aa5874

But, Justin when describing his own conversion to Christianity did NOT mention anything about Paul's theology. Paul was a non-issue. Never written about.


Paul's magical conversion in Acts would really be of no use to Justin.

Justin Martyr seeked out the philosophy of the Stoics, the Platonists, the Pythagoreans, the Peripatetics, the Theoritics and even the philosophical ramblings of an old man, not the HOCUS-POCUS of Paul, with bright lights and blindness, full of the Holy Ghost and talking in tongues.

I cannot recall any church writer who had a magical conversion with bright lights who was filled with the Holy Host and spoke in tongues.

Look at some elements of Paul's theology.

1Co 12:28 - 1Corinthians 14:5 - 1 Corinthians 14.18 In the 2nd century, Paul's theology appears to have not one single influence on any person, not even the church writers. None of them claimed to be filled with Holy Ghost, performed any miracles or talked in tongues.

Paul's philosophy of magic, Holy Ghost and tongues played no role at all in Justin's conversion, and Paul's philosophy of magic, Holy Ghost and tongues was not employed when Octavius persuaded Caecilius to believe in God.

DCHindley

My point was that Paul's theology is hardy anywhere close to coherent, while Justin was trying to present Christianity as a kind of personal philosophy with coherence resembling that of the Platonists and Stoics.

DCH

Sheshbazzar

So you think Marcion only needed to shout;
1. "God isn't the Maker of all things in heaven and earth."

and

2. "Jesus is not the son predicted by the prophets."

and

3. "There is some greater God than the creator"


And by simply that 'many of every nation' would be drawn to join his Christian Church?

Because that is about the total sum of what Justin has to say about Marcion in the two scant paragraphs he devotes to Marcionism (1 Apology, Chapters XXVI & LXIII)
Wow! What an impressive and persuasive argument you are willing to alot to Marcion!
Because anything more concerning Marcion's teachings must be sourced from those writers whom you call liars.

You can flap your arms up and down all you want, but it ain't gonna fly.
Nope dude, you are claiming way too much came about from way too little, you can waste the rest of your miserable life on your imaginary conspiricy theory and it simply aint gonna fly.

aa5874

I don't make stuff up. I can only show you what Justin wrote. Please tell me what Justin should have shouted.

Why do you want to use information from liars to support your position?

I told you already and I will tell you again, Scholars have dismissed your sources with respect to the authorship and chronology of the Pauline Epistles and indeed the canonised NT.

Your sources claimed Marcion mutilated Epistles to Timothy and Titus when it may be that these Epistles were written when Marcion was already dead.

Your sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke but it may be that gLuke was written AFTER your sources claimed Paul died.

What! You want to fly away.

Please, I only quoted what Justin wrote.

I am not the one who claimed that Justin had a "cultivated unawareness" of Paul.

You did.

That's way too much, from so little.

Sheshbazzar

True, I do not overly trust these sources, however I also do not catagoricaly deem them 'bogus' or 'fraudsters'.
The transmission of The Gospel in the beginning was haphazard, first being only oral then latter set down in ink, like a game of 'Chinese whispers' a word or phrase could easily yet unintentionally be added to omitted in the transmission from person to person, the next person in the line of transmission being utterly unaware of the minor change would pass it on, perhaps rephrasing it slightly, also correcting a perceived error, or misspelling, or correcting and completing an 'incomplete' thought or statement, or perhaps adding some material recieved and believed from an entirely different source. These NT writings were not yet claimed or recognized as being inviolable 'Scripture', but little more than exciting and intriguing messages to be passed around among friends and acquaintances, the written ones all individually reproduced by hand thousands of times over in different locals and amongst differing ethnic groups conversant in a variety of languages, led to a great variety of minor variations, and ultimately to several textual traditions, long before it was ever even thought of to 'standardise' every single word, line, and puncuation.
These men strongly believed in the contents of whatever textual tradition it was that happened to be disseminated in their locality and 'church'.
Early on, no one needed to wilfully 'lie' or 'fabricate' anything as the distributed Gospel took on a life of its own, a word being added here, and a 'clarifying' sentence there, month after month, year after year.
New books were added one by one to explain and expound upon the contents of the old books, and as yet none of it was officially deemed as being "Scripture", the story was riveting and inspiring, and Church members couldn't seem to get enough of it.
So the writers obliged, they weren't 'lying', but carrying on a long practiced and honored 'religious' and Church tradition, in the magnifying of The Gospel, The Lord, and His Church. And in the cultural milieu of those times, such was a common practice, one that was quite normally practiced by the sycophants of all earthly kings and rulers.
How much more worthy of magnifying, 'building up', and 'boasting' would they have accounted as being a worthy and 'right'- 'offering of their lips' to One deemed to be The King of Kings and The Lord of The Universe?
I have sat in Church's and listened to the congregations singing praises, praises and thanksgivings for things that are nowhere mentioned in The Bible, or as in this Hymn;
"While I was praying, Somebody touched me, While I was praying Somebody touched me, well, Glory! Glory! Glory!, must have been the hand of Yahweh!"....
Do I say that these singers were offering 'bogus' testimony? or are 'lying' ?
No, I judge that they are offering up their sycophant praises to Somebody or Something they respect, and are enjoying a 'spiritually uplifting activity'_
far better than having them to lose hope and faith, and, for example, turn to pimping out their wives and daughters on street corners.

Sheshbazzar

I am departing in 4 hours at 5:00 AM, and will be traveling for the next couple of days, I invite someone else, (anyone?... anyone?...Bueler?....Bueler?)
to keep aa entertained.

aa5874

That's because you want to use them as evidence. As soon as you admit that your sources were fraudsters then you are history.


You are just speculating. How did Joseph Smith start his religion? Didn't he get his scriptures first from the angel Moroni or the golden plates?


Are you trying to tell me that there were no liars in antiquity? How naive.


These are fairy tales.

Nice fairy tales, but........

According to Josephus, there were false prophets and the Romans would try and kill them and their fooled followers.


You appear not to understand that massive fraud was commonplace in antiquity according to your own sources. Even christians were called liars. Please, look at the preface of Against Heresies by someone USING the name Irenaeus.


BOOK I

And please look at another under the name of John a so-called apostle of Jesus. He described liars.

1John 2:22 - It appears that there were a lot of liars who were christians in antiquity just read Against Heresies by Irenaeus.

dog-on

But Paul allowed you to keep your pee pee intact.

Obviously superior and preferable for mass marketing purposes across the Roman Empire.

Of course, Salavation based simply on faith is no sloutch either...

So I guess I would disagree.

DCHindley

Dog,

I thought you were referring to the belief among the critics as well as the common folks that Paul was some sort of rhetorical genius or the inventor of the "high" christology expressed in the Pauline epistles.

I guess the marketability of the ideas depends on who you hope your audience will be. Justin's Apology was addressed to the Roman emperor, who would be more inclined to an argument based on philosophical principals than the cruder symbolic christology or lessons drawn from Jewish scriptures presented in the epistles.

DCH

PS: We sophisticated intellectual types prefer to speak of the male pudendum as the "wee wee," rather than "pee pee."

dog-on

Of course it is not what it is, but what it does that matters!

ps. Justin may have had more luck just telling the emperor that he could keep his "wee wee" intact and, importantly, his ham samich.