stephan huller

<edited>

stephan huller

So for everyone else but that guy with the borrowed name.

The dating of Paul has to be earlier than anti-Pauline groups and writings. Since these can be dated to at least the middle of the second century, (cited above) Pauline Christianity must pre-date the bar Kochba revolt. Clement dates Marcion to before this period:

Beyond this, no one can say anything with any degree of certainty. Of course the apostolic age (= 40 - 70 CE) remains the answer as it is the established tradition at least until someone can come up with something better.

aa5874

There were NO anti-Pauline groups in the 1st or 2nd century.

No anti-Pauline manuscripts have been found and dated to the 1st or 2nd century.

Anti-Pauline groups were manufactured on paper to give the impression that Paul and the Pauline letters were known by the Jesus cult but they were not.

The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement which mentioned Paul was fabricated no earlier than c 400 CE or after Letter 53 of Augustine of Hippo.

The supposed earliest writing, "Against Heresies", which mentions all the Letters to Seven Churches and the Pastorals is a massive forgery or heavily manipulated at least some time after 400 CE or after Letter 53 of Augustine of Hippo.


There was NO Apostolic age between c 40-70 CE. Not one shred of evidence from non-Apologetic sources have surfaced that corroborates a single story about Jesus and Paul in the Canon.

Again, the passage you quoted does NOT state when the letters under the name of Paul were composed.

Don't you realize that the very writers of the Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke?? See Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Church History 6.25.

When was gLuke written? What is the earliest dated extant manuscript of gLuke??

P 4 and p75 [manuscripts of gLuke] are dated as late as the early third century.

The earliest source to mention a gospel according to Luke was Irenaeus but his writings are massive forgeries or heavily mutilated.

Paul's ministry could NOT have ended under Nero as the passage implies he was ALIVE after gLuke was already composed according to the Church.

stephan huller

The canonical gospels clearly make reference to groups whom Paul opposed. Unless you suppose that all his opponents went over to his way of thinking, you have enemies (= anti-Pauline groups) existing at the time he was writing. Since I deem the evidence of Clement of Alexandria to be reliable and not incompatible with Irenaeus's statement about Marcion visiting Rome c. 140 CE - it is safe to say that there were Pauline groups before the bar Kochba revolt. Since there were Pauline groups before 135 CE it stands to reason that their gospel which makes reference to Jesus active c. 30 CE in Palestine the narrative referenced the impending destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE. I am not quite sure what other possibilities there can be:

1. a 30 CE Jesus story prophesying about the revolt of bar Kochba in 135 CE which hadn't even happened yet? There was no standing temple then so I don't get the significance of Jesus heralding an event that couldn't happen any more.

2. A 30 CE Jesus story referencing the 70 CE destruction of the Jewish religion written c. 120 - 130 CE (if Marcion is identified as Paul)? What impact could that have had? If we assume that Marcion was active as early as 120 CE and Paul existed before that, isn't Paul necessarily a first century phenomenon? What are we arguing about?

aa5874

You are arguing without any actual evidence.

Rhetorical questions for which you yourself have no answers are not evidence of anything.

The Gospels have nothing about Paul and the Pauline letters.

There are NO anti-Pauline groups mentioned in the Gospels.

You cannot name the verse nor the chapter of the Canonised Gospels that mention an anti-Pauline group.

Please identify your anti-Pauline groups in the Gospels.

The Jesus story predated the Pauline letters and the Memoirs of the Apostles was read in the Churches up to at least 150 CE, Aristides did NOT mention Paul, Minucius Felix did NOT mention Paul when Octavius converted Caecilius to the Jesus cult, and Origen admitted that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul about c 160 CE in "Against Celsus".

aa5874

It is extremely important you identify the groups whom Paul opposed in the canonical gospels.

Please, provide the actual passage.

Bingo the Clown-O

<edited>

aa5874

The supposed earliest source that mentioned Paul outside the Canon is claimed to be Clement of Rome.

The supposed earliest source outside the Canon to Identify Seven Churches by name and letters to Timothy and Titus under the authorship of Paul is Irenaeus.

It can easily be shown that the bishops of Rome up to the time of Irenaeus were fabricated--invented and that there were no established list of bishops of Rome for hundreds of years.

Between c 180 CE and c 400 CE, over 200 years, from the 2nd to the 5th century, all Seven Apologetic sources do NOT coincide and have a single Bishop in the same order.

If Clement was bishop of Rome for 9 years and the Great Dissension happened at c 95 CE there could NOT have been any mistake about the bishopric of Clement.

Eusebius claimed the Clement Letter was read in the Churches but in the very same century and after Eusebius there were writers of the Church that contradicted Eusebius' list of Bishops.

Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine of Hippo, Rufinus, and the Chronograph of 354 contradict Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Now, even more disastrous, Optatus and the Chronograph of 354 knew NOTHING of Eleutherius the supposed Bishop in the time of Irenaeus.

Eleutherius is missing--unknown by Optatus and the Chronograph of 354.

How is it possible that Eleutherius the bishop at the time Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" cannot be found by two Apologetic writers?

It is clear that there was NO Bishops of Rome--no actual records of bishops up to the time of Irenaeus and that the Clement letter was NOT known up to the 5th century.

The supposed Clement letter and the writings of Irenaeus are products of forgeries or heavy manipulation and are historically and chronologically bogus.

Irenaeus	Tertullian	Eusebius	Optatus	Chronagraphy of 354	Rufinus	Augustine
-	-	-	-	-	Linus/Cletus	-
Linus	Clement	Linus	Linus	Linus	Clement	Linus
Anacletus	-	Anacletus	Clement	Clement	-	Clement
-Clement	-	Clement	Anacletus	-Cletus	-	Anacletus
-Evaristus	-	Evaristus	Evaristus	-Anaclitus	-	Evaristus
-Alexander	-	Alexander	Sixtus	-Aristus	-	Alexander
-Sixtus	-	Sixtus	Telesphorus	-Alexander	-	Sixtus
-Telesphorus	-	Telesphorus	Hyginus	-Sixtus	-	Telesphorus
-Hyginus	-	Hyginus	Anacetus	-Telesphorus	-	Iginus
-Pius	-	Pius	Pius	Hyginus	-	Anacetus
-Sorer	-	Soter	Soter	-Pius	-	Pius
-Anicetus	-	Anicetus	Alexander	-Soter	-	Soter
-Eleutherius	-	Eleutherius	Victor	-Victor	-	Eleutherius

Bernard Muller

Stephan wrote:
I can certainly agree with that.
gMark mini apocalypse had to be written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, but before the Advent of the Kingdom which was supposed to happen soon afterwards (but did not!). See here.
gMatthew had to be written before the Jewish people re-established their religious practices under new leadership, following the distress caused by the events of 70 CE in Judea. Josephus' Antiquities states that, by 93 CE, the aforementioned had happened already. See here.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to aa,
The author of '1 Clement' did not declare himself as being either Clement or a bishop. The author also did not say that letter was written around 96.
Everyone knows there were no orthodox (city-wide) bishops in Rome in the first century. This early bishopry was invented by Irenaeus and others for the sake of proving (orthodox) continuity from Peter up to well into the 2nd century.
That does not prevent '1 Clement' to be written by a pro-eminent Christian of Rome (possibly Clement), who was not a bishop, and according to the internal evidence (and some external evidence) in the latter part of the 1st century (I favour around 81 CE). See here.

Cordially, Bernard