aa5874

It is simply without a shred of evidence that Mark preserved the Memoirs of Peter.

The first time we hear of such a tradition is from Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" who claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years after he was about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius.

How in the world could Peter have told Mark that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years if Peter did exist and Jesus was crucified under Pilate?

"Against Heresies" is a most blatant work of fiction and a massive forgery.

Examine the passage in "Against Heresies" 3 Eusebius will contradict Irenaeus and claim gMark was ALREADY composed before the death of Peter and Paul when the so-called Mark was in Alexandria in the time of Philo.

Church History 2.16 The supposed traditions in "Against Heresies" are a pack of lies or fabrications.

Scholars have rejected virtually everything that is found in "Against Heresies" about the the names of the authors of the Canon, the time of writing of the books of the Canon and the chronology of authorship.

mountainman

This will be interesting to see aa5874.








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

gurugeorge

As per Shesh's reply to yours, I don't see how you can be so firm that it's the gospels as we know them that JM was familiar with, just because a few lines and concepts are shared. I mean, already with the synoptics there are theories about other materials incorporated.

Re. apostles, I'm sure that was a later tradition, once the synoptics were firmly established and settled, but in JM's day?

Sorry, I still feel you're being a bit "previous"

Duvduv

What is most strange is that the term memoirs of the apostles is found in no other text even as an interchangeable term for gospels, as it does one single time in Justin, where it seems that the parenthetical phrase was added to refer to them as gospels.And of courseJustn lumps everything together, not pointing to any differences among the gospel stories. I suppose it's conceivable that because the writer was specifically trying to refute Judaism that the term memoir sounded more authentic in discussing the prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus, which itself is irrelevant to Paul also.

gurugeorge

This is hilarious. If you take JM's word for it that there was a Simon Magus, why don't you take his word for it that there was a Jesus who was distinct from Simon Magus? What attestation does Simon Magus have outside of the Christian documents?

You appear to have double-standards when it comes to your favourite theories, aa.

That cannot be said. They were not attested in a few writings from that time, different thing. That they were not attested allows you to maintain the possibility that they were in fact unknown, but it doesn't clilnch the deal for you.

What about Simon Magus' writings?

Nor did he quote any reference to the "memoirs of the Apostles", does that mean they didn't exist?

Why would he?

I understand, but the truth may not be found solely in the texts - you may be able to construct a coherent theory from the texts, but for all its internal coherence, it may be false.

So what are you most concerned about, aa, painting a coherent picture that you can justify at every step, or the truth?

No, but he could certainly reasonably doubt that there were many Christians in the way that JM describes - there's no archaeological evidence for them.

But aa, you are always telling us exactly what you are thinking about this subject, at great length. I can only go by what you put out here, and that's what my description refers to. I don't care what you do (although I gather that you're involved in the legal business in some way, IIRC?), what you are examining right now, or what you have at your disposal.

I go by your text

I'm not upset; but you haven't shown that, you've only shown that in the orthodox texts that have come down to us, "Paul" is not mentioned until that time. Different thing, with a whole range of possible reasons other than there being nobody with that name (or nobody who wrote those writings but with another name) involved with early Christianity.

Here's something to think about. On Vridar's blog in recent years there's been a fascinating ongoing analysis by a guest scholar, Roger Parvus, on the question of Ignatius' letters. That scholar comes to the conclusion that there was no "Ignatius", but that the letters are probably based on the work of a real, independently identifiable Christian, Lucian's "Peregrinus".

Do you see how murky this whole situation could be wrt a "Jesus", a "Paul" or "Simon Magus"? How difficult to get at the truth just by looking at the extant texts without a deeper kind of detective work than the kind you're doing?

In these investigations we are walking on eggshells all the time.

Everything is tentative. And every reconstruction of what actually happened back in those days must perforce have some speculative elements. And those speculative elements can only be based on background understandings brought from common sense and from other disciplines (e.g. archaeology, comparative religion, psychology of religion and mysticism, etc.).

And I'm sure we will all be interested to see those arguments. And we'll probably think you say a few interesting things. And we probably won't be wholly convinced

aa5874

So why are you giving credence to the idea that Paul=Simon Magus so that it would appear that Justin mentioned Paul?

You are a master of double standards. You have already asserted that Jesus was NOT human.

Justin's Jesus was a Myth born WITHOUT sexual union. The Jesus story was composed at least around 100 years AFTER Simon Magus was worshiped as the First God, after he did Mighty Acts and taught his disciples they would Never die.

You seem to have not carried out a proper investigation of the Pauline writings. In fact, you appear incapable or not willing to admit or make it known that the Pauline writings are extremely problematic historically, chronologically and theologically.

The Pauline corpus is the Flagship of fraud, forgery and fiction.

You appear to be completely locked in the OBSOLETE long held presumption that the Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE when you know that no such corroboration is even in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

You are the one who promote the idea that paul=Simon Magus. You should have an idea what Simon wrote.

I can show that Justin claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches---See First Apology

Stories about Jesus are mentioned in Minucius Felix Octavius but No stories of Paul's conversion.

The writings of Minucius Felix supports the argument that the Pauline writings were unknown.

If the Pauline writings and revealed Gospel were unknown then Minucius Felix writing would be exactly as it is found--WITHOUT any reference to Paul.

That is precisely what I expect when the Pauline writings and revealed Gospel were unknown by Celsus.

I expected that Celsus would only write and argue against stories of Jesus and the disciples and not argue against Paul.

That is exactly what happened--Celsus wrote Nothing about Paul late in the mid 2nd century which is compatible with the Recovered dated manuscripts.

Again, you employ double standards.

Did you not claim there was NO human Jesus?

Well, if there was No human Jesus then all we have about Jesus are TEXTS.

You can ONLY use the very same false texts to determine that Jesus never did exist as a human being.

I have had enough of your double standards.


Please, please, please!!! You care what I do. You care what I write. Why are giving the impression that you don't? Virtually Everybody on this forum care about what I do and write. That is precisely why you and others have responded to my posts.

Some even pretend that they don't know what I write.

Some even tell others publicly on this forum not to read what I write AFTER they themselves had read my posts.

Now, if you go by the same Texts that I use you must have seen that the Pauline letters are massive forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul.

The very first supposed writer, Irenaeus-- c 180 CE, to claim PAUL wrote letters to Seven Churches did not know that the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles were a Pack of Lies when Jesus was crucified in the reign of CLAUDIUS c 41-54 CE.


Again, one of the possible reasons that the Pauline letters were not mentioned is because they were unknown.

In fact, once the Pauline letters were unknown then they would not be mentioned.

That is basic logic. That is fundamental. In court trials people are exonerated by absence of evidence. Absence of evidence is the primary and fundamental criteria for arguing that the Pauline writings did not exist in the 2nd century.

The absence of evidence allows me to argue for the non-existence of the Pauline letters.
Well, why are walking on eggshells? I am not walking on eggshells.

You knew that you were walking on eggshells all along and is trying to argue with me.

You knew in advance that your so-called EXPERTS are walking on egshells.

Please, please, please!!

If all you do is speculate then you are of very little help.

You have exposed your problem. You appear incapable or unwilling to actually investigate the matter before us. You have already pre-judged what I write.

You are indeed walking on egshells--Keep walking.

Chili

The argument is very simple:

1). Jesus had a dual nature as insurrectionist wherein he was role-play only as second Adam inside the mind of Joseph the Jew. For this to be possible Joseph was 'reborn from above' as per John 1:13.

One of these was Son of God and the other was the human condition of Joseph on who's behalf he needed to die to end the humanity of Joseph as the second or Adamic nature of the man who was called Joseph, who's disciples were his own insights (ousia's) to be raised.

These are twelve in number that is required to come full circle in life, and do not ask me why twelve are needed for this, but if you count the cast of characters in Macbeth you will find that he was an apostle short to come full circle in life and hence is the tragedy it proved to be in the end.

Now please do not argue that this happened before GJohn was known, as also John is an account of reality as presented by him.

2). Of course they were, but if Jesus was not Christ until he was crucified how can they be Christians while not crucified? is the right question to ask. I would call them Jesuits at best, or Nazarites may be better back then, and regardless if they were Nazarite-by-nature, or not, they will never be Christian until crucified.

And yes, they can be self proclaimed Christians, and that alone should tell you that they were look-alikes of the real one that so ends the argument full stop.

3). Of course Simon Magus was worshiped as God, but that is only a slam against them as fornicated by him instead of being real Christians in their own right under God.

To wit: Christian is not a dis-ease with an -ity attached or liberty would not be liberating as an ends in itself. Hence Christian-ity is a social disease and should never be a religion wherein liberty is sought, as that would be like trying to lift the very stone one is standing on.

4). Nothing has changed and those would be called Billy Grahamites, or one of those other 20.000 self proclaimed salvation recipe versions today.

And please note here that Jesus was not human, and cannot be human in his agency to die to the human condition of Joseph the Jew.

Then let me add that if Jesus was human to even the smallest degree a tragedy would follow as is shown in Matthew in Mark where he was called James and not Jesus to identify the prevailing human condition in this effort that itself makes hell known on earth.

Duvduv

Meaning that when challenging Judaism and the Jews the author of the Dialogue focused on the alleged fulfillment of specifically JEWISH prophecies in the advent of Jesus, in which case the alleged evidence from followers as MEMOIRS appeared more valid than simply referring to a theological presentation, i.e. a "gospel" as used in the sense of revealed news at least in the synoptics.

Furthermore, leaving out mention of Paul would fit here also since the teachings of Paul had nothing directly to do with fulfillment of Tanakh prophecies through Jesus.

In the case of either the Dialogue or the Apology we see a hurried style of writing, not very well thought out in many respects, full of gaps that should have presumably been picked up SOMEWHERE among Christian theologians along the way, including Mr. Eusebius........In any event, there remains no evidence at all that the Justin texts were written in the second century, and "Eusebius" himself does a rather poor job of promoting that very idea itself, perhaps because he himself may have written them!

2-J

If Justin Martyr was using the Gospels as we now know them, or a synoptic harmony, why did he assert that Jesus was born in a cave?

(Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXVIII).

aa5874

Your claim is utterly erroneous. There is nothing in the Dialogue or the Apology that show a hurried style of writing. You really have no idea of what you are talking about.

You don't even realize that Eusebius may not have written "Church History" and is most likely a manipulated source.