Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 05-22-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

I did look at other christian writings and that is how I began to notice that Justin Martyr appeared to be not aware of or did not have in his possession any of the Gospels which were named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, or any of the "Pauline Epistles and even "Paul" as late as the middle of the 2nd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

well, the issue of assigning names and the actual documents themselves are 2 different things. I agree that Justin Martyr does not help with the names. I thought it was common knowledge that the names of the gospels were assigned through post biblical writings, tradition, and especially internal evidence.

According to Eusebius in Church History, gMark was written around 50 CE or earlier, by Mark a disciple of Peter and this fact was well known at the time. Mark, in Church History was even preaching in Egypt using his gospel that he had written.

Again Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. Mark could not write a memoir of Jesus. He was just not with Jesus at all. Mark had no personal experience of Jesus.

It is therefore likely texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles.

Eusebius also claimed Luke a disciple of "Paul" wrote gLuke sometime after gMark. But Luke also could not write memoirs of Jesus. He was not with Jesus and had no personal first-hand experience of Jesus.

It is likely that texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles of Jesus.

A) it is not necessarily true that Mark had no personal experience. Church tradition places him as the young man whom was almost arrested with Jesus in the garden. not sure why, I would have to look into that.

B) Why do you say it is likely? give me an example of a quote he gave and attributed to the apostles that is not in the gospels. This might be a valid argument is Justin Martyr was the center of the universe and we built everything we know and beleive around his phrase "memoirs of the apostles".

What if he had other books? We know they wrote other books. Paul wrote 2 other books to the corinthians that he mentions in the ones we have but those are gone. I expect the other apostles wrote books, letters, etc. What does that mean to you? Why does a memoir of an apostle need to be a first hand account. The books are not just philosophy like other religions and they were not recited quietly in a cave. They recorded and verified historical events.

Luke made it quite clear in the book of Luke that A) he was reporting the events by interviewing eyewitnesses, not that he was one. B) also, commissioned by the same person (theophilus), he recorded the Acts of the Apostles and this time as an eyewitness. It is very clear as to why Luke is beleived to be the author. Since he knew and travelled with the Apostles and the post-apostolic fathers knew him, he was considered a very good source and his record of the events were most copied and most distributed.

Does it not concern you that fragments of the latest NT books exist from as early as 100-150? You seem to be ignoring this? Is this not compelling at all?

~Steve

Ben C Smith · 05-22-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. Mark could not write a memoir of Jesus. He was just not with Jesus at all. Mark had no personal experience of Jesus.

It is therefore likely texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles.

Eusebius also claimed Luke a disciple of "Paul" wrote gLuke sometime after gMark. But Luke also could not write memoirs of Jesus. He was not with Jesus and had no personal first-hand experience of Jesus.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Luke 22.43, western text:

And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

Ben.

aa5874 · 05-23-2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again Mark was not an apostle of Jesus. Mark could not write a memoir of Jesus. He was just not with Jesus at all. Mark had no personal experience of Jesus.

It is therefore likely texts from Justin's memoirs of His Apostles were added to other writings of those who were not apostles.

Eusebius also claimed Luke a disciple of "Paul" wrote gLuke sometime after gMark. But Luke also could not write memoirs of Jesus. He was not with Jesus and had no personal first-hand experience of Jesus.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Luke 22.43, western text:

And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

Ben.

But, you have only confirmed my view that passages from the memoirs of His Apostles were later attributed to a gospel called Luke.

Mark and Luke were not followers of Jesus, they were disciples of Peter and Paul respectively. And for Mark and Luke to write anything about Jesus, they would all NEED the MEMOIRS of the Apostles.

Mark needed the MEMOIRS of Peter.

Luke needed the MEMOIRS of "PAUL"

The author called Luke has other problems, he, it is claimed was a disciple of "Paul", and "Paul" had NO memoirs of Jesus while he was on earth, but MEMOIRS of Jesus by revelation when Jesus was in heaven.

As you have shown clearly, Justin had no specific details of the names of those who wrote the memoirs but just an ambiguous generalisation.

Further, when Jesus was sweating "blood" only his apostles and the angel were present, perhaps then the angel also wrote some of the memoirs of His Apostles.

Ben C Smith · 05-23-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you have only confirmed my view that passages from the memoirs of His Apostles were later attributed to a gospel called Luke.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Quote:

Mark and Luke were not followers of Jesus, they were disciples of Peter and Paul respectively.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Ben.

aa5874 · 05-23-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you have only confirmed my view that passages from the memoirs of His Apostles were later attributed to a gospel called Luke.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Quote:

Mark and Luke were not followers of Jesus, they were disciples of Peter and Paul respectively.

Justin, Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood....

Ben.

Mark needed the MEMOIRS of Peter, as stated by Eusebius in Church History.

Luke needed the MEMOIRS of "Paul" but "Paul" got his "MEMOIRS" by revelation, as written in Galations.

Mark and Luke could not write MEMOIRS of Jesus, and all the information about Jesus, the Son of God, as written in the NT, just never happened.

Ben C Smith · 05-23-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Mark and Luke could not write MEMOIRS of Jesus....

American Heritage Dictionary:

mem·oir (měm'wär', -wôr')
n.
1. An account of the personal experiences of an author.
2. An autobiography. Often used in the plural.
3. A biography or biographical sketch.
4. A report, especially on a scientific or scholarly topic.

Ben.

dog-on · 05-23-2008, 08:22 AM

I like the part where Luke writes the "most historical" JC memoir, which is based on the details given to Paul by revelation.

Cool!

Roger Pearse · 05-23-2008, 08:29 AM

If people are going to discuss what word Justin used, surely we should be discussing the *Greek* word?

sschlichter · 05-23-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I like the part where Luke writes the "most historical" JC memoir, which is based on the details given to Paul by revelation.

Cool!

please explain.

dog-on · 05-23-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I like the part where Luke writes the "most historical" JC memoir, which is based on the details given to Paul by revelation.

Cool!

please explain.

Luke wrote what is considered, (by most, I suppose), to be the most historical account of any gospel.

Luke got his "data", (traditionally), from Paul.

Paul got his "data" through revelation, not from any man...per Galatians.

That about covers it, imo...

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

05-23-2008, 08:22 AM	#117
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I like the part where Luke writes the "most historical" JC memoir, which is based on the details given to Paul by revelation. Cool!

05-23-2008, 08:29 AM	#118
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	If people are going to discuss what word Justin used, surely we should be discussing the Greek word?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.