aa5874

I am extremely delighted to see your response because it is evident you have forgotten what you wrote.

Facepalm?? Absence of evidence?? There was no human Jesus?? There were no human disciples?? There was no Peter?? It is most remarkable that your claims rely heavily on absence of evidence.

gurugeorge

The silence about Jesus is clear: if he was a human being who caused a great stir, as he is painted in the gospels (minus the miraculous stuff, which might easily be later layering), then absence of mention by contemporaries is a problem. It's not decisive, but it's a problem for an HJ proponent.

The absence of mention of human disciples of Jesus in Paul is puzzling, because if the situation were even remotely as painted in the gospels, one would expect some kind of connection there, one would expect the people Paul mentions to be called "disciples" at some point (ESPECIALLY if the Paul writings are late as you say). Again, not decisive, but a problem for the orthodox story, and a bit of a problem for yours too.

It all depends on context. Why would you expect Celsus to have mentioned Paul, such that absence of mention is problematic? It's problematic for Origen, obviously, but why should it be problematic for you as a 21st century investigator who takes nothing for granted?

outhouse

Not really a problem. The people who wrote about Jesus were not from his culture.

With that said, Gmark is a compilation, and some of these sources have the potential or possibility to go back to contemporaries.


Jesus wasn't really famous until after his death anyway.



My opinion on this.

Paul hunts the real disciples for who knows how many years. We have no idea the damage he did to the original followers, or those that grew from the oral tradition after his death in Hellenistic communities. But no matter how you shake this tree, Paul was not the same kind of Jew as the real apostles.

One thing we see in all Paul's real work, he desperately wants to be a real apostle.

I doubt that he met real apostles as he states he did. I think when Jesus died his real apostles 3-4 ran back to Galilee where they wouldn't meet the same fate

Sheshbazzar

The opening chapters of Justin Martyr's 'DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO' deals quite extensively with the subject of circumcision, yet it is noteworty that in contrast to Paul's claims that 'the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to' him ('Paul') (Gal 2:7-9)
and that 'Paul' and his various traveling companions founded, visited, and established the gentile churches;
In view of which it is more than passing strange that Justin when so extensively discussing the subject of Christians uncircumcision, never once mentions 'Paul', never once quotes any of 'Paul's' many verses on the subject of circumcision and uncircumcision, never lets on that any 'Paul' ever had anything at all to do with establishing all of the Gentile churches just a few short decades ago.

Why its as if Justin Martyr, writing extensively about the Christian religion he encountered and knew circa 130-165 CE , had never even heard of any 'Apostle 'Paul'! And had never read any of these famous 'Pauline' Epistles.

There is NO evidence in Justin Martyr's writings that there were any such thing as "Pauline study groups/symposia scattered around prior to the 1st century", or even in the first half of the 2nd century.

What logical explanation can there be for that yawning gap in Justin Martyr's unawareness of 'Paul' as the founder of the Gentile churches, or of any 'Pauline Epistles?

Certainly aa has made his opinion and position quite clear.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with any other credible explanation for Justin's total silence on 'Paul's part in Gentile Christianity, and on 'Paul's epistles, other than that 'Paul' and the 'Pauline Epistles' were NOT known to Christianity in the early 2nd century CE.


.

aa5874

You are the same person who implied that absence of evidence is not necesarily evidence of absence yet claimed there was no human Jesus. You have facepalmed yourself.

Why are you facepalming yourself? You very well know that absence of evidence is the single most significant criteria to argue for non-existence.

I have been through this many many times.

There MUST be absence of evidence to argue for Non-existence.

The evidence for Pauline writings in the 1st century is missing therefore I can maintain FOREVER that the Pauline writings were NOT composed during that time period.

That is basic.

Absence of evidence is the primary and fundamental necessary criteria to argue for non-existence.

It should be obvious to you that once it was problematic for Origen then it is a problem for anyone who claims the Pauline writings were composed before the 2nd century.

1. The first writer in the Canon to mention the Activities of Paul did not mention the Pauline letters--See Acts of the Apostles

2. The first writing in the Canon that claimed Paul wrote letters has been declared a forgery or does not belong to the Canon--See 2 Peter.

3. The first apologetic writing to mention Paul wrote to the Corinthians is a forgery--See Clement's Epistle.

4. The first apologetic writing to mention that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches is a forgery--See Against Heresies.

5. The first non-apologetic writer to argue against the writings of the Jesus cult did not mention the Jesus cult writings under the name of Paul. See Origen.

6. The first apologetic writing addressed to the Emperor of Rome does not mention Paul--See Aristides Apology.

7. The first apologetic writer to mention what was read in the Churches on Sundays did not mention the Pauline writings--See Justin's First Apology.l

The Pauline letters are extremely problematic and were unknown up to at least 180 CE or the time of the composition of "Against Heresies" 2.22.

There were no Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century and no Jesus cult Churches.

gurugeorge

As I've just pointed out, it's not absence of evidence ALONE that's telling, it's absence of evidence IN THE CONTEXT OF A GIVEN REASONABLE EXPECTATION. Certainly if something were mentioned, that wouldn't bode well for the hypothesis that the thing didn't exist, but the absence of mention in and of itself could mean anything, it depends on the broader context. There are many possible reasons for someone not to mention someone - NOT LIKING THEM, not rating them, wanting people to forget about them, is one major reason.

You can maintain that, but for all that, you may be wrong about the reality of the situation, because there are many possible reasons for something or someone to be not-mentioned other than their not existing.

Possible reason in the case of Paul, as I've already pointed out: the problematic proto-Gnostic character of some of the Paul writings. This could easily explain why (on the hypothesis that he was early) Paul was disliked by the proto-orthodox and why they didn't mention him - until it became expedient to do so.

Whereas (on your hypothesis that he was late) you need to have an explanation as to why a supposedly orthodox forgery (the writings of Paul) would have so much of a Gnostic feel, at a time (mid-1st century) when Gnosticism is a becoming a problem for proto-orthodoxy. (IOW, why invent something that's got elements of the very thing you're fighting against?)

Anyway, that's my last word on the matter for now.

Iskander

They were Jewish Christians, a Jewish sect undistinguishable from other Jews. Eventually the orthodox Jews labelled the Christians as ‘minut’ ( heretics ) and expelled them from the synagogues.



The Laws Concerning Moshiach : Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam.

Footnote 5


http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

aa5874

It must be absence of evidence that is the fundamental and necessary criteria. Once there is evidence for a human Jesus then you could not have claimed there was no human Jesus whether or not you imagine people of antiquity liked him.

There is no evidence for the Pauline letters or the Jesus cult so I can argue that there was NO Pauline letters and NO Jesus cult in the 1st century EXACTLY the same way you can argue that there was no human Jesus.

Claiming I could be wrong is of no real significance because you must realize that you could be wrong. And further, you have no evidence at all from antiquity that you are right about Paul.

What you claim is possible is without actual corroboration. You imagine what is possible without ever supplying any evidence from antiquity. Not one Epistle under the name of Paul has been recovered and dated before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

You invent a "Gnostic feel" and imagine there was a "Gnostic feel" in the mid 1st century WITHOUT supplying a shred of evidence from antiquity for a Gnostic.


1. Please IDENTIFY a Gnostic of the mid 1st century.

2. Please Identify a Gnostic source of antiquity in the mid 1st century.

3. Please IDENTIFY the "Gnostic Feel" in the mid 1st century.

It is clear to me that you have invented your own unsubstantiated history to accommodate what you imagine about Paul.

I have no interest in your imagination.

We actually have the Jesus cult Canon and it can actually be seen that the Pauline writings had ZERO influence on all the authors.

It was the author of gMark or his sources that influenced the other authors of the Jesus cult Canon.

The Pauline writings were unknown to the authors of the short version of gMark and gMatthew.

The Pauline writings were unknown by Aristides, Justin Martyr and Minucius Felix Octavius.

Jesus cult writers claimed the Pauline letters were composed after Revelation and that Paul was alive AFTER gLuke was composed.

The Jesus cult of Christians are of 2nd century and were not ever in Jerusalem in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

We have copies of the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius.

Sheshbazzar

The premise presented in the NT writings is that 'Paul' was the 'Apostle to the Gentiles', and that 'Paul' and the companions in his ministry "to the Gentiles" traveled extensively establishing Gentile churches, issuing orders and commanding and overseeing the ordaining of elders in every city (1 Cor 7:17, 11:34, 16:1, 2 Th 3:4 & 3:6, Tts 1:5) and this 'Paul' had preached 'his Gospel' (Ro 16:25 & 1 Ti 1:11) "throughout" the Gentile world -Acts 19:26, 24:5, 26:20, and was known clear to Spain)

Using the excuse; 'There are many possible reasons for someone not to mention someone - NOT LIKING THEM, not rating them, wanting people to forget about them'...
there are many possible reasons for something or someone to be not-mentioned other than their not existing.
Possible reason in the case of Paul, as I've already pointed out: the problematic proto-Gnostic character of some of the Paul writings. This could easily explain why (on the hypothesis that he was early) Paul was disliked by the proto-orthodox and why they didn't mention him."

simply does not wash.

Every Gentile church would have been familiar with 'Paul' and with 'Pauls' gospel'.
Justin trying to ignore, or to pretend that Paul, and Paul's teachings did not exist would have been futile in a Church that was founded by Paul and his companions, and already totally familiar with the Pauline teachings long before Justin's 'conversion'
More critically to this line of argument, if Justin 'disliked' Paul or Paul's teachings there would have been either outright denunciations of 'Paul' and 'Paul's gospel' or strong refutations of Paul's heretical teachings and positions to be found within Justin's works.
In that there are not, it is evident that Justin and his contemporary Christian church quite simply had no acquaintance with any Apostle Paul.

What we have in Justin Martyr's writings is a window on the early Christian church, one that existed and functioned without the Book of Acts or the Pauline epistles, had no identifiable authorities or leaders (Justin never names or mentions a single one in all of his writings) and little hierarchal structure (Christian 'Philosopher' preachers and students) and no evidence of 'Apostolic succession'.
Justin simply donned a philosophers robe and 'ordained' himself, he never credits any church or person that ever baptized him or appointed him to his 'Philosophical' ministry.

Justin's writings are directed to a somewhat anonymous audience, and are so composed as to inform and persuade an audience that appears to have been quite ignorant concerning the teachings of the Christian religion.
Yet one that had, (according to latter composed NT writings) supposedly been taught by 'Paul' 'throughout' the known Gentile world well before the 2nd century CE....even as far away as Spain (Ro 15:24 & 28!!! -needed to prop up 'Catholic' claims of a early Irenaeus and his 'Against Heresies'. )

Yet we are to believe that Justin Martyr and his fellow Christians just chose to ignore Acts, 'Paul', the doctrine of 'Apostolic succession', and all of the Pauline epistles? incredible.


.

aa5874

Justin's First Apology was directed specifically to the Roman Emperor, the Roman Senate and the Roman people which is exactly the same place and people whom Paul should have developed Churches and wrote an Epistle at least 100 years earlier.

Incredibly, based on Justin, the Jesus cult, teachings and mode of worship were virtually unknown in the Roman Empire c 150 CE.

Justin Martyr even had to explain that Christians worshiped on a Sunday and what they did.

Justin's First Apology Justin's writings are evidence that the Jesus cult was in its early stage of deveolpment c 150 CE and that there was no bishops of the Jesus cult throughout the Roman Empire.

Justin's writings show that the Jesus cult developed their doctrine WITHOUT the Pauline letters using the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets.