Toto

They took it over when it was in a state of decline, and ran it into the ground. But yes - that's what you need for empire. Women to have babies, slaves to do the work, then you collect taxes to pay the army.

That's a bit oversimplified, but that's the basics.

aa5874

Of course there is corroboration for Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING about Paul, the Hebrew and Pharisee, that preached Christ crucified and resurrected just like NON-apologetic sources.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING about the Pauline 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus just like non-apologetic sources.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of the Pauline Churches just like non-apologetic sources.

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger CORROBORATED Justin Martyr when they did NOT write a single thing about Paul.

The writing of Julian the Emperor tend to corroborate Justin Martyr when he challenged his readers to show that any well know writer mentioned Jesus and PaUL.
There is ZERO corroboration for any claims about Paul in "Against Marcion" by non-apologetic sources.

Please, tell me what you can corroborate about PAUL and the Pauline Epistles in the 4th century.

Duvduv

aa5874, I meant there is no corroboration for the CLAIMS of Justin, not his SILENCE. He makes all kinds of claims pointing to his Christ for which there is no corroboration.

Duvduv

In all likelihood these sects relied on oral traditions and teachings that could be easily kept from being disseminated. I assume that had "Christianity" not merged with the Empire, it too would have no written documents to speak of.

Kent F

You seem to assume that the Epistle and Acts have the same origin within the Roman church but once you realize that this was and is not the case then it becomes quite clear what we are dealing with, namely two opposite factions merged into one. The author of Acts did not include theological information about Paul because the author had as his agenda to disprove most of this theology.

Every contradiction between the Epistles and Acts have as their purpose to iron out the dangerous figure of "the apostle of the heretics" into a dull carbon copy of Peter. Paul said his gospel was of no man. In Acts he's reduced to a mere missionary, approved by the authority of Peter and James. In the Epistles he's one like Moses, as he creates a new covenant, a new law. Moses raised tents at Mount Sinai and gave his people the law. In Acts Paul is reduced to a tent-maker from Tarsus who upholds the old law! In the Epistles he never for one moment gives in to the circumcision party because he has decided that circumcision is not necessary for the Gentiles. In Acts, he sits numb as circumcision is discussed until James decides that it's not necessary! In the Epistles, he's not aware of Pilate, in Acts he is. The list goes on and on, and every one of these contradictions are there to show that Paul was part of the Roman church. Which was and is a blatant lie.

The same goes for Eusebius and everyone else, claiming that Paul was aware of gLuke. It was their job to say so! They had to invent that Paul was aware of gLuke to hide the dangerous fact that Paul had his own gospel.

It's illogical to argue that Acts was written earlier, simply because of the same textual evidence. Why invent such a figure as Paul in Acts and then go on to create epistles in his name where the fabricators deny the beliefs in their own book Acts, beliefs which they hold dearly to this day?

According to you and aa, there's no corroboration for Marcion because the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian are spurious. But the writings are there, regardless of when they were written. From these writings one can get glimpses of a whole set of beliefs contradictory to the one upheld by the Roman church. Tertullian attacks Marcion for having a Higher God and a lower Creator God, trying his best to show that Marcion was wrong. He attacks Marcion for manipulating the Epistles. Why publish anything like this if it was all an invention anyway? Why would the Roman church deliberately try to create heretics and give their followers the chance to turn to another set of beliefs? The truth is obvious: the beliefs of Marcion were real. It did exist a movement which taught of an unknown Higher God and a Creator God and it had the (original) Epistles. When the Roman church grew in power, then came the attacks on this movement.

And Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and since Marcion had the Pauline epistles, the link is there.

Then there's Clement of Alexandria, who also had different Marcionite versions of the epistles. Where did they come from? And there's the "churches" of the Alexandrians and Samaritans, both revering a Mark. There's Mani in the third century, rejecting the whole of the Old Testament, the "human" Jesus of Nazareth and Acts but not the Epistles. Mani saw himself as an imitator of Paul, as the Paraclete. He's verified by a lot of sources and his followers lasted into the next millennia. This again suggest that the Roman church had no absolute authority at this time, that is was just one of several competing sects.

Jerome claimed that Marcion did not have "and God the father" in the opening line of Galatians: "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, who raised him from the dead." Why on earth make Jerome invent such an opening statement?

The inscription found at Deir Ali, dated 318-319 CE, says that the Marcionite Jesus was called Chrestos. Therefore followers of Marcion existed before this date. Chrestus and the term "chrestianos" is verified by Suetonius and Tacitus, and also by the Codex Sinaiticus, and once again, by Tertullian. Why invent a Tertullian to claim that "chrestians" is the wrong name for "christians" unless there actually existed chrestians? And if there was a Jesus Chrestos, then some other person had to be the Christ, the Messiah.

And this Messiah was Paul=Marcion=king Marcus Julius Agrippa! It's not my theory, it's Stephan Huller's, but I like this theory much more than the "it's all a pack of lies-theory" simply because it has a connection to real history and makes further investigation necessary and more interesting. And it fits with what we have in the Epistles: the Messiah was expected to be someone like Moses, to reinterpret the old scriptures, and isn't that precisely what Paul does when he talks of a new covenant, a new law?

Apart from hinduism, all the main religions of this world started with someone's vision and/or his teachings. I mean, even as an atheist, I find it very hard to accept that christianity started with its entire foundation based on a pack of lies and that variants of these lies then appeared as different beliefs in other parts of the Empire and beyond. Isn't it much more plausible that christianity or chrestianity started with an influential person's vision?

aa5874

Well, I did not make any claim that there was corroboration by non-apologetic sources for any event in the Jesus story in the writings of Justin Martyr.

You should know that people are EXONERATED, found NOT Guilty, when there is SILENCE, when SILENCE is corroborated, when there is ABSENCE of Evidence.

The Silence about Paul in the writings of Justin is corroborated by non-apologetic sources.

Duvduv

When you get a chance read my last postings on the thread Dialogue with Trypho.

aa5874

Your claim is blatantly erroneous. The author of Acts dedicated 13 chapters to Paul and EXCLUDED the name Peter from chapter 16 to chapter 28.

The author of Acts claimed he even traveled with Paul all over the Roman Empire and PRAYED with him.

Acts 21

Duvduv

Kent, isn't it possible that Acts was written first but then the epistles came along to "refine" and "clarify" what "Paul" taught??
And isn't it possible that writers started focusing on Marcion once they saw other writers doing it, and it just snowballed? As I have mentioned before, C.P. Sense in his book on GLuke 100 years ago questions many of the claims about Marcion in a very interesting way. He ultimately argues that Marcion was neither a docetist nor a gnostic (assuming of course he existed).

But note again, how was it that Justin lived at the same time as Marcion and yet knows nothing of specifics of the beliefs and texts that Marcion supposedly had?!

IF Marcion had epistles, WHERE did he get his collection before the Orthodox got their hands on it?? And how is it no one discussed them previously?

I personally am not convinced about the archeological proof concerning Chrestos.

aa5874

Justin Martyr appears to have written while Marcion was ALIVE and stated that Marcion preached another God and another son.

This claim is corroborated by Ephraim in his three prose "Against Marcion".

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian appears to be UNKNOWN by apologetic sources up to the 5th century and beyond.