maryhelena

And it's good that he, Doherty, has this backdoor position that allows for the Markan crucified JC not to be derived from the Pauline cosmic crucified JC. He is going to need this in his 'pocket' when Hoffmann goes after those mythicists who stand by the argument that the Pauline cosmic crucified JC was historicized as the gospel crucified JC.

Yes, of course, one can question Hoffmann's last statement. Point, however, is not his attempts to establish historicity for JC - but his attempt to demonstrate holes in the argument, of some mythicists, that the Pauline Christ figure was historicized as the gospel JC.

And on that specific issue Hoffmann might well have the last laugh......


my bolding

aa5874

So, you are now admitting that you are not certain " that there was still a tradition within the Christian cult that held them as two different people at least up till 160 CE is shown by the Epistula Apostolorum".

You must remember that your post are recorded.

It is clear that the Epistula Apostolorum does NOT at all show that Peter called Cephas are two different person.

However, your very source shows that the Apostles Peter, James and John were DISCIPLES of the Jesus.

You are now admitting that you considered the evidence to be contradictory but still made inferences. Why??

You ASSUME the NT Canon is a patchwork quilt but I show you that in gJohn Peter is called Cephas and that ONLY gJohn and the Pauline writings refer to Peter as Cephas.

I make NO assumptions. I deal with sources from antiquity NOT speculation and imagination.

What nonsense!!! What a load of BS. You make inferences on admitted contradictiory evidence about Paul. You are the one who is trying to fit your Celestial NEVER on earth Jesus to early Pauline writings of which there is NO corroboration in the very Canon.

Now you admit that you do assume as little as possible. Now, you admit you don't know the primary languages.

Why did you NOT admit those things from the start??

I need evidence, sources from antiquity because I don't play the numbers game. You very well know that there is NO consensus for your Celestial Never on Earth Jesus but all of a sudden you conviently appeal to "consensus".

Consensus without evidence is Worthless.

Well, now now that you admit that I argue well then your position is flawed because you have NOT been able to provide any evidence for your arguments except rhetoric.
What an absurd argument. How illogical can you be!! The fact that the Pauline writings are Canonised does NOT have anything whatsoever to do with its corroboration.

You must know what corroboration mean. The Pauline writer cannot CORROBORATE himself. Why are you making such blatant illogical statements??

Again, please read the Pauline writings---THEY do NOT claim they were composed in the 1st century.

There is NO TIME for the Pauline writings in the Canon.

READ them--word-by-word. There is NO TIME.

Where do you get your stories from about Justin. They are NOT in the Texts. You are reading things into the Texts. You don't need any actual evidence for your stories. You have NOTHING.

Where does Justin claim he did NOT like Paul's version of Christianity?? You assume your own inventions and then attempt to convince yourself that they are history.

How in the world can you use an admitted internally INCONSISTENT Canon and yet become terribly upset when others use the very same Canon??

You are simply irate because it has been EXPOSED that the Pauline writings are WITHOUT corroboration in the very Canon. No author of the NT Canon claim anywhere that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed in the 1st century--Not even the Pauline letters themselves.

The Pauline writings are 2nd century or later writings based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

gurugeorge

There is no "certainty" anywhere in this field, there is only balance of probability based on given background assumptions.

If you are certain about any of this, you are certainly deluded.

It's a reasonable proposition based on the text, since there are two different names and they're not obviously one person in that text.

As I said, so do the gospels, so what.

Because even contradictory evidence is still evidence of something. If there's a contradiction, there's a reason for it, and that reason may itself be interesting and may itself be evidence.

You make plenty of assumptions. For example, you assume that the NT Canon is all of a piece, and you assume that silence means absence.

And you still don't know who wrote the texts, why or when, do you?

You don't think the consensus on datings is based on evidence?

Also, that a consensus amongst scholars may be wrong about some things but right about others shouldn't be surprising or remarkable.

There is a timeline in the Canon as a whole. There are what appear to be historical figures in some parts of the Canon from which some rough timeline can be estimated for when the events narrated are supposed to have taken place, that's what Christians have always traditionally done. And in that timeline Paul certainly has to appear in the 1st century. That's where the NT represents him as being.

Now of course we can question that, but it's simply not true to say that Paul isn't given a position in time in the NT.

As usual, you don't seem to understand the limitations of the argument from silence.

The argument from silence only has force in the context of a prior expectation. Silence in itself could mean anything, it doesn't logically necessarily mean absence.

So, why would you expect Justin to mention Paul?

aa5874

Well, based on your own statements in this very thread you appeared to be certain or deluded.

You very well knew in advance that the Epistula Apostolorum did not show at all that the Apostle Peter was NOT called Cephas.

Your mode of arguing is extremely disturbing. You presented the Epistula Apostolorum when you knew all along that it really did NOT help your position.

You are now admitting uncertainty of your own previous position which you must have known all along.

Sheshbazzar

Well... Justin had himself this really impressive Philosophers costume, ....he doesn't say where he got it. ....maybe stole it off someones wash-line, or rolled a drunken Philosopher.
(certainly wouldn't want to even suggest that Justin may have actually bought it, ...cause that really upsets some people. )

And just like old Paul, Justin was up to his ass in incorporating Platonic religious philosophy into his own epistles.
According to their accounts, both of these dudes were flaming Jesus freaks.

Seems like as both preached damn near the same line of religious hooey they ought to be just buddy buddy in their common love of Jebus.
...But then they write and act more like modern Televangelists, every guy for himself, (ol Justin don't never shared his limelight with anyone) when it comes to working the yokels and fleecing the flock.

Perhaps the reason Justin isn't found mentioning Paul is the same reason Benny Hinn is not often found mentioning Oral Roberts.



I have a cat named Sox, I love him dearly, but sometimes I will playfully pull his tail ....just because he has one. :Cheeky:

aa5874

What??? Are you serious?? You are arguing from SILENCE. There is NO mention of any time for the Pauline Letters.

You now seem to be claiming that NT is NOT a patchwork quilt.

You very well know that it is quite possibly that Paul could have existed but that he did NOT write any Letters to Churches as it is shown in Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles suggests that ALL the Pauline letters are FORGERIES--up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea Saul/Paul did NOT write any Letters to Churches. See the Entire Acts of the Apostles.

You also appear to be DELUDED. You are stating "....in that timeline Paul CERTAINLY has to appear in the 1st century".

You seem to have confirmed your own delusion.

gurugeorge

Yada yada, I notice you haven't answered my question - why would you expect Justin to mention Paul, such that his not mentioning him logically necessarily must be a sign that he didn't exist?

Why would you expect the author(s) of Acts to mention Paul's letters, such that non-mention means Paul didn't exist?

Duvduv

The context of "Justin" is such that there are many elements of "Christianity" not mentioned in the Justin texts.
He does not mention anything about the texts of Marcion
He does not mention anything about what Marcion actually believed despite the fact that he lived in the same town and at the same time as Marcion according to conventional wisdom in the 2nd century.
Justin does not say anything about the locations, personalities, leaders or his predecessors belonging to the religion he claims to follow.
Justin does not explain the origins of the Christianity explained to him by the "Old Man," whose name he does not even mention.

Yet Justin knows so much about the ideas he has on the Christ, yet cannot name a single source for any one his lumped-together "memoirs of the apostles."
So the fact that he doesn't mention Paul also calls into question when the religion was emerging and when the Paul element was introduced, and the poor quality of writing intended to defend the emerging religion and to cast into a more ancient mold in the 2nd century. Of course my view is that it is the imperial power that held the MOTIVE, MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to create and develop the apologetics and propaganda at various stages of development.

EarlDoherty

Good grief! AA is actually appealing to Acts' storyline (something invented in the 2nd century, which many mainstream scholars admit) to 'prove' that Paul preached an historical Jesus???

This is not just shooting oneself in the foot, it's amputing both legs! I always had my doubts about aa, but this discredits him completely.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Again, your post confirms that you knew all along that you were arguing from Silence.

You knew in advance of posting that you had NO time for the Pauline letters in Acts and the Pauline writings.

You knew all along that you were reading things into Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings that were NOT there.