aa5874

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are most fascinating. Here we have a 2nd century writer who made ZERO mention of Paul, Acts of the Apostles and the Four Named Gospels.

The ONLY book that is mentioned is Revelation by John which is found in the Canon.

Now, in the Pauline letters [1 Corinthians 11], a Pauline writer claimed he Received certain information from the Resurrected Jesus. It is just NOT credible that Paul could have received any Credible historical data about Past events from one who was supposedly ALREADY dead and buried.

Paul MUST have either invented the Revelation or copied it from some source. The Pauline writer is the LEAST Plausible.

gLuke CORROBORATES Justin Martyr.

Based on Justin and the DATED NT Texts, the Pauline writer composed 1 Cor. AFTER "First Apology" and AFTER the Jesus story was Preached and Believed.

1 Corinthians 11:23-24 KJV Justin claimed he got the information about the ritual of the Eucharist from the Memoirs NOT by Revelation of the resurrected Jesus.

First Apology This is the author of gLuke who claimed he used witnesses.

Luke 22.19

Duvduv

AA, why do you continue to make the same assumptions:

1) That the mention in 1 Corinthians of "I have received of the Lord" in relation specifically to the Apology means anything significant considering the content of Galatians.

2) That the differences in the versions of the eucharist ceremony in the gospels and 1 Corinthians mean absolutely nothing.

3) That the similarity itself proves that 1 Corinthians must have come after both the gospels and "Justin."

4) That differences in stories meant nothing to Justin since he calls all the alleged gospel stories "Memoirs of th Apostles" and never distinguishes among different versions.

5) That it is impossible that stories were simply floating around and in the process of being adopted by the emerging church of the Constantinian regime.

6) The fact that the same epistles do not invoke details found in the Justin writings that you believe preceded the epistles means nothing.

aa5874

You are the one who make assumptions.

You are claiming that there there were NO Jesus stories before the 4th century when you have ZERO evidence and CONTRARY to the recovered DATED Texts.

I make NO assumptions. My argument is SOLIDLY SUPPORTED and cannot be contradicted by YOUR Imagination.

I PRESENT my sources and the Recovered Dated NT Texts to support my argument.

1. Justin Martyr did NOT mention the Pauline writings. [See the writings attributed to Justin]

2. Justin Martyr mentioned Revelation by John. [See "Dialogue with Trypho]

3. An Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John. [See the Muratorian Canon]

4. Papyri 46 [the Pauline letters] have been recovered and DATED AFTER the writings attributed to Justin. [See Papyri 46]

5. Apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer knew of gLuke. [See Church History 6 and Commentary on Matthew 1]

6. ALL RECOVERED Papyri of gLuke are DATED AFTER the writings Attributed to Justin. [See the List of New Testament Manuscripts]

7. A Pauline letter contains a phrase found ONLY in gLuke and also in First Apology. [See 1 Cor. 11, gLuke 22 and First Apology]

My argument is that the Pauline letters were ALL COMPOSED AFTER the writings attributed to Justin Martyr is WELL SUPPORTED by Sources of antiquity and the HARD EVIDENCE--the DATED RECOVERED TEXTS.

Your argument is based on IMAGINATION and is NOT supported.

Duvduv

My argument is based on examining the CONTEXT not on reliance on the claims of the propagandists or unreliable paleography that cannot be corroborated.
I can see you don't even read what I write and are too busy thinking of how to restate or recycle your own numbered points. We'll just drop our interaction. If you post something I will ignore it, and if I post something you can ignore it. There is no purpose in any attempts at interaction at all. Even where we agree. It's pointless.

aa5874

Where is the Context that you are looking at that show there was NO Jesus story until the 4th century???

Is it in the writings attributed Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athengoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and JULIAN the Emperor or the Recovered DATED Texts???

I have been asking you for your sources that show or claim the Jesus story was composed in the 4th century but so far you have presented NOTHING but your Imagination.

Whenever I make an argument it is SUPPORTED by STATEMENTS of a Source of Antiquity NOT from Imagination.

My argumnent is that the Writer Composed the Pauline letters AFTER Revelation by John, AFTER the writings attributed to Justin and AFTER gLuke.

It is EXTREMELY important that you Examine the Short Mark, the Long Mark and gMatthew to see that the Corinthians Epistles were COMPOSED after those Canonised books.

Grog

I think he is easily understandable and, also, he understands clearly. He has a problem with addressing critiques, though. I have learned a lot from aa, but I know the limits of what I will accept, which I did through dialogue with him. There is a point where you can't go past based on his methodology. There's a place for that position. He is correct in that all of us infer early copies of copies of copies of originals. Most of us accept that as a perfectly reasonable inference. aa does not.

Grog

What does "considering the content of Galatians" refer to?

What specific differences and what significant inferences are you drawing from them?

Yes, I agree that he has a problem here. There is a question here, though, of how the phrase, "do this in remembrance of me" (paraphrase) was transmitted. Where did that tradition start and how is it found in both Paul, Luke, and Justin? I do not think aa has the only, or even most, plausible solution in mind, though.

You, too, make assumptions about what Justin had before him. Did he have four gospels? Did he have one work that was considered the collective "memoirs" of a group known as "apostles." Did he have snippets, a collections of scraps? What did he have?


or earlier. If aa is wrong, it doesn't mean your hypothesis concerning Christian origins is correct. There are still what many would consider more likely solutions.

I do have a problem here with aa's theory, as well.

aa5874

The reconstruction of the past and the development of any theory, scientific or not, depend on CREDIBLE DATA.

Scholars who use the NT as a Credible Source AFTER having Discredited the same Canon are themselves NOT credible.

It is UNHEARD of that KNOWN ADMITTED Sources of Fiction, Discrepancies, and Contradictions are used by Scholars to support their argument for an human Jesus and EARLY Pauline letters.

It is completely Unacceptable that so-called Scholars REFUSE to ADMIT their BLATANT error.

In order to do history and develop any theory about the Past CREDIBLE Sources MUST, MUST, MUST be First located.

Scholars themselves have DENIED that the NT is Credible with respect to many events and sayings of Jesus.

The NT cannot be used to reconstruct the past without corroboration.

There is ZERO corroboration for an actual human Jesus of Nazareth whose mother was Mary.

The Recovered Dated Texts show that the NT is NOT Credible--NO recovered Dated Texts of antiquity from the 1st century show any influence by any character known as Jesus Christ or show any influence by a character called Saul/Paul.

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr ALSO show that the ONLY "history" of his Jesus and disciples were ONLY found in Apologetic sources the MEMOIRS of the Apostles and Acts of Pilate.

Quite Remarkably, Justin seemed UNAWARE of any letters of Paul, or the Activities of the Apostles even though he wrote about Simon Magus and Menander during the time of Claudius.

We have TWO writers of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and we have the Recovered Dated Texts.

Which one is Compatible with the Hard Evidence--the Dated Texts???

The answer is so obvious. It is Justin.

Even Scholars have REJECTED the date, authorship and chronology of the NT authors as presented by Irenaeus.

Even Church writers have Rejected the succession of Bishops as stated by Irenaeus.

I will consider that Justin Marty's writings are Credible until New evidence surfaces.

Justin Martyr's writings CONTRADICT the "history" of the Jesus cult as claimed by Irenaeus.

Based on Justin Martyr, the Jesus cult was in its INFANCY stage around the mid 2nd century. The Emeperor Antoninus, the Senate and the People of Rome hardly knew anything about the Jesus cult of Christians in the time of Justin.

Justin Martyr used ONLY Hebrew Scripture, the Memoirs and the Acts of Pilate as Evidence that Jesus did exist but NOTHING from Non-Apologetic sources Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

The Jesus story and cult appear to have ORIGINATED in the 2nd century.

anethema

i dont think (there i go again - thinking) that inference is necessarily valid. actual writings on papyrus were expensive and rare in the 1st cen. the only actual one to come down to us is josephus and his references are problematic to the extreme. here i think aa's position is valid. a 1st cen. reference without qualification or argument would be most pleasing. we dont have that contra a plethora of other no doubt 1st cen. attestatations of other writers. we all know who they are, enumerated several times on this space starting with julius caesar. in this absence i can conclude from an intellectually honest position that aa is using the only methodology that can get us any closer to the truth. thats the point right?

aa5874

It would seem to me that you only accept what I write if it does NOT conflict with what you want to BELIEVE but please show your methodology for your beliefs.

What is your BELIEF and what actual credible source of antiquity did you employ???

Let us see YOUR methodology that you cling to.

When I state that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr it is BASED on Apologetic sources, that is, writers who may represent the Church or Christians.

Is it NOT claimed in the Muratorian Canon that Paul wrote his Epistles to the Seven Churches AFTER Revelation by John???

Yes or NO???

Is it NOT claimed in "Church History" 6.25 and "Commentary on Matthew" 1 that Paul COMMENDED gLuke?

Yes or No???

Is it NOT true that the author of Acts did NOT acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches???

Yes or NO??

Is it NOT true that in writings atrributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides and Arnobius that they did NOT acknowledge Paul, the Pauline letters and that did NOT acknowledge that Paul preached the Jesus story to Gentiles??

Yes or NO???

Is it NOT true that Julian the Emperor in "Against the Galileans" claimed that he did NOT know of any well-known writer who wrote about Jesus and Paul??

Yes or No???

Is it NOT True that NO Pauline letters have been recovered and dated to any time in the 1st century and before c 70 CE???

Yes or NO???

Is it NOT true that Scholars have deduced that letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul in the 1st century are most likely forgeries???

Yes or NO??

Please, the actual AVAILABLE evidence does NOT support any 1st century writings of the NT Canon.

People who continue to support an early Paul are merely TERRIFIED to admit Their ERROR.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings Mis-represented the history of the Jesus cult.