Vinnie

AA, you are beyond meaningful dialogue on this subject.

J-D, That example is a harmonization from the text of Matthew and Luke, not Mark, which is the alleged Memoirs of Peter. Your question doesn't really make sense in that light. Justin only mentions one tidbit found exclusively in Mark and it occurs the same time he mentions "his memoir's" that either refer to Christ's, or in my view in light of its timing and that Justin probably knew the presbyter tradition of Papias, Peter's.

Vinnie

J-D

Of course. But what you said was 'the evidence supports the finding that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke mutilated the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter called the Gospel of Mark'. You didn't say that that was the Church's claim; you said it was the finding which the evidence supported.Logically, there are four possibilities: that claim 1 is true and claim 2 is true; that claim 1 is true and claim 2 is false; that claim 1 is false and claim 2 is true; and that claim 1 is false and claim 2 is false. As far as I know, the Church, which makes claim 1, would not support claim 2; on the other hand, I doubt that the scholars who make claim 2 would support claim 1. So discussing what would be the case if both claims were true strikes me as odd, because there doesn't seem to be anybody who takes the position that both claim 1 and claim 2 are true if you don't.Would you say 'the evidence supports the finding that Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess'?

aa5874

So, I have clarified the matter. My position is based on claims made by the Church and scholars.

So, tell me what are you claiming? What is your position? I have made a case where both claims have been made and that these claims in effect show that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke used the Memoirs of the Apostles to fabricate their Jesus stories.

All I have to show is that the authors of the named Gospels are considered mutilators and that these mutilators were first mentioned after Justin's Memoirs, and that after the mutilators were mentioned, the Memoirs vanished.

It would seem that the Memoirs were replaced by the mutilated versions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Justin claimed the Memoirs were read in the Churches during his time, but after Irenaeus it became the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke and John that were now read in the Churches.

What happened to Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles? They must have been mutilated. No-one has heard of them again after Irenaeus.

Homer's Achilles is claimed to be the offspring of a sea-goddess and there can be no other finding unless Achilles did live as a real human.

The information or evidence that Achilles existed as only human will not be found in the writings of Homer, and so far none can be found.

J-D

I don't think that does clarify your position. If it is true that your position is based on claims made by the Church and scholars, then you must be accepting both the claims made by the Church and the claims made by scholars. Is that what you mean? I can't see how it would make sense for you to hold a position based on claims you don't accept.My position is that nobody (except possibly you) accepts both the claims mentioned, and that if nobody holds a position based on both those claims, then an analysis of the implications of accepting both of them is a fatuous irrelevance.Considered by whom? Who considers them to be mutilators?I have no idea.There are many examples from antiquity of books which are mentioned in surviving writings, but which there are no extant copies of. To take just one example, Pappus of Alexandria mentions that Archimedes wrote a book called On Sphere-Making, but no copies of On Sphere-Making survive. It does not follow that Archimedes's book was 'mutilated'. In the same way, the disappearance of Justin's 'Memoirs of the Apostles' is insufficient grounds to support the conclusion that it was 'mutilated'.

aa5874

Well, I have an idea.

Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles was mutilated and then called the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Kapyong

Gday,

Wow.

Do you really truly believe this, Susan2?


K.

J-D

I don't know what gives you that idea, but in any case, by itself, that theory, even if true, does not explain what happened to Justin's 'Memoirs of the Apostles' (whatever that was).

aa5874

Look, you have already said you have no idea. I believe you.

J-D

What we don't know yet is whether you have any idea.

If somebody asked 'What happened to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?', somebody else might very well answer 'Peter Jackson mutilated it to make some films'. But somebody else might equally well say 'What do you mean, what happened to it? Nothing happened to it! Here's a copy if you want to read it!'

So the question remains, when you ask 'What happened to Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles"?', what do you mean by 'What happened to it?'?

My earlier point stands, that it was a fatuous irrelevancy for you to discuss the hypothetical implications of accepting two claims when nobody (except possibly yourself, but that isn't clear) accepts both.

aa5874

You have already admitted you have no idea. How many times must I tell you that it is true?