spin

F.

Duvduv

If you want to put FAITH in the belief that the Justin writings were from the 2nd century and at the time of Marcion, that's your prerogative. But there are many holes in that belief as you know, including the fact that "Justin" does not mention a SINGLE TEXT possessed by Marcion (including any gospels or epistles or apologetics) or a single quote of the writings of Marcion or any information about the man that would suggest that Justin lived in the same city and period as Marcion.

Why build huge sand castles based on such poor information?? You accept a second century Rome-based Justin-who-knew-Marcion because you want to. You have no evidence whatsoever that the writings attributed to Justin were produced in the 2nd century.

aa5874

Please, I have CONSTANTLY and consistently told you that I am relying on DATED New Testament manuscripts and sources that are compatible with them.

Paleography is an ACCEPTABLE method of Dating ancient texts.

I will NOT be sucked into any argument based on IMAGINATION.

No NT manuscripts have been dated to the 1st century so I will use the PRESENT dating by paleography to show that the Pauline writings are anti-Marcionite documents most likely written sometime in the mid 2nd century or later.

The dating of the Pauline writings by paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century EXPLAINS PRECISELY why Justin Martyr did NOT and could NOT have written about them.

Please, why do you ASSUME that Marcion wrote anything before Justin Martyr composed "First Apology".

Please, please, please!!!! Tell me if you can??? When did Marcion write???

You very well know that Justin could NOT write about Marcion's Texts if there was NONE WRITTEN.

Again, you seem to have no idea how sources are deemed to be credible. Sources of antiquity that compatible with other texts which are DATED by accepted methods of dating can be considered credible.

Justin Martyr's writings EXPOSE a BIG BLACK HOLE in the 1st century for the ACTIVITIES of the disciples and Paul.

If Jesus did NOT really exist and there was NO actual Jesus cult of Christians then that is PRECISELY what is expected.

Justin Martyr wrote about the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE and NEVER mentions one single ACTIVITY of the disciples and Paul.

Nothing-nil-ZERO.

Justin mentions the ACTIVITIES of Simon Magus in the time of Claudius--not Paul.

Please, please!!! This is what I expected if there was NO Jesus, NO Disciples, No Paul and NO Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr is corroborated by the Existing DATED NT Manuscripts.

The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite texts written sometime AFTER the mid 2nd century just as DATED P 46 show.

Duvduv

Excuse me, AA.

Is it my "imagination" that Justin does not mention a single thing about the activities of Marcion in their shared city of Rome?

Is it my "imagination" that Justin does not mention or quote a single piece of writing authored by Marcion?

Is it my "imagination" that Justin does not mention any of the "Christian" texts possessed by Marcion?

Is it my "imagination" that there is no evidence that the emperor ever actually received a so-called letter from Justin just because his name is at the top of the letter?

Similarly, is it your OR my "imagination" that there is no evidence that the recipients of the letters attributed to Paul ever received or responded to such letters, or that such letters were even sent to such recipients?

So if the writings of "Justin" do not mention Paul, is it my imagination to infer that either the writings of Paul did not exist yet or that "Justin" did not consider them important for his beliefs that he inherited from his unnamed "Old Man"??

And since we see increasingly how texts, doctrinal statements and commentaries were put out after the new regime in Rome, how can you be sure that the writings of "Justin" were in the 2nd century, when there is little real "evidence" in the 2nd century itself even according to the apologists, as opposed to early in the 4th century?

Diogenes the Cynic

I would suggest that this is could plausibly be because Cephas et al did not, or had not claimed to have witnessed a "resurrection" as such, but only some kind of ill-defined "appearances," or visions which Paul himself then interpreted to mean that Jesus had been "raised" to Heaven as a precursor to the resurrection and judging of the dead.

Paul has no intervening "ascension" in his appearance chronology between Cephas, the Twelve, etc. and himself. This would indicate to me that Paul was not talking about a two-stage event (physical resurrection then ascension), but only conceived an ascension absent any physical prelude.

I think that Paul is giving a personal interpretation of the alleged visions of others as revealing an anastasis (prefiguring the big one), and it's an interpretation which may or may not have been shared by the Jerusalem group itself.

aa5874

What you think is wrong. It is the statements in the Pauline writings that matters. The Pauline writing is claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

Anybody can have a DREAM of Jesus. The Pauline writer never stated he dreamt of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV Now, again, when did Paul SEE Jesus??? In which century did Paul write that he and over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus.

It is IMPERATIVE that you establish when the Pauline writings were composed BEFORE you develop any theory.

1. No Pauline writings have been found and dated to the 1st century.

2. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

3. Another Apologetic source claimed Paul imitated the author of Revelations.

4. Letters between Paul and Seneca have been found to be forgeries.

5. Acts of the Apostles do NOT state Paul wrote letters to churches.

6. Scholars themselves have deduved that the Pauline writings are corrupted with Multiple authors and interpolations.

We cannot proceed without establishing when Paul lived and composed his letters.

There is NO credible corroborative source that Paul lived in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports LATE Pauline writings sometime AFTER the 1st century.

Diogenes the Cynic

It is completely ad hoc to assert that Paul intended or implied that there was some large, undetermined amount of intervening time between the the "raising" of Jesus and his "appearances."

THAT is eisegetic. It's not in the text.

aa5874

Please, you very well know that Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and also mentioned the TEACHINGS of Marcion.

First Apology First Apology LVIII You seem not to be able to understand that written statements about Marcion are found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

spin

This seems to me to be another attempt at discounting Paul's text and reading it to mean differently from what his words convey.

I don't understand exactly how what you say can work. Do you think the writer may have thought Jesus trotted around visiting all these people, finally seeing Paul, and then vamoosed to the great beyond? Gal 1:12 & 15-16 deal specifically with a revelation, involving a different verb (αποκαλυπτω) from 1 Cor 15, ωφθη (οπτανομαι). Just another problem.

Funnily enough there is no use of αναστασις here.

spin

I just didn't use the idea for you, knowing your aversion to it... hmm.