Duvduv

No hint of that, Bernard. Justin made no hint of knowing anything about an enemy named Paul, and for that matter, he didn't mention a single text attributed to Marcion despite supposedly being a contemporary of Marcion.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Argument from silence

Duvduv

So what? Coulda woulda shoulda doesn't prove anything beyond attempts at speculation and nothing else. However, with not only silence but silence WITHIN a context where one would expect otherwise, means something. I can read the newspaper and see it doesn't mention the Book of Acts. So I could argue that the newspaper didn't know about the Book of Acts. But that would be an absurd line of argument.
But a Christian apologist who lived in Rome at the same time as Marcion (who he mentions in passing) does not mention Paul even ONCE when one would expect him to, either for good or for bad, or doesn't mention a single text in the possession of Marcion who was his contemporary, is suggesting more than an argument from silence.

aa5874

Well, I should have also specified where Paul was dishonest.

The Pauline writer was dishonest when he claimed he was visited by the resurrected Jesus. He was dishonest when he claimed he got his gospel from the revelation of a resurrected being. He was dishonest when he claimed a resurrected Jesus revealed that he was betrayed in the night after he had supped and did talk to the disciples.

The NT Canon destroys your argument. Why did NOT the author of gLuke write the very same genealogy as found in gMatthew if it is claimed gLuke is after gMatthew???

Why did the author of the long-ending gMark add 12 verses to the short-ending gMark???

Why are there discrepancies in all the Gospels when they were NOT written at the same time??

Remarkably, it would appear that the gospel with the most discrepancies is gJohn which is considered the last written Canonical gospel.

The teachings of gJohn Jesus are NOT like the Synoptic Jesus.

The teachings of the Pauline Jesus are NOT like the Synoptic Jesus.

The teachings of the Pauline and Johanine Jesus are similar.

The Pauline writings are AFTER the Synoptics just like gJohn.

Well, that is your opinion--I argue otherwise. You have ZERO evidence of interpolation.

1. You cannot show that the Pauline writer could NOT have written what you claim was interpolated.

2. You cannot provide the non-interpolated passage.

On the other hand, when we examined gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters it is virtually impossible for an elder, a Bishop of the Church, to have used those writings to argue Jesus was crucified at about 20 twenty years after the Baptism by John at about the age of 50 years.

In gLuke Jesus was about 30 years at Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius c 29 CE

In gLuke, Herod was tetrarch and Pilate was governor on the day Jesus was crucified.

In gJohn , Caiaphas was high Priest on the day Jesus was put on trial under Pilate and was crucified.

In Acts of the Apostles 1 Jesus ascended to heaven BEFORE Paul escaped in a basket in Damascus.

In Acts of the Apostles 2 Peter preached Christ CRUCIFIED before Paul esacaped in a basket in Damascus.

In 1 Cor.11, Paul esacaped in a basket from Damascus during the reign of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Jesus was not CRUCIFED at about 50 years based on the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline writings. He was crucified when Herod was tetrarch, Pilate was governor and Caiaphas was High Priest no later than c 37 CE.

Duvduv

Bernard, IMHO it's probably valuable to address the specific points made by AA in terms of chronology instead of general points. One of the things I do like about him is that he likes to set out his points one a time.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
First, Justin had a very limited canon: the three Synoptics and Revelation (barely). No epistle are mentioned, even the one which has Peter as the author (the 2nd one mentions Paul!).
Justin is basing his Christianity on only what Jesus' disciples allegedly witnessed, saw and heard when with the earthly human Jesus. But Paul was not one of those. And admitting Paul goes against the 12 converting Christians all over the world right after the alleged resurrection.
Furthermore 'Act' and/or Paul was known earlier, such as in 1Clement and Epistula Apostolorum.

Justin does not say much about Marcion in his writings available to us. Justin just described the main elements of Marcion's controversial theology & christology. I do not see why Justin had to name here any text used by a heretic.
Irenaeus (AH, IV, VI) mentioned Justin wrote a (unavailable) treatise against Marcion. That would be here that Justin covered Marcion in more details.

The case can be made about Josephus mentioning Philo of Alexandria in Antiquities XVIII, but never saying he wrote anything. So mentioning someone and describing briefly some relevant facts about him/her does not mean you have to say everything you know about that person. Or shall I think Josephus did not know about Philo as a writer? Or deduce all literature attributed to Philo is bogus?

Duvduv

I honestly cannot say whether Josephus knew about Philo because since they didn't have online publishing or even Gutenberg's moveable type, it's hard to say. But all your interpretations of what existed but what Justin didn't have is pure speculation, and really is meant to fit a circle into a square to explain away the discrepancies.

The facts are the facts from whatever information is available. Justin did not mention a single text even once in the hands of his arch-enemy who was using texts that were ostensibly known to the Christians in his time and was his ostensibly his opponent.

Personally I think the Apology is so poorly written that I doubt it was written by an educated Christian. Likewise the Dialogue with Trypho is actually an empty monologue of someone who did not know mainstream Jews in the second century at all.

Bernard Muller

And I agree, except that Pauline writer is Paul.

GLuke and GMatthew were written at about the same time (~85). I am not one of those claiming gLuke was written many years after gMatthew.
But my point with Paul written so late is it does not make sense to depict him with all kind of "problems" and so ignorant of important stuff such as the twelve going all over the world to preach to the Gentiles before him. He said others preached before he did, but never specified the twelve.
Why, so late, depict, through his own writings, somebody so flawed to propagate Christianity among Gentiles (and the first one to do so outside the Levant).
Compare that to the sweet rendition of Paul and Thecla in the Acts of Paul, written later part of second century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../actspaul.html
Now here we see what a forgery about Paul would look like if written late.

I have many pieces of evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc
Can you provide the non-interpolated 'Against Heresies'? A non-interpolated passage of AH 2.22 will do.

aa5874

Once you agree that the Pauline writer was dishonest then I will NOT accept anything in the Pauline writings as historically accurate WITHOUT corroboration from credible non-apologetic sources.

I am at this moment CHALLENGING the historical veracity of the Pauline writings so it is pointless for you to make presumptions about the identity of the Pauline writer.

Again, I have shown you that apologetic sources claimed the Pauline writer was EXECUTED under Nero sometime around c 68 CE. Church History 3.1 and De Viris Illustribus 6.

Also apologetic sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke which is considered to have been written AFTER c 70 CE. Church History 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew.

Other Apologetic sources do NOT acknowledge Paul preached to the Gentiles, Justin Martyr and Aristides claimed it was the 12 disciples from Jerusalem that preached the Gospel to every race of man.First Apology and the Apology

WITHOUT any credible corroboration from antiquity I simply cannot accept that the Pauline writings as historically accurate since even apologetic sources have made statements about PaUL that appear to be COMPLETELY Contradictory.

Again, even if you claim gMatthew and gLuke was written at the same time you will still have to explain WHY they did NOT include the SIX Post-Resurrection visits by Jesus as is found in the Pauline writings.

If the Synoptics are PRESUMED TO BE Late and AFTER the Pauline writing YOU still cannot explain WHY the Synoptic Jesus was NOT harmonized with the Pauline Jesus.

1.The Synoptic Jesus came to FULFILL the Law.

2. The Pauline Jesus was the END of the Law.

3. The Synoptic Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be Converted but to remain in Sin.

4. The Pauline writer preached UNIVERSAL SALVATION.

5. The Synoptic Jesus did NOT want his disciples to tell anyone he was CHRIST.

6. Paul the so-called Apostle told people ALL over the Roman Empire that Jesus was CHRIST.

Again, if the Gospels and Acts were written AFTER the Pauline writings why are they NOT harmonized with the activities and doctrine of Paul.????

You MUST at least show that the Pauline writer could NOT have written what you claimed were interpolated.

By the way, you did NOT present any credible EVIDENCE you used the same sources that are CHALLENGED for historical veracity.

Do you NOT understand that I do NOT accept the writings of a Dishonest writer as credible EXCEPT when the writings are corroborated by sources of antiquity.

I use the DISHONEST Pauline writer to EXPOSE forgeries, fraud, and fiction.

I use the Pauline writings to BUST the history of the Church.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Who do you think you are! Anyway, a critical analysis of Acts and the Pauline epistles makes a lot of sense and fits perfectly, as I took the trouble to explain on my website.

Why do you always trust apologetic sources? Anyway I already explained about that. And I will not repeat again and again the same thing because you ignore my explanations, or even the fact I did explain it already.

Again, I explained that, probably more than once.

Let me rephrase that:
Again, if the Pauline writings were written AFTER the Gospels and Acts why are they NOT harmonized with the activities and doctrine of the Gospels and Acts????

Let me rephrase that:
Again, even if you claim gMatthew and gLuke were written before the Pauline writings, you still have to explain WHY the Pauline writings NOT include the Post-Resurrection visits by Jesus as they are found in gMatthew and gLuke.

Let me rephrase that:
If the Synoptics are PRESUMED TO BE Early and BEFORE the Pauline writings YOU still cannot explain WHY the Pauline Jesus was NOT harmonized with the Synoptic Jesus.

If you accept any apologetic sources as telling the truth (that is being credible) chance you will eventually find contradictions between them (which means that they are not always telling the truth!).
That's why you have to make a critical analysis for any data coming from these sources. But you don't. Instead you create a mass of confusion by taking raw data from non reliable apologetic sources in order to support your theory. (but that does not prevent you to ask others for credible external evidence from non apologetic sources!!!)

Only in gMatthew. Check your sources.

One thing you assume wrong. You think that Christianity developed in a linear fashion and that, at any given time, anywhere in the Christian world, the believers had the same set of beliefs and the same reference writings. That's not the case, at least up to the 4th century. Your idea for the development of Christianity is very simplistic.
I showed that Paul could NOT have written what I claimed was interpolated (about 1Cor15:3-11)
What do you mean by that?
But you do accept forgeries and dishonest authors all the times in order to provide you with evidence you like. And you are rather not critical at all about the sources you are using. As example, 'Against Heresies' a work which is, according to you, heavily interpolated by dishonest persons, is the foundation of your theory. And the 20 years for Jesus' ministry, as reported by Irenaeus (whom you assume is honest!), is not corroborated by any other source in antiquity (despite John and many apostles having preached that in the past!).

Question: who do you think is honest among the authors you get your evidence from?

Furthermore dishonest authors can be corroborated by sources of antiquity, themselves dishonest or not knowing any better. That happens all the time!

Again, I have to ask you to answer these questions:
1) Why was it so important to have Irenaeus to look like he knew the NT? (no efforts were made to have Justin Martyr look like he knew more than the Synoptics and Revelation!)

2) Why use masses of NT references in AH when a few would have been enough to make the case?

3) What is the external evidence for Irenaeus because I know you are requiring credible external evidence from non-apologetic sources for others who do not agree with you?

4) Why add the last paragraph of AH 2.22 in order to have Irenaeus demonstrate the 20 years with the help of gJohn? (which would be an endorsement of the 20 years by another writer aware of gJohn)

5) How do you know that AH 2.22 was interpolated? Can you supply ancient text of AH 2.22 with no mention of Luke, gLuke and gJohn? (Reminder: you rejected my case for interpolation of 1Cor15:3-11 because I could not produce an ancient text of 1Corinthians without 1Cor15:3-11)

6) Who do think wrote these lengthy attacks on heresies & heretics, Irenaeus or the other(s) who knew the NT?