DCHindley

Jay,

Those letetr collections certainly do not include everything these writers ever wrote and sent to friends. Per Wikipedia. His letters were addressed to special friends and sometimes to his peers or even opponents, but his Speeches are addressed to deliberative bodies, and the Philosophical/Rhetorical works were written to be read before groups of like minded aristocrats and philosophers, gathered at the homes of individuals who had receievd copeis, either from the writer directly (Tell me, good friend, what do you think of what I think? Good-bye!) or requested from the writer or anyone who had a fair copy (Sir, I heard from X that you have written well on subject Y, and would ask that you send me a copy. Farewell!)

Are not these essentially letters (treatises, similar in function to Paul's) to groups, even "house asemblies?" I think a description of this process of exchanging ideas between intillectual types in Harry Gambles Books and Readers (or via: amazon.co.uk).

DCH

Speeches
(80 BC) Pro Roscio Amerino (In Defense of Sextus Roscius of Ameria)
(70 BC) In Verrem (Against Gaius Verres, or The Verrine Orations)
(66 BC) Pro Cluentio (On behalf of Aulus Cluentius)
(63 BC) In Catilinam I-IV (Catiline Orations or Against Catiline) Archived March 2, 2005 at the Wayback Machine
(63 BC) Pro Murena (In Defense of Lucius Licinius Murena, in the court for electoral bribery)
(62 BC) Pro Archia Poeta (In Defense of Aulus Licinius Archias the poet)
(56 BC) Pro Caelio (In Defense of Marcus Caelius Rufus): English translation
(52 BC) Pro Milone (In Defense of Titus Annius Milo)
(44 BC) Philippicae (the 14 philippics, Philippica I–XIV, against Mark Antony)[68]

Rhetoric & Philosophy
(55 BC) De Oratore ad Quintum fratrem libri tres (On the Orator, three books for his brother Quintus)
(51 BC) De Re Publica (On the Republic)
(?? BC) De Legibus (On the Laws)
(45 BC) De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (About the Ends of Goods and Evils) - a book on ethics.[69] Source of Lorem ipsum
(45 BC) Tusculanae Quaestiones (Questions debated at Tusculum)
(45 BC) Hortensius
(45 BC) De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods)
(44 BC) Cato Maior de Senectute (Cato the Elder On Old Age)
(44 BC) Laelius de Amicitia (Laelius On Friendship)
(44 BC) De Officiis (On duties)
Letters
More than 800 letters by Cicero to others have survived, and over 100 letters from others to him.

(68-43 BC) Epistulae ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus)
(59-54 BC) Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem (Letters to his brother Quintus)
(43 BC) Epistulae ad Brutum (Letters to Brutus)
(62-43 BC) Epistulae ad Familiares (Letters to his friends)

Sheshbazzar

And this the work of only a couple of individuals.
With allegedly thousands of christians, on all levels of society, spread all over the then known world, allegedly each hell bent on spreading the Gospel. Where are all of those thousands of letters that would have been exchanged between the upper class and literate christians?
Other than these relatively few ponderous didactic epistolatory writings by 'Church Fathers', and fake 'gospels' and fake 'acts' up the wazoo, nothing else was worth saving???

My bet is that at that time, there was nothing else TO save, simply because the populace didn't even know what a 'christian' was, and had never before these writings, heard of any Jeebus or Paul, and never before been informed of that huge load of religious horse-shit contained in these 'Church Father writings'.

Chili

If the Church claims that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against her' they better have their argument ready before they make that claim. This may be what these letters are all about that are addressed to the different mindset of the believer, as well as the critic (aren't we all).

In his Posterior Analytics (71b38ff) Aristotle writes about Prior to nature and Prior to us: . . . for those are not the same: what is prior to nature and what is prior to us, nor what is more knowable (by nature) and what is more knowable to us. I say: to us, prior to nature and more knowable are the things nearer to perception, while absolutely prior and more knowable are the things farther (away). Matters which most pertain to the whole are farthest, while matters which pertain to each thing are the nearest (emphasis mine here).

So he is really talking about 'ousias' as things near to us, and 'parousia' as farthest away but absolutley more knowable in the end.

These letters here then address our pursuit of the 'greater whole,' that they call heaven or second coming of Christ while proclaiming 'Christ among us' and so is 'personal parousia' for the believer in the pew. That is why they are [loaded iconic] pastoral presentations for the believer to be received as maxim first, and finally defended by way induction through participation in the end. Ie, first hand experience like Paul did himself, and please note that 'prior to nature' they are in us, and so is to 'get to know thyself' in the end.

outhouse

we only see the titles, not the physical place or who they were told to be delivered to.


remember, his original letters were never ment as gospel nor did he intend them to be used this way.

he would probably roll over in his grave if he had known how they ended up

Toto

That's a bold assertion. Paul does appear to be giving instruction to his followers. Why don't you think he [or whoever wrote in his name] meant his works to be taken as gospel?

Sheshbazzar

Seems 'Paul' had a different opinion;
-'Paul's' claim was to have possession of an exclusive Gospel, one that was committed solely to him alone, by the big man JC himself, directly from heaven, and which was available only from Paul himself.
(or from those whom HE had personally indoctrinated to preach HIS form of the 'Gospel')

All that we possess of 'Paul's' claimed exclusive Gospel, is these writings that were allegedly produced by him.
There exists no other known 'Gospel which is according to "Paul" than these writings.

'Paul's' Gospel' was not available from the Apostles in Jerusalem, or from anyone who had actually walked and talked and been taught firsthand by Jeebus himself, nor from any of those believers who had been present on the Day of Pentecost!

Nope. This Gospel was available only from 'Paul' himself. (seems that in all of his teaching while on earth, JC had totally forgotten to mention those things he told 'Paul')

And it was necessary for the Apostles that had been chosen by, had lived with, walked with, and had been taught by Jeebus himself, and had even 'received the gift of 'the Holy Spirit' on the day of Pentecost, with power to perform signs and miracles,.... to get their Gospel from the Johnny come lately 'Paul'.
Nothing they knew or had personally experienced could save them. They all had to buy into 'Paul's' magical mystical visionary bag or be lost, 'cause 'Paul's' 'Gospel' was the ONLY true Gospel, and all other Gospels were to be rejected.





.

Duvduv

Then he contradicts himself in Romans 15:20 where he says he doesn't want to encroach on anyone else's territory.

Sheshbazzar

Did you really expect all of this 'doctored' and redacted horse-crap to agree?

'Paul' claimed his material, HIS 'Gospel' was by Divine revelation, and that everyone needed to accept HIS gospel.

Duvduv

But ironically this is only explicit and exclusive in Galatians. Everywhere else, including Romans, it is highly ambiguous. But of course if the epistles were issued as a collection and never individually then the confusion and contradictions become even more poignant because you have a guy who is said to have an exclusive gospel revelation in one spot, and then elsewhere is merely one preacher of a particular gospel teaching, which includes other preachers in other places.

aa5874

Well, NOBODY bought into Paul's magical mystical visionary bag if it is presumed Paul wrote early.

The authors of the NT bought into the gMark Jesus--the sea water walker that transfigured who came to fulfill prophecies, was Unknown as Christ, wanted the Jews to REMAIN in SIN, demanded that his own disciples tell NO-ONE that he was Christ.

Not one single author of the NT used Paul's Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus.

Not one single author wrote about the SIX Post-Resurrection visits of the Pauline Jesus.

Not one single author of the Gospels and Acts claimed Jesus appeared to Over 500 PEOPLE and Paul.

The author of Acts CLEARLY stated that the disciples SAW Jesus even up to the time he Ascended but made absolutely sure that he wrote that PAUL NEVER SAW Jesus.

Paul was BLINDED in Acts--he ONLY heard voices of the supposed Jesus.

NOBODY bought into the Paul magical mystical visionary bag in the NT if it PRESUMED Paul wrote early.

Paul was BLIND as a BAT in Acts.

And more devastating than that.

The author of Acts did NOT ever acknowledge that Paul wrote letters--Not EVEN one DOT.

The NT authors used the unknown author of gMark a LOT.

It must be clear that the Pauline writings had ZERO influence on the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and MUST have been composed very late and last.