TedM

So can you. You made the claim that similar letters exist. You have to back it up. If you don't then it is as if you made no claim.

You seem to have missed the point. It isn't WHAT the letters are about that we are discussing here. Since we are discussing whether Christianity existed in various places, the issue is WHO the letters were to. What other examples do we have of letters being written to people that don't exist about their prior history and matters of great importance to them. Your comparison to ScrewTape Letters isn't even close. We are talking about cities that actually existed Toto. Not hell and Satan..Geez..


Are you giving up or backpeddling?



Proof. I doubt you accept anything as proof, so lets not talk about proof ok?

What I said was this:
It's an argument Toto. It isn't proof. Your counter argument was to appeal to 'epistolary fiction' but you refuse to provide even a single example that comes close to a valid comparison.

I also provided evidence that churches existed where Paul supposedly visited far earlier than the end of the 1st century. You dismissed it with no substantive argument.


Unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why such letters would not be 'adequate indications', this, to me, is an example of hyper-skepticism. Perhaps the real reason you reject the idea that in the 2nd century churches would be aware of who their founder is AND would not accept a forged story about this historical beginnings hook, line, and sinker, is because you don't want to admit coming up with a reasonable conclusion to something that isn't provable. It would force you to take a more concrete stand on Paul. Is that a bothersome prospect for you to consider?



From what I read Suetonius DOES actually mention Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius_on_Christ

You probably are referring to the reference to Chresos, and its controversy. In Claudius 25, he mentions Chrestos:

Since Suetonius mentions Chrestus elsewhere as an example of Nero's harshness, and Tacitus also mentions a Christus in as the founder of Christians who Nero persecuted, and BOTH refer to the Christian belief as 'superstition', that would seem to me to be strong evidence that Suetonius' Chresus is the same person as Tacitus's Christus.

These two external accounts corroberate each other on the existence of Christians mighty enough in number in Rome during Nero's name as to get themselves noticed and persecuted by Nero, AND to be mentioned by two historical writers.

Clearly this is about both Paul and the early Christians. We have solid evidence of the existence of a fair number of Christians by approx 65 AD.

There is no good reason to think that Paul never existed since Christianity was fairly strong by the time Paul is presumed to have gone to Rome.

There is no good reason to think that the numbers of early christians in varous surrouding areas that paul evangelized were so small in 65 AD that in 150AD either they 1. no longer existed as you seemed to have claimed or 2. they had no recollection of their origins despite a solid record of evidence of their continued existence throughout the timespan connecting 65AD and 150AD.

The most logical conclusion, Toto, is that Paul founded churches and wrote epistles to them.

Sheshbazzar

In case anyone has not detected it, the problem here is one of 'circular reasoning'.

The text of 'First Apology' states this, therefore, according to aa's reasoning, this text of Justin's 'First apology' must be accepted as being a factual and truthful historical accounting, _based upon the fact that the text of Justin's 'First Apology' states this.

We have a similar situation in Mark 2:14
This text tells us that Alphaeus was the father of Levi.

That the text states this, cannot be validly employed as being the evidence that this text of Mark is a factual and truthful historical accouting, _ based upon the fact that that the text of 'Mark' states this.

Or that there ever was any actual and historical Alphaeus , or Levi the tax collector.

The claims of any ancient religious text cannot be validly employed to verify claims that are contained within that religious text.

This is so basic.



.

Huon

There is no circular reasoning at all.
aa5874 quotes a piece of the First Apology of Justin. This quote is :

I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, ...

This quote does not prove anything about the veracity of the First Apology. Priscus and Bacchius are completely unknown, from a historical POV.

Sheshbazzar, try something different. The existence of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine ?

aa5874

There was a place called Flavia Neapolis since the time of Vespasian.

http://www.nablusguide.com/index.php...mid=60&lang=en

aa5874

Your conclusion is illogical because you have ZERO actual evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests the Pauline letters are most likely NOT from the 1st century.

1. In Acts of the Apostles it was the Jerusalem Church that gave letters to Saul/Paul and his company for DELIVERY. See Acts 15.

2. In Acts there was NO need or expectation for Saul/Paul to write his OWN letters to Churches.

3. Up to the end of Acts, up to the time of Festus, procurator of Judea, c 59-62 CE, Saul/Paul wrote NO letters to Churches and was NOT expected to do so.

4. NO Text that mentions Saul/Paul has ever been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

5. No Manuscript of Ignatius has ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

6. No Manuscript of the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement has been found and dated to the 1st century.

7. Writings attributed to 2nd century writers did NOT acknowledge the Pauline writings.

8. Justin Martyr claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches on Sundays.

9. Seneca/Paul Letters to place Paul in the 1st century have been deduced to be forgeries.

10. 100% of ALL Pauline letters recovered and dated are mid 2nd century or later.

Sheshbazzar

aa5874 does more than simply 'quote' a piece of the First Apology of Justin.

aa5874 goes on in Post #51 to assertively state;
And the context in which he made it; _indicates that aa was asserting this as being an established historical fact, based upon the statement that is made in Justin's 'First Apology'.
It has also been aa's continual and well known assertion in these threads, that "The writings of Justin Martyr are CREDIBLE".

My point in my further questioning of him, was to indicate exactly what you, Huon, have written;
"Priscus and Bacchius are completely unknown, from a historical POV."

aa strongly asserted that;
Not as though this was a thing of unknown historical veracity, but as an established historical FACT, based upon that statement found in 'The First Apology'.

aa5874's obvious point, -as indicated by his contrasting of this detailed 'First Apology' information with that scant information given in 'other', NT writings,- being that, unlike those writings, this account given by Justin in 'The First Apology' was veracious and credible history.

Basic point; 'The claims of any ancient religious text cannot be validly employed to verify claims that are contained within that religious text.'



.

outhouse

here is a article from Harvard on the topic that helps explain the use of paul by justin.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=7818106


In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin extensively quotes the Jewish scriptures and includes several citations of logia of Jesus. Furthermore, while explicit citations from Paul are peculiarly absent from the text, Justin, writing from Rome, certainly knows Paul's writings in detail and uses them. Indeed, it seems that the Dialogue provides a perfect occasion for him to employ Paul because in it he addresses the relationship between Judaism and the church, a central topic in both Romans and Galatians. Besides the appearance of Pauline quotations, several of Justin's arguments directly rely on Paul's thinking. For example, Justin probably has Galatians 3 before him as he composes Dialogue 95–96. Oskar Skarsaune's analysis of Justin's writing also indicates that Romans is one of Justin's preferred sources for quotations of the Jewish scriptures; that is, he sometimes quotes the Jewish scriptures as they appear in Paul rather the LXX. He draws especially from the Jewish scriptures quoted in Romans 2–4 and 9–11 because the chapters examine the problem of Torah and the Jews' rejection of the gospel, also two important issues in the Dialogue.

Toto

That link does not work for me. Can you give the author and title of the article at least?

ETA: I see - it is http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=7818106

The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho*
Rodney Werline, Emmanuel School of Religion

stephan huller

But there are always those who try and smooth over difficulties. The sense one gets from the writings of Justin is that he does not cite from Paul's writings.

Sheshbazzar

Is it not perhaps possible that the cart is being placed before the horse?

Perhaps it was Justin's rather (in contrast) crude theological compositions and arguments that inspired that polished prose found in a latter 'Paul'?
It would seem that the natural evolution of these theological ideas and writings would be towards better chosen and polished expressions, and not away from such, as would be the case with the 'Pauline' compositions having been composed before Justin and known to Justin..

If Justin knew of the writings of 'Paul', why would he so mutilate and 'crude' down their prose, as make the source of his material barely recognizable?

To me, it seems quite obvious that the progression was in the other direction, with it being 'Paul' borrowing from, and improving upon the theology and the expressions of the earlier 'Justin'.
(allowing that 'Saint 'Justin' may at that time, not have even been yet known by the name 'Justin', in other words, 'First Apology' was actually an anonymous composition until the Church got around to tacking a 'name' on it.)