outhouse

I dont think its smoothing over any difficulty

were talking about a small movement with few leaders at this time.

it would be next to impossible for Justin to not know pauls work


and its obvious we see pauls influence in justins work

outhouse

Nope


is there anyone with any amount of credibility that discounts pauls existance? and then makes a good arguement for it?

outhouse

because in his time there was no standard thought on this growing movement


Not only that we see other early authors also trying to smooth over paul with his unattributable letters.

stephan huller

I would recommend that you actually read Justin's writings before making this statement. There are not proofs that he actually cited any of the writings of Paul. They are arguments that 'theological concepts' were borrowed. Given the fact that the Pauline writings were tampered with (so Marcion) we have to be careful. And as I noted earlier - did Justin secretly read the apostle but refrained from citing his work publicly? Look at the Scillitan Martyrs. Apparently in 177 it was a crime to acknowledge 'books of Paul' in your possession.

Sheshbazzar

When I write the name 'Paul', I am almost always careful to place 'quotes' around it. (as well as many other Christian 'names'.)
My reference is to those writings commonly identified as being 'Paul's', that however is no endorsement of the position that they, as they stand, were written by any 1st century individual known as Paul.

aa5874

Your article is hopelessly contradictory.

It claims that Justin Extensively quotes Jewish Scriptures and that explicit citations of Paul are missing yet stll claim Justin knew Paul.

It cannot be shown Justin knew Paul WITHOUT explicit citations from.

We can deduce Justin KNEW of Jewish Scriptures because of the expilcit citations.

We can deduce Justin knew of the Memoirs of the Apostles because of the explicit citations.

We can deduce Justin knew of Revelation by John because of the explicit citations.

It is wholly illogical that it can be assumed Justin could have only known Paul when there is no explicit citation.

What about the supposed the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Barnabas or the numerous non-Canonical writings???

What about the so-called Gnostics and Heretics??

Isn't there supposed to be 100 years of Apologetic writings between Paul and Justin???

Surely if the Churches of the Roman Empire existed 100 years before Justin then it cannot be assumed he ONLY knew Paul.

Justin did NOT show that there was a Canon with Pauline writings so it is not logical that Justin would have known those 100 year old writings if they were written at all.

It is clear that Justin made references to Non-Canonised books, like the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Acts of Pontius Pilate so it is just a load of BS that Justin knew the supposed 100 YEAR OLD writings of Paul.

Sheshbazzar

:thumbs: for a change.

'Justin' should have been well acquainted with the writings of 'Paul', and able to quote from them verbatim, if as The NT and Christian history teaches, 'Paul' had preached, and his epistles been distributed, exchanged, and read by, and to thousands, both Jews and Gentiles, for 100 years in synagogues and church's all over the Roman Empire.

Seems that according to the NT 'Pauline' writings and Christian 'history', damn near everyone in the Roman world (including the Roman Emperors) would, by that time, have been quite well acquainted with 'Apostle'-'Paul's' preaching and writings....it being claimed by the Roman Empire that 'Paul' and 'Peter' had early on 'set up shop' right in Rome itself, busily converting and baptizing thousands.

....except for 'Justin' of the 2nd century CE. He doesn't appear to know any of this well known Christian 'history'.

And here 'Justin' is, petitioning the Emperor on the behalf of all Christians everywhere, but cannot, or does not 'drop the name of' nor quote even so much as a single sentence from the works of Christianity's most well known proponent, evangelist, author, and voice.
That voice and preacher that allegedly had taught Christians of 'Substitutionary Sacrifice for Sin', and the 'End of The Law' doctrine, and whose very teachings had led to the problems the Christians were now experiencing. ....But 'Justin' evidently knows nothing of this.

Something here is bad rotten , and stinks to high heaven.



.

outhouse

put to death in 180 in africa, doesnt reflect justins position nor the context of the movement in the levant.

before paul was canon, he was liked and disliked, but as you pointed out his theology was still followed by many

The early movement had different works held higher then others based on nothing more then geographic location alone.

outhouse

who states they were well distributed "evenly" in 150 ish and in widespread circulation to all???


"evenly" being the key word.


we already know different communities had no uniform canon to work with



but one thing is known, and that is justin knew pauls theology well. but who stated he had to like paul ?



Like and know have the same definition?

outhouse

You know I luv ya dallin, but it was a simple question that didnt need a explanation