aa5874

The inclusion of the gospels in the NT is extremely helpful in showing that the Pauline letters are late.

Whether a person thinks gMark precedes gMatthew or not is irrelevant except that the Synoptics show exactly what was expected if the Pauline letters were written before the gospels.

The Synoptics show wholesale copying either from one another or from some other single source. Many passages in gMatthew, gMark and gLuke are almost identical, word for word, at some instances the chronology of events follow the same order.

How is it that the author of Mark or Matthew have only one canonised writing and yet the author of Luke show wholescale influence by these writers or their sources?

If the Pauline lettrs did exist prior to the gospels, was known for decades throughout the Roman Empire and in many churches, then based on the Synoptics, it would be expected to see wholescale copying of the Pauline letters, word for word copying. Words peculiar to the Pauline epistles would be all over the Synoptics.

There is no such influence at all.

The Synoptics are influenced only by pre-ascension sources for the GOD/MAN Jesus on earth.

It cannot be that Paul wrote 13 lettters decades before the Synoptics, being well known, at the same time the authors of the Synoptics supposedly attending some of the churches started by Paul and never show any Pauline influence at all.

And then 100 years later, Justin Martyr shows no Pauline influence at all. Justin show wholescale influence by the memoirs of the apostles called gospels. Justin quoted many passages word for word from the memoirs and not one single word from any Pauline letter anywhere.

The Pauline writer was late. He absolutely was aware of the gospel, the gospels and was a backdated fiction writer.

arnoldo

Yet First Clement Mentions Paul (estimated date of writing 80-140 A.D.)

as does Polycarp, (estimated date of writing 110-140 A.D.)

and Ignatius;Estimated Range of Dating: 105-115 C.E

Your argument that Paul was written after Justin Martyr wrote his works is unfounded.

show_no_mercy

There seems to be two lines of argument here. aa is arguing that the letters ascribed to Paul were written in the 2nd century. Whether the person that Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement talk about is the same person that wrote the letters that are currently in the canon might be another argument entirely (though IIRC Polycarp quotes from Romans).

Is there anything internal to the letters that might point to a 2nd century composition? There's no mention of the destruction of the Temple which points towards 1st century. However, there's also no mention of animal sacrifices in the Temple which might mean a 2nd century composition, where the dearth of animal sacrifices among the Jews would have been commonplace.

aa5874

Clement of Rome is a fiction writer. He could not have wtitten about Paul when Paul wrote nothing until after Justin Martyr. No author of the gospels mentioned Paul or was influenced by the Pauline letters.

And further Paul met Peter, a fictitious character, and stayed with him 15 days. Paul's history is found in a book of fiction called Acts of the Apostles where he spoke to Jesus after being blinded by a bright light.

Jesus, Peter and Paul are all 1st century fiction. And Clement is a fiction writer, too.

The same as above. Jesus, Peter, the apostles John and Paul are 1st century fiction.

Polycarp could not have known any disciples of Jesus. Jesus did not exist. It is claimed Polycarp knew the apostle called John, such a claim is fiction.


It is claimed Ignatius wrote several letters to churches while being arrested and was being transported under guard to Rome for his execution.

Now, who supplied Ignatius with the paper and pens and ink to write all those letters?

Ignatius is to be executed for being a christian, yet he was able to write letters to churches about Jesus Christ and meet other christians on his way to Rome to be executed.

Ignatius' letters are blatant fiction and appear to have been written in response to Marcion's phantom Jesus.

I use the writings of Justin Matyr since I cannot find any post-ascension fiction in his writings.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are post-ascension fiction, any church writer that is in agreement with those writings are fiction writers themselves.

I repeat, Peter was fiction, he saw Jesus walk on water, he saw Jesus transfigured, he saw Jesus in a resurrected state and talked to Jesus. Peter saw Jesus ascend through the clouds and had something like fire on his head on the day of Pentecost.

Peter witnessed fiction, participated in the very fiction and Paul met him.

The information in the NT about Jesus, Peter, and Paul is unfounded.


Well, it should be obvious then that the Pauline letters were all after 156 CE if your date is correct.

arnoldo

Wrong, there is analysis,that is a type of evidence the Justin was aware of Paul's writings. Note the similarities between Justin's Dialogues and Galatians;
and Paul's writings in Galatians 3: 7-11;

Furethermore Justin writes;

which follows Paul's writings as well;

In fact,it's possible that Justin based his quotations of the OT verses not on the LXX, but on Paul's letters!

Solo

What you are proposing is deconstruction of Paul. I have every reason to believe that there is an irreducible core of the Pauline corpus which is large enough that (most of) the interpolations and forgeries could be determined by crossreference. E.g. the 'Last Supper' in 1 Cr 11:23-26 looks like a clever forgery by a later hand who knows the Lukan version of the Last Supper. Luke himself has copied it from Mark, who - hold your chair - allegorized another few verses of Paul's in 1 Corinthians. Mark's Last Supper (14:22-25) draws on the following section of 1 Corinthians:

1 Cr 10:14-17: Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

So what really happened is that Mark allegorically elaborated on Paul's suggestion, Luke copied it and a forger inserted it the Lukan text of the Last Supper into another part of Paul's letter. How do I test this theory ?

Paul says that his gospel is not of 'human origin' (Gal 1:11). This is irreducibly Paul, as the verse matches, and interlocks with, other parts of his beliefs and attitudes. Similarly, Paul states categorically in 1 Cr 2:2 that he : decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. This again is very strongly supported by other statements of Paul. The forger evidently knew enough Paul to see that he would not be preaching gospel quilt based on his revelations of the Lord and woven into the teachings of other apostles. So he made sure his Paul announced that the Last Supper was revealed by the Lord himself. But unfortunately (for the forger) he forgot that Paul knew no man after the flesh, not even Christ (2 Cr 5:16). In no other instance than 1 Cr 11:23-26 Paul where declares the Lord as his source does he assert that he received factual information of a concrete historical nature !!! Such claim sticks like a sore thumb among the genuine Pauline teachings.


Paraphrasing Isaiah:

Has your master sent you to me to make me eat my own shit and drink my own piss ?

And I was hoping you would instantly see the anachronism that you were suggesting. What superman ? Samson ? Hercules ?

Look, this is not a type of discussion I feel I get much out of. I have given you some pointed examples of how one establishes a hard-to-deny dependency of Mark on Paul. You are not convinced......I am ok with that. Let's move on to something else.

Jiri

aa5874

Your analysis is seriously flawed. If both Justin and the Pauline letters have similar information then there are three fundamental possibilities.

1. Justin copied Paul.
2. Paul copied Justin.
3. Justin and Paul used the same sources.

Now, in order to claim Justin copied Paul, you must eliminate possibilities 2 & 3, or show that those possibilities could not or was not likely to have occurred.

You have failed to show that Paul could not have copied Justin or that Justin and Paul could not have used the same source.

I will show you again that Justin did not copy Paul.

If you have read Justin Martyr writings, namely "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" you will notice that Justin Martyr would have named his sources.

It will be noticed that Justin on numerous occasion mentioned Hebrew scripture by the name of the authors, the memoirs of the apostles, the Acts of Pilate, and a Revelation by John.

Justin Martyr mentioned the following authors almost always by name as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Micah, Hezekiah, Joshua, and Amos.

He also mentioned many Hebrew scripture characters like David, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Elisha and Elijah.

Justin Martyr appears to be well informed about Hebrew scripture or the LXX.


But what is very clear is that Justin Martyr did not appear to be aware of the post ascension history of the disciples and Saul/Paul.

The passages that appear to be from the Pauline letters are actually from Hebrew scriptures. And Justin Martyr clearly stated so.

Look at the passages you quoted from Justin and you would see that he clearly identified where he derived the references..

Dialogue with TryphoDialogue with Trypho So it can be seen that Justin is not all aware of the Pauline writer, he never once made a single reference to Paul even when dealing with the similar doctrinal issues as Paul. Justin named his sources and he never mentioned Paul at all.

Now for a most important point to show that Justin was totally unaware of Paul. I would like to draw your attention to the Eucharist.

If Paul was the first to implement the Eucharist in the churches, theh again Justin Martyr did not know such to be the case because he claimed the Eucharist was similar to that of Mithraism but never wrote that the Eucharist was revealed to Paul by Jesus Christ from heaven.


1 Corinthians 11:23-34 - It will be seen that Justin is not aware of Paul at all. He claimed it was the memoirs of the apostles called gospels where the Eucharist was mentioned.



Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61 The Pauline letters are unknown to Justin Martyr, but he is aware of Mithraism and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin mentioned that an apostle called John wrote a Revelation, and it can be seen that some author identified himself as John in Revelation.
Justin was not aware that there was an apostle called Paul who also had revelations.

Dialogue with Trypho If Paul had revelations like John the apostle and told churches all over the Empire about those revelation decades before John why did Justin not write a single word about Paul’s revelations?

It is because there was no character called Paul known to Justin Martyr.
Paul was after Justin Martyr and may have used Justin Martyr’s writings to falsely claim that he had revelations.

Solo

But that's your assertion, not a proof of anything.

The first thing you should note aa, is that JM's reading of Deu 21:22-23 in relation to Christ dissents sharply from the self-admitted "folly" that Paul preached in Gal 3:13. So what would you expect JM to have said here ? ...oh btw, apostle Paul, thought that God made Jesus Christ a curse for us by making him flesh and through the weakness of flesh allowing him to be crucified.... oh you know the Paul I am talking about, the teacher of the arch-heretic Marcion whom we just kicked out of our church ?

No, the simpler reason for JM's silence on Paul is that his theology was very different from Paul's.

In this instance, JM might indeed have been 'unaware' of Paul 'copying' Luke in having the risen Lord fill him on the events of the night of his arrest. Here is what I said on the topic in another thread:
Now there is an interesting twist to all of this. Paul's suggestion in 1 Cr 10:16 of bread and wine signifying the communion with the body and blood of Christ is phrased as questions requiring the use of the reader's judgement. Ergo, Paul of the 10th chapter did not receive anything yet from the Lord on the subject of Eucharist. Second, the sacrament of bread and wine evidently was used in Paul's time in the 'worship of idols'. So, the question would be, in the worship of which idol was there bread and wine used ? So maybe, the 'wicked devils' of Justin's dialogue had a claim to the authorship of the Eucharist after all.....

So, it seems that your 'most important point' really comes to nothing. Doesn't it ? :huh:


Jiri

aa5874

So, do you not understand that you have blatantly made your assertion but have not provided any information at all to prove your assertion is true?

Your asertion is not proof of anything and you cannot provide any proof.

It is a fact, not an assertion, that Justin Martyr did not mention Paul at all in any of his writings.

I have proof.

Just read all the writings of Justin Martyr.



You absolutely cannot prove what you have just imagined. You are simply guessing. How do you intend to prove what you have guessed?

I do not have to guess what Justin Martyr would have said. The writings of Justin Martyr are there for everyone to see and he did not mention Paul at all anywhere, or his churches, his revelations, his martyrdom, his acquaintances, including a character called Luke.

And how do you intend to prove that Justin Martyr was aware of Paul's theology?

You keep on forgetting that Justin Martyr did not mention Paul at all anywhere, did not attribute any theology to Paul and did not mention any of his churches.

Justin Martyr claimed an apostle called John had revelations, not Paul at all.


The forgetful forger? And when did this forger forget? You make the wildest assertions.

But, you youself must have forgotten that you have claim parts of the Pauline letters were forged by a forgetful forger. Perhaps the forgetful forger forgot that all the Pauline letters were already forged.

Not at all. You forgot so soon. You just claimed that it may have been the "wicked devils" that was the author of the Eucharist, it wasn't me or Paul.

Oh. I just got it. Paul was one of the wicked devils.

Solo

You may say it is a fact that Justin Martyr did not mention Paul by name. You may not deduce from that the JM did not know Paul, and claim it is a fact.

I have no intention to 'prove' anything in the matter, let alone prove it absolutely. There is no grounds on which to claim Justin did not know Paul's letters that would also not be grounds for arguing that he knew Paul but ignored him.

How about Polycarp. Did Polycarp mention Paul anywhere ?
Do you know who Polycarp was and where to place him in relation to Justin Martyr ? Did Ignatius know Paul ? Do you know who Ignatius was and where to place him in relation to Justin Martyr ?




No, you think you got it ! But in fact, your did not think and you did not get it. Got that ? :wave:

Jiri