jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,
Thank you. You answered exactly as I expected.
You have no idea who wote gMark, when, or where. .
Yet you claim you know the Historical Holy Ghost.:vomit::horsecrap::hitsthefan: That is not credible.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

OK, so you do not know. That is a credible answer, and I thank you for it.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

The argument for early Pauline writings before c 68 CE is the weakest of weak arguments or weaker.

Not even the Pauline writers claimed they wrote their letters before the death of Nero.

In fact, the supposed earliest sources that mentioned Paul and that he wrote letters do NOT say they were written before c 68 CE.

It is claimed in an Ignatian letter that Paul wrote some kind of letters but NO date of composition is tended.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians
Again, we see the very same pattern.

All those supposed early writers who mentioned Paul and his Epistles are Not credible or a products of fraud

It is considered that the Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians was a Forgery which would Imply that Ignatius did NOT know what Paul really wrote.

The Ignatius source is highly questionable.

And further, it is almost certain that if Ignatius was a prisonner that it is completely implausible that he would have had PEN, PAPER and INK and was committing the very same Crime while in custody.

Who PAID for the Material needed to write the Ignatius Epistles while in custody??

Who purchased the Material to maintain his Criminal Activity while under guard??

If Ignatius was on his way to be executed by the Romans for propagation of the Jesus story then it is simply a massive piece of fiction that he would have been allowed to publicly maintain the same criminal activity in custody.

The Ignatian letters and the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement, the supposed earliest sources for Pauline letters are completely useless to date them. They provide NO date of composition and themselves are sources of fiction, fraud and forgeries.

Once it is understood that the Pauline letters have been deduced to have multiple authors then it becomes virtually impossible to identify which Pauline letter is really from Paul or if there really was a Paul.

aa5874

Again where are the posters on this very forum who constantly assert the Pauline writings were composed before c 68 CE??

Are they all dead?? Are they on vacation??

Amazingly, there is NOT even a single corroborative contemporary source in ALL antiquity for any date of composition of the Pauline letters.

1. The author of Acts of the Apostles wrote supposedly was a close companion of Paul and mentioned Paul OVER 130 times knew NOTHING of Pauline letters.

2. The Anonymous letter from someone in the Church of Rome attributed to Clement did NOT state anything about the date of composition of a letter to Corinth supposedly by Paul.

3. The Ignatian letters, although most likely fiction, did NOT even attempt to date the supposed Epistles.

Based on Acts, we can follow the Pauline activities verse by verse and chapter by chapter from Damascus to Rome.

These Acivities are NOT documented

1. The writing of Letters to Churches by Paul.

2. The writing of the Pastorals by Paul.

One Hundred years LATER the Pauline Letters are still NOT documented.

Justin Martyr tells the People of ROME and the Roman Emperor that it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that were READ in the Churches c 150 CE.

When was the Pauline letters regarded as Scriptures??

Up to 150 CE, the Pauline letters were UNKNOWN and were NOT regarded as Scripture in the Church.

The MEMOIRS of the Apostles was regarded as Scripture c 150 CE in the Churches

First Apology The Pauline letters are of UNKNOWN origin and it cannot be explained how they were Canonised when they were UNKNOWN in the Churches and had NO influence at all up to c 150 CE on the Jesus cult.

aa5874

Who told Scholars that the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero??

1. It was NOT Paul.

2. It was NOT the author of Acts.

3. It was NOT the author of 2nd Peter.

4. It was NOT the author of the Ignatian Letters.

5. It was NOT the author of the Anonymous letter from the Church of Rome.

6. It was NOT the Paleographers who dated P 46 .

Why have Scholars ASSUMED the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero when they know that the Pauline writers themselves NEVER EVER wrote such a thing??

Why, Why, Why???

Why did NOT Scholars ADMIT that they have NO actual evidence at all--No actual corroboration within the Canon itself that the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero??

Why, Why, Why??

It is completely unacceptable for Scholars to continue to promote the propaganda of the Roman Church when they already know there is ZERO-NIL-NO corroboration for Pauline letters before the death of Nero.

tanya

paul first letter to Corinthians 1:18
Ignatius, letter to Epheseus, verse 18 (Question, how did it just happen to be verse 18?, What are the odds?)
I do not observe ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία, (clearly the key concept of this verse by “Paul”, translated into English as “stumbling block”), anywhere in this epistle to Epheseus by Ignatius. Then, why does someone emphasize an intimate relationship between the two Christians, claiming that Ignatius cited Paul's first epistle to Corinthians 1:18, in this passage, thereby confirming that Paul's epistles existed by the end of the first century CE, when Ignatius was presumably writing to the congregation at Epheseus, while concurrently imprisoned by the Romans? I am unconvinced. I continue to believe that "Paul" wrote in the middle or end, of the 2nd century, not before.

I am most keen to learn:
a. Why would the roman militia give this rabble rouser, Ignatius, quill and papyrus plus ink, to send a message to the town of Epheseus, to foment more trouble for the Roman occupation? What, he bribed some jailer? Would that be logical in the setting of imprisoning a political figure? Would not the converse make more sense: deny the political prisoner any hope, threaten execution, give him nothing, until he relents, and identifies his compatriots, then dispatch him ab sofort. If Ignatius had been arrested, would the charge not be for inciting riot? Then, why would any jailer, no matter how stupid, be willing to risk execution, for giving the guy access to equipment that will enable Ignatius to incite more trouble?

b. How would such a letter have been delivered? How would Ignatius' letter have been reproduced? Why would anyone wish to maintain such an ephemeral text, sure to get its reader arrested for treason?

c. To me, looking at the two epistles, side by side, Paul's on one side, Ignatius on the other, I cannot fathom why anyone would seek to elaborate a date of authorship, for one or the other based on the two words, shared in common, between the two letters:

τοῦ σταυροῦ “his stake”, mistranslated as “his cross”. Do these two words seem to those forum members fluent in Greek, to represent the MOST IMPORTANT distinguishing words of these two verses? They are not the most significant two words, in my opinion.

Do the two passages demonstrate “OLDER” Koine, versus “more recent Koine”, in the same way that we can distinguish poetry of John Milton, from that of Geoffrey Chaucer, and in turn, recognize that Shakespeare's sonnet 18 (I did not invent that) is quite distinct from, and precedes Elizabeth Barrett Browning by a couple of centuries?

Are those fluent in Koine Greek able to read these two passages, and similarly distinguish one text from the other, as belonging to a different era? I suspect not. Can anyone read these two verses, and say to themselves, oh, yes, obviously, the first one engendered the second.....To me, they are simply two Greek verses, written in Koine, both using the same two words, τοῦ σταυροῦ, otherwise, quite distinct. Is there another example, in any other language, where two lonely words, shared by both texts, lead to allegation of derivation of sequential ontology of authorship, with one document alleged to be based upon the second, because the two documents share those two lonely words?

I also suspect that “Ignatius” is an imaginary creation of Eusebius, who seems to be the only reference to this “patristic” author.

We need a “catena”, like this one of Peter Kirby. Did Justin Martyr cite Ignatius? How about Clement of Alexandria? Who else, besides Eusebius, knows of Ignatius?

jakejonesiv

Hi Tanya,

If we believe that the Epistles of Ignatius are genuine, then we must also believe that the contextual details ascribed to his life are genuine also. We are compelled to believe that he was the third bishop of Antioch (second after Peter; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", Book III, chapter 22) following Evodius and St. Peter himself. (Theodoret, "Dial. Immutab.", I, iv). (St. John Chrysostom "Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587).

The is little doubt, even amoung the often invoked consensus majority of scholars (argumentum ad verecundiam) that 8 of the 15 writings attributed to Ignatius are forgeries: Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary.

This leaves the following seven upon which the majority scholars pin their hopes:
Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians

These letters were only known in the long recension up to the 17th century. They were greatly corrupted by obvious interpolations. The Protestants have been cool to the epistles of Ignatius due to the clear polemical nature of the documents in favor of the Catholic Church. cf Killen, W. D. (William Dool),
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8908 Protestant scholars have been willing to get in the Catholic bed to the extent that Catholic scholars are willing to marginalize Ignatius.

The hopes for recovering the "Authentic Ignatius" depend on the so-called short recension, the text of this recension is nowhere extant in a pure form. But scholars have been able to determine the text of the short recension of the alleged seven "authetic" epistles. But even the short recension of the seven epistles mentioned by Eusubius are forgeries.

The monarchical episcopate is emphatically promoted in the letters, and this resupposes a later time of origin. In The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 8.2, we find a clear artifact of a latter time. It is none other than a command to obey the church hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
"Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the Bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be secure and valid."

This anachronism tips the hand, and the purpose, of the forger. Turns out the maligned William Dool was onto something after all.

The journey of Ignatius from Antioch to Rome is a COPY CAT of the Pauline travels narrative. Both Paul and Ignatius are said to be in chains, but are free to visit churches along the way, writing Epsitles at their fancy to the faithful as away they go. Ah, now we have reason for caution, to not trust to the consensus of the "vast overwhelming majority of scholars." It makes no sense for Ignatius to have been
sent to Rome after having been found guilty. It is of fiction, a plot device.

The sea crossing from Troas to Philippi (Neapolis), is from Paul in in Acts 16:11,
"From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis".

"Ignatius" repeatedly referes to himself in the so-called seven authentic letters as "Theophoros" (God bearer) and "Christophoros" (Christ bearer). This is a designation after the fact of martyrdom, something that was not yet determined or known to Ignatius during his alleged journey. The pseudonymous writing under the name of legendary martyr bishop assigns the designation by which Ignatius had become known. Nor is that the only incongruity.

"I write to all the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God. Rather entice the
wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep, I may not be found troublesome to any one.
Then shall I be a true disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God." (Ignatius Epistle to the Romans, 4:1-2).

The author has a Chrsitology too far advanced for the first decade of the second century. Ignatius speaks of "the blood of God"(Epistle to the Ephesians) and "the passion of my God,"(Epsitle to the Romans) which language unabashedly makes Jesus the Theoanthropos of latter theology.

Damning also to the case of authenticity is the fact that those so called letters were not written individually and then brought into a collection afterwards. No indeed, the letters were written as a unit.
"4. If the letters of Ignatius were collected only some time after they had been written, we have to ask in what way this collection was undertaken. The answer
is that the letters were conceived from the start as a collection, as individual parts of a single whole.
„Each letter presupposes the previous letter in the
order given by Eusebius. [Eusebius, HE, Book III,
Chapter XXXVI. Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians,
Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp.] In the
epistle to the Magnesians, 1,2 the hope is expressed
that the churches show a threefold union: union of the
flesh and of the spirit of Jesus Christ, union of
faith and of love, and union with Jesus and with the
Father. This is a short recapitulation of some of the
main points in the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 7:7,
14:1 f., 19:1 f.). Eph. 20,1 says that the author has
plans 'to write a second booklet', which is then the
letter to the Magnesians, and in chapter 13 the
contents of the letters to the Ephesians and
Magnesians are summarized. Trall. 7.1, which states
that ‘Anyone who does anything without the bishop or
the presbyters or the deacons does not keep a good
conscience’, gets new light from the letter to the
Magnesians, where in chapter 4, those that appear ‘not
to keep a good conscience’ are the ones that have the
bishop’s name on their lips, but in everything act
apart from him.” The above is based largely on HDetering,
http://www.radikalkritik.de/clem_engl.htm#_ednref30

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller

I don't know if it is so easy to call them 'forgeries.' It is a bit more complex than this especially given Lucian's reference to the material c. 160 - 170 CE. Yes Lucian's testimony seems to indicate that there was a 'counterfeiting mill' associated with a mysterious Christian leader, one whose name was generally unknown. This Christian is IMO the real historical figure behind the myth of 'Ignatius' (= a title which means 'fiery one'). My guess is that his figure is Polycarp and that a subsequent disciple (= Irenaeus or perhaps already someone in between Irenaeus and Polycarp) hid the identity of Polycarp (owing to Lucian's bitterly satirical piece). But Polycarp - whoever he really was - was a real historical person. Probably the first historical 'Catholic' (even though he was probably 'heretical' by later standards).

My guess is for the parallels between the journey of Paul and Ignatius is that Paul's journey's - not Ignatius/Polycarp's - were the ahistorical ones.

Note that Lucian identifies his 'Peregrinus' as being especially active in Greece and the Greek colonies on the coast of Asia Minor. It would seem from his testimony that he was the first to convert these areas. If Ignatius could be invented as a doppleganger to hide the failure of previous martyrdom attempts of Polycarp the 'fiery' martyr - why not Paul of Acts?

aa5874

It is extremely easy to guess. You admit you are guessing-- NOT Fact Finding.

At this stage guessing is worthless.

Let us deal with the Facts.

The writings attributed to Ignatius do NOT provide any dates at all for Pauline letters and do NOT STATE anywhere at all that a character called Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 68 CE.

The Ignatian letters themselves do NOT contain any dates for their own composition.

They are completely useless in dating the Pauline letters before c 68 CE.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

What was the relationship between the memoirs of the apostles and short gMark as you call it? Which was earlier?

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV