "Apology" attributed to Aristides Aristides statement would be False if he was aware of PAUL and that it was claimed Paul was COMMITTED to preach to the Gentiles in Galatians 2.7-8 and that it is claimed Paul preached Jesus all OVER the Roman Empire in Major Cities and DOCUMENTED his travels with Epistles to the Churches.

Both statements of Justin Martyr and Aristides that it was the 12 disciples of Jesus that Preached the Gospel to every race of man in the known world have destroyed Paul.

Up to the mid 2nd century it was NOT known of a character called Paul who preached the Gospel in MAJOR CITIES, like Rome, and all over the known world.

Galatians 2.7-8 Paul is a BLATANT LIAR.

It was the 12 disciples that was claimed to have preached the gospel to every race of men up to the mid 2nd century.

Maklelan

Can you point to a few examples from the last twenty years?

I don't know any scholars who use the word "heresy" to characterize the exegesis of other scholars.

Can you show that this joining actually took place, or is it just an assumption you must make to account for the evidence that conflicts with your presupposition? As I pointed out, the only consideration you've provided that you insist supports a separate provenance is actually not evidence of anything, and is contradicted by quite a bit of actual evidence.

You keep appealing broadly to "context," but you've not explained what about that "context" actually compels one to wonder why the author of Acts does not have Paul make explicit mention of gospel narrative. Just barking "context" doesn't say anything about the actual context.

Only if we expect the author to have Paul explicitly mention gospel narrative, which expectation you have yet to support. Additionally, you appear to be attributing the notion of a unified composition to nothing more than faith, which even you have already explained is not the basis for the conclusion. The actual evidence fully supports the same author for both texts. Your presumption remains unsupported and doesn't really do much to overcome that evidence. Telling me that I'm following a consensus based on blind faith doesn't get the job done.

Can you give me a good reason to conclude that if the author of Acts was the author of Luke, he would feel it necessary to have Paul refer explicitly to events from gospel narrative? Which portions of the Acts narrative, specifically, require explicit reference to gospel narrative?

We're back to an argument from silence, and you continue to refuse to explain why I should expect something where we find nothing. No amount of appealing to silence constitutes evidence unless you can explain why we should not expect silence.

Maklelan

You keep bringing up the vague notion of "context" without actually describing the context in a way that would compel someone to accept your assertions. What about the context of Nicea and Antioch concerns you? Please be specific.

That's because the presuppositions you bring to the table and refuse to expose to the light of objective analysis are multiplying the incongruities with the evidence.

Maklelan

Once again you flatly ignore the textual evidence to simply reassert the illegitimate evidentiary standard that you derived from your conclusion. You are without doubt the amateur of amateurs.

Again you hold up a strawman because you either don't understand what I'm actually saying, or you know you don't have the skills or resources to actually address it. Either way, you're losing this argument in an astonishingly obdurate fashion.

But since that does not constitute evidence to begin with, you are left with no ways at all to argue that the Pauline writings were unknown. Don't tell me that you have no argument if I don't let you appeal to this fallacious notion that Paul would have been explicitly named by Justin. I know you have no argument. Instead of trying to insist that because your case is predicated exclusively on this argument, I have to let you hold on to it, why don't you just do what you claim to do and look at the evidence that's actually there?

In scholarship, when a conclusion has no evidence, you abandon the conclusion rather than grope around to try to conjure up some evidence.

No, you have asserted what you needed without showing that it actually suffices to support your presupposition.

And you have grotesquely misunderstood and misrepresented all of them. You've also gotten upset with me for showing that naivety on your part.

When you cannot address new evidence or produce any of your own, but are forced to reassert your original thesis, it's an indication that you can't support your argument. I can see that. I'm sure others here can see that. The mystery is why someone who is so convicted of their own transcendent knowledge cannot grasp that quite simple fact.

No it wouldn't. How does Paul's existence contradict the fact that Jesus had 12 disciples who went out to preach the gospel?

Neither of them said it was only those 12 disciples that ever preached the gospel. Can you not see how restrictive your interpretive framework has to be made in order for your presuppositions to be supported by the texts? Can you not see that an argument from silence that you cannot justify simply does not provide enough evidentiary leverage to overcome the internal evidence for the broad historicity of Paul's existence?

Paul doesn't say the 12 disciples didn't preach the gospel, nor do any other texts say the 12 disciples were the only ones who preached the gospel. Your exegesis is just abominable, aa, and you completely ignore my evidence. What could possibly compel you to perpetuate these arguments other than pure and simple dogmatism? I can't think of anything. You're certainly not getting paid to do it.

Duvduv

Look, it makes no sense that the great apostle of Christ who supposedly KNEW the historical Jesus story would have a biography written about him where he makes absolutely no appeal to a single teaching or event in the life of his Savior. It's an easy out (again) to say, "Well, everything has already been said. WHY should Paul say anything (or Peter for that matter)?"

It makes no sense that when this Paul meets alleged disciples of the Savior that he expresses not the slightest awe or reverence for their having walked and talked with the Savior of mankind. The contrasts are stark. That's all that interests me. EVEN when Paul is said to refer to the Baptist in Acts, he doesn't even hint in the slightest to the idea that this Baptist was the precursor of the Savior, the Davidic Messiah. Even Acts 19:4 is not an explicit reference to the Baptist as the "Elijah" - indeed the verse sounds strange, i.e. that the Baptist told people to believe in "the one coming after him." HOW is someone supposed to believe in someone who he hasn't even seen yet, and who hasn't arrived? But that's beside the point.

Blithe references to "evidence" and language and style are insufficient to pursuade me here.

PLUS, I assert additionally that the Paul of Acts is not the same Paul as the Paul of the epistles. Nowhere in Acts does "Paul" explain what "faith" he is referring to, no where does he refer to salvation through the indwelling of the Christ. Nowhere does he refer to the issues of reconciliation with God through the advent of the Christ. Nothing.

On the face of it, it would appear that the author of Acts did not have references from the epistles. It is possible there was a tradition of "Paul" that preceded the appearance of the epistles.

This of course would suggest that that epistles and then the gospels arrived AFTER Acts within the context of establishing the relationship between the Petrine tradition and the Pauline one at the dawn of the 4th century despite the fact that neither emphasize anything about a historical Jesus at all, but only perhaps the contrast between Judeophile and "trans-Judaic" Christ ideas.

stephan huller

There is at least one place in the Dialogue where Justin brings forward a typically Samaritan rejection of the Jewish interest in Solomon. I forget where it is exactly (I'm at the Starbuck's drivethru). I will look it up.

If you are interested in meeting a real live Samaritan friend usually comes to visit like Santa Claus at this.time of year (although originating from Marktown, Neve Marqe rather than the North Pole) although not this year. He has a “friiend” in Maryville (exit 199 on I-5). Bellingham's not that far. Come to think of it he always had to see a software publisher or something up in your neck of the woods. Maybe he was going to see you

Maklelan

There are a few places where Samaritan practices and ideology seemed to have influenced him. For instance, he refers to God commanding Jews to put scarlet fringes on their garments (Dialogue 46.5), but the commandment was actually to put blue fringes on them. The Samaritans had garments with red, white, and black fringes.

We all worship in our own ways.

Logos, the Bible software company, is based out of Bellingham, but there are plenty of other software developers around. It's not me he's coming to see, though.

stephan huller

It was Logos. Still have coffee grown on Gerizim in my cupboard from his last visit. He always tries to sell something on each trip. He used to send me the Samaritan newsletter for free. I guess I'm no longer a VIP

Maklelan

Since when is Acts a biography about Paul? The title, Acts of the Apostles, seems to indicate to me that it has to do with apostles and their ministry. You're not paying attention to genre again. Additionally, the narrative about Jesus' life had already been told.

You keep mixing things up. Paul is not narrating Acts. The author of Acts is telling stories about what Paul and other apostles did. Paul may very well have told numerous stories about Jesus' life, but that does not mean that the author of Acts needed to include them. After all, most of the time Paul is preaching the author just glosses over what he actually says. What is the purpose of his story? That's what you have to ask before you can say something should or should not have been included. The emphasis is on the events, not the gospel narratives.

The fact that the author of Acts does not mention this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Paul did that. You need to address what it does and does not make sense for the author of Acts to have included in his narrative, not what does and does not make sense for Paul to have done. The book of Acts is not a fully comprehensive record of everything Paul did and said.

It seems to me that fabricating a framework that supports your presupposition is what interests you.

Does the author of Acts need to include it if he did?

It's also a silly point. John the Baptist is appealing to prophecy. They were expecting a messiah at the time, and within the narrative where that comment is found, Jesus' coming is imminent. In other words, John says, "Believe on this guy," and then that guy showed up. It would be like me telling a group of employees to be good when corporate shows up on the day that corporate is supposed to show up. There's nothing peculiar about it at all. Again, you have to be sensitive to genre.

But you've already acknowledged that scholars have plenty of evidence for the unity of Luke-Acts. Are you now contesting that?

Why would we expect the author of Acts to flesh out Paul's personal theology like that when the point of the story is just to narrate the acts of the apostles?

Or they just weren't germane to the story, and had not yet found wider circulation than the churches to which they were addressed and sent.

Of course, when one carefully considers genre and the context of the composition of Acts, none of those wild speculations really make any sense.

Maklelan

He probably wanted you to drink his coffee.