Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-09-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .
Even Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the 2nd century, appear not to know Paul or copied any passages word for word from any Pauline letter, yet Justin copied passages word for word from the memoirs of the apostles.

And further Justin Martyr did know about the Paul 500, the gospel of circumcision of Peter and the gospel of uncircumcision by Paul or the gifts of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

The writer Paul is very late. He absolutely knew the gospel, the gospels, and fabricated his revelation of Jesus to mis-lead.

Bascially you are presenting an argument from silence, i.e., Justin didn't write about Paul, therefore he wasn't aware of any of his writings, correct? Have you considered any alternate explanations why Justin wouldn't mention Paul such as Marcion's use of Pauline writings which Justin opposed?

That is exactly what I expect. Silence. What do you expect from Justin Martyr when he was not aware of the Pauline letters or Acts of the Apostles?

Quote:

Doctrine of works. Justin never directly quotes or expressly mentions Paul in any of his extant works. Some scholars have suggested that this may be because of his opposition to Marcion, who used some of Paul's writing in his competing version of Christianity. Marcion (the subject of a later installment in this series) could not reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God who sent Christ to the world; hence, he created a "Bible" that excluded all of the New Testament and included only edited versions of Luke's gospel and seven of Paul's letters. Since Justin taught in Rome at about the same time Marcion did and was vehemently opposed to him, these scholars believe that Justin avoided Paul to prevent any association with Marcionites.

These are arguments from silence. It is extremely difficult to argue that something did happen or that some-one did something when there is no evidence.

It is just not credible to claim Justin did not mention Paul because he mentioned Marcion, since many church writers mentioned Marcion and Paul, including Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius.

aa5874 · 05-09-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 CE by paleographic analysis, a full 110-160 years after the supposed writings of the Pauline writer.

Justin Martyr wrote, it is claimed wrote around the middle of the 2nd century at about 150 CE, so the paleographic analysis actually supports my position that the Pauline writer is after Justin Martyr.

If I understand your position correctly at the very least we are in agreement that "Paul" was aware of the gospels whose dating must be earlier than Papyrus 46 (175-225 A.D.).

My position is that you were wrong when you claimed paleographic analysis disputes my opinion that Paul was very late.

arnoldo · 05-10-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If I understand your position correctly at the very least we are in agreement that "Paul" was aware of the gospels whose dating must be earlier than Papyrus 46 (175-225 A.D.).

My position is that you were wrong when you claimed paleographic analysis disputes my opinion that Paul was very late.

If you assume that Papyrus 46 is the autograph then it supports your hypothesis that it was written after Justin. However, Papyrus 46 may also be a copy of an earlier handwritten Pauline Text. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls can be generally dated to between 1 BC and 1 AD. The Dead Sea scrolls contains several writings including the Scroll of Isaiah. In your opinion was the original writing of the Book of Isaiah done no earlier than 1 B.C.?

aa5874 · 05-10-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My position is that you were wrong when you claimed paleographic analysis disputes my opinion that Paul was very late.

If you assume that Papyrus 46 is the autograph then it supports your hypothesis that it was written after Justin. However, Papyrus 46 may also be a copy of an earlier handwritten Pauline Text. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls can be generally dated to between 1 BC and 1 AD. The Dead Sea scrolls contains several writings including the Scroll of Isaiah. In your opinion was the original writing of the Book of Isaiah done no earlier than 1 B.C.?

So, the evidence supports position as of now. Paepyrus 46 is dated after Justin Martyr and Justin did not mention Paul at all.

My position is solid. The writer Paul wrote after Justin and was absolutely aware of the gospels based on existing evidence.

Now, you have a problem. What is your problem?

You ignore evidence.

I can only deal with the extant evidence not with information that may be out there somewhere that may not really be out there but is assumed to be out there somewhere and may or may not be credible which itself cannot be dated at all or of unknown authorship and origin.

I have heard that Jesus of the NT, the disciples and Paul are not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, if what I heard is true then my position is extremely solid.

Paul was very late, he wrote after Justin Martyr and was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

arnoldo · 05-14-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If you assume that Papyrus 46 is the autograph then it supports your hypothesis that it was written after Justin. However, Papyrus 46 may also be a copy of an earlier handwritten Pauline Text. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls can be generally dated to between 1 BC and 1 AD. The Dead Sea scrolls contains several writings including the Scroll of Isaiah. In your opinion was the original writing of the Book of Isaiah done no earlier than 1 B.C.?

So, the evidence supports position as of now. Paepyrus 46 is dated after Justin Martyr and Justin did not mention Paul at all.

My position is solid. The writer Paul wrote after Justin and was absolutely aware of the gospels based on existing evidence.

Now, you have a problem. What is your problem?

You ignore evidence.

I can only deal with the extant evidence not with information that may be out there somewhere that may not really be out there but is assumed to be out there somewhere and may or may not be credible which itself cannot be dated at all or of unknown authorship and origin.

I have heard that Jesus of the NT, the disciples and Paul are not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, if what I heard is true then my position is extremely solid.

Paul was very late, he wrote after Justin Martyr and was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Your position that Paul wrote after Justin is solid if you;

A. Assume Papyrus 46 is the "autograph" and not a copy from an earlier writing.

B. Deny that Marcion used Paul's writing to develop his theology

C. Deny that many early christian writers ( Clement, Polycarp, etc) mentioned Paul in their writings.

etc,etc,etc

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.