stephan huller

While I also support a first century date Vinzent undoubtedly recognizes the strangeness of the situation where we have no first century witnesses of a text supposedly written in the apostolic period. Why are all our earliest references clustered within the lifetime of Irenaeus.(or related to him)?

avi

yup. Hits the nail on the head.

As far as I am concerned this is the single most important question to be answered, not Tertullian, not Origen, not Clement of Alexandria, not Justin Martyr, but this phantom, Irenaeus.

Unfortunately, until some new discovery of buried texts is uncovered, in some kind of secure excavatory environment, we are stuck with conjecture and myth.

avi

aa5874

There is lots of DATA to show that the Pauline writings were LATE.

I hope you are NOT expecting Bible Scholars and their PEERS who worship Jesus as the Son of God and ask Jesus to forgive their sins to say that the Pauline writings were late and there is enough DATA to show they were late.

It is as EASY as ABC to show that the Pauline writings were late.

1. "PAUL" described Jesus as an EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT Jewish MESSIAH.

2. "PAUL" claimed Jesus THE MESSIAH was EQUAL to God and was the CREATOR of heaven and earth.

3. "PAUL" CLAIMED and PREACHED JESUS THE MESSIAH WAS THE END of the LAW.

4. "PAUL" CLAIMED HE TRAVELED ALL THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND WROTE LETTERS.

5. "PAUL" CLAIMED THE JEWISH MESSIAH WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD FOR REMISSION OF SINS.

Now, just look in the writings of Philo and Josephus for the "PAULINE JEWISH MESSIAH.

WHAT DID THEY SAY ABOUT HIM? NOTHING.

WHAT DID they SAY ABOUT THE REMISSION OF SINS by the Resurrection of the Jewish Messiah? NOTHING.

"PAUL'S" JEWISH MESSIAH COULD NOT HAVE PASSED THROUGH the 1st century UNDETECTED and UNKNOWN BY ALL Jews except "PAUL"

Next, the writings of Justin Martyr cannot account for "PAUL" at all.

Justin Martyr was probably the most meticulous writer of the 2nd century. He constantly and consistently named his sources. He mentioned his sources almost every time he quoted a passage from a book of the prophets.

For example he mentioned Isaiah by name OVER 90 times and made references to Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Micah, Hezekiah, Joshua and even Psalms.

But, there is only one book that Justin Martyr mentioned that is found in the NT Canon and that is REVELATION by John and he did mention John by name.

Justin Martyr is the ONLY writer who IDENTIFIED a writing called the "MEMOIRS of the Apostles" that was used in the Churches ON SUNDAYS.

Now, Justin Martyr's writings SHOW that there was NO post-ascension history at all. This is CONSISTENT with the writings of Philo and Josephus.

There is a BLACK HOLE in Justin MARTYR for Acts of the Apostles, the PAULINE WRITINGS and the General Epistles including Hebrews.

The MOST SIGNIFICANT POST-ASCENSION DAY WAS "THE DAY OF PENTECOST" when the DISCIPLES WERE SUPPOSEDLY EMPOWERED BY THE HOLY GHOST and BECAME "MULTI-LINGUAL" (spoke in tongues) and Justin Martyr WROTE NOTHING of the DAY .

JUSTIN MARTYR claimed the Gospel was preached to many all over the world but FAILED to mention the MOST INFAMOUS PIONEER "PAUL" who traveled ALL OVER THE ROMAN EMPIRE preaching Christ crucified and resurrected to the Gentiles.

The Pauline Gospel, "SALVATION by the Resurrection" is NOWHERE in the WRITINGS of Justin Martyr.

The PAULINE WRITINGS AND THE HISTORY OF "PAUL" in ACTS appears to be completely unknown to Justin Martyr.

Based on Justin Martyr, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are at least AFTER THE middle of the 2nd century.

And still there is more, Eusebius and Tertullian would claim "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke in "Church History" 3.4.8 and "Against Marcion" 4.5.

Now even in the Pauline writings, Romans 11 appears to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The evidence of Antiquity supports the theory that the PAULINE WRITINGS were late.

avi

Thanks again for this succinct, yet vital, summary. Well done.

I have made your post in this thread, a "sticky", so that I can return often, and re-read it.

I would enjoy reading a debate between you and anyone from the historical school of thought, it would be fun.....

(and educational!)

Keep up the excellent writing,

regards,

avi