Bernard Muller

to aa,
Another obvious evasive action. Why bring that subject out of the blue when this is not what we discussed earlier. Answer my questions. I am answering your points, don't I?

You do not consider anything as credible: Paul saying he visited or planned to visit Jerusalem (obviously not destroyed yet; ref: Josephus' Wars), 1Clement, the etnarch of Aretas, which you admitted, would indicate a dating prior to 41 about Paul in Damascus:
and of course 'Acts'. All of that rejects. And why would you expect the propagator of still a small sect to have external evidence from non-Christian sources?
And what evidence do you have for a post 70 dating of Paul's seven?

I said Paul was dishonest. So what? Did you expect me to behave as a Christian and accept as true everything that Paul wrote?

You did not provide any evidence "Against Heresies" had more than one author. You just have a controversial theory with many questions unanswered.

What's that? I thought the fact Jesus could not have been crucified after 20 years of ministry was a credible evidence it was a lie from Irenaeus. For you, you do not have any evidence that these 20 years were heard or believed by anyone before Irenaeus. So case close. See next; you wrote:
But you trust 'Against Heresy', with his many interpolations made by dishonest writers, because they tried to make Irenaeus look like he knew about the NT.
And I did not say all is not credible or lies in these sources. Look at yourself: you use AH2.22 even if, according to you, it has been interpolated by dishonest writers. But you keep a part of it as reliable, providing valid information from an allegedly honest Irenaeus!
So what, you seem to miss on the meaning of "genuine", which I bother to explain.

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS

Duvduv

The back and forth dispute between AA and Bernard is starting to be such that maybe they should continue it offline.

aa5874

Discussion boards are set up PRECISELY for OPEN DISCUSSIONS. If you want to discuss something else then start a NEW THREAD.

aa5874

A DISHONEST writer claimed he was in Jerusalem so why must that be true ??? Your posts are quite unreasonable and without logics.

That is PRECISELY what I wanted you to ADMIT---The Pauline writer was DISHONEST.

Well, the DISHONEST Pauline writers LIVED in some other century under some other name and gave the FALSE IMPRESSION that they lived and wrote letters to seven churches.

Even the Church claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke while still asserting Paul was executed UNDER NERO who died c 68 CE.

And further, Justin Martyr and Aristides, did NOT claim that Paul preached to the Gentiles--it was the 12 disciples.

Your statement is erroneous. Against Heresies is the EVIDENCE. You USED the very evidence and claimed Irenaeus wrote OBVIOUS LIES.

I used the same source as evidence that Against Heresies is the product of MULTIPLE authors.

The author that knew of the FOUR Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters is NOT the author who claimed John and the Other Apostles preached that Jesus was crucified under Claudius or 20 years AFTER the Baptism by John.

It is virtually chronologically impossible for the Pauline writer to have preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since King Aretas in 1 Cor.11 and still claim Jesus was crucified at about 50 years or UNDER CLAUDIUS.

Duvduv

Significantly traditional Jewish sources make no mention whatsoever of the Baptist in relation to Antipas or the unconventional death of Agrippa , which one would expect. Especially as a "proof" of his improper role as king.

Duvduv

Is there any indication anywhere in Christian sources that other books of Acts were considered for the canon since there were such writings revering apostles who were linked to the gospel Christ? Or was it avoided simply because the orthodox needed to emphasize an apostle for gentiles instead of Jews?

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
None were considered except maybe the very popular 'Acts of Paul' according to:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...estament_canon
Eusebius rejected 'Acts of Paul', implying it may have been considered by some.

On your second question, Justin Martyr did specify Gentiles all over the world had been initially converted by the 12. So, later, there was no need to invent a Paul to do that job.
- 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere".
- 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking"
- 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him"
- Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."

Duvduv

Right, but maybe "Justin" was on a different track since he didn't know that PAUL was the guy to preach to the gentiles as opposed to the Jews. On the other hand, he didn't seem to need Paul at all if other apostles were doing the job. UNLESS he believed that "the apostles" mysteriously referred to unnamed men named Paul and Barnabas,,,,,,

However, it doesn't appear that any other books of Acts would have had the dogmatic/doctrinal implications for Christianity that THE Book of Acts had, which might explain the absence of such books teaching doctrines and dogmas of other apostles.

If this is the text of that Acts of Paul, we don't see any of the dogma of the epistles: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../actspaul.html

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Maybe I should have specified what I meant by dishonesty in regards of Paul:
His mention of revelations from above, when he had a problem to "solve".
His cut/paste/add on scripture passages, and placing them out of context, to make them look they support his views.
That's the main things which come into my mind now.
But on other items, more so on secular mondane matters, including his travels, I have no reasons to dispute what he wrote. Sure, most of the time he can be very fuzzy, choosing his words carefully, not an open book on many items, involving secrets, but that comes with the territory, more so when he had to sustain a new religion from a small beginning.
Now, if Pauline writers invented that Paul sometimes in the third century (or late 2nd), don't you think they would have made sure to have Paul writing about the supposed historical background (soon after Jesus' alleged resurrection) by invoking positive "markers", that is reference to secular historical datable events. And why having him started by persecuting Christians, and not being an eyewitness of the earthly Jesus? And having him admit about his lack of "gifts", such as not being a decent public speaker. And being rejected at times by his own converts. And not having him specified the 12 had already went all over to convert the first crop of Gentiles.
It is only a sample against the case of Paul being invented very late.

That's your opinion, I argued otherwise. Anyway, you allow for multiple interpolations here (including in AH2.22), but you denied my interpolations in 1Corinthians: double standards!
And I let you dream about honest bishop Irenaeus, who honestly reported that 100 years before, John and other apostles honestly said to many that they knew Jesus preached for 20 years.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Or maybe Justin did not want to know about 'Acts' and its Paul, heavily used by heretics such as Marcion.