Roger Pearse

This is a very curious claim, you know. May I ask how you know this and what your evidence is? (Or rather, from whom you are repeating this in good faith).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

Maybe I am reading too much into this reference. I'll let you be the judge:

James The Least

To be more precise, "Christian tradition" claimed that John the Apostle lived to 100 AD. There is no reason at all to state this claim as fact.

James The Least

That's hardly a reference to the LXX. What Apuleius was referring to was the well known Greek "Zoroastrian" pseudepigrapha and there must have similar junk written about Moses at the time; only the names changed.

stephan huller

That's wonderful. Why is it more likely the official Roman libraries had junk than the real thing?

stephan huller

On the LXX being present at the library in Alexandria for public consumption see bottom p 117


http://books.google.com/books?id=YF1...tput=html_text

watersbeak

Thank you Roger Pearse. I am grateful to you for not yet including me on your "ignore" list, for I learn something from your comments. "Something", does not mean, "only a tiny bit." I feel that I am with a true scholar, when I read your rejoinders. Thanks for taking the time, to ask me about my questions.

I am repeating my comment from no one. I have been instructed by no one. I know so little, it is embarassing. I learned something today, thanks to your question above. Investigating, I learned that the word "Christian" does not appear in any of the four
gospels. It does appear in Justin Martyr's First Apology, written about 150 CE, according to various sources. This single manuscript, which includes his Dialogue with Trypho, and second apology, as well as the first, quoted here, was "copied", one believes, in an Italian monastery, in the middle ages. There is no other ancient manuscript, for his writings, so far as I know. (One hopes that this word, Χριστιανῶν, had appeared in the original text, and had not been inserted by the politically correct monks, zealously following directives from above.)

Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου Ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον τὸν Εὐσεβῆ

I conclude from Justin Martyr's writing, that I err, in thinking that the word "Christian" was largely unknown in the middle of the second century, at which time, it appears in "ACTS", i.e. the first, and only place (in three locations within Acts) in the new Testament, where "Christian" is found.

Thanks again, Roger Pearse, for your rigorous challenge, very helpful, constructive, positive, and educational. One cannot ask for more.

I had thought, most likely in error, that since "Christian" does not appear in any of the four gospels, nor in the Pauline epistles, that it was unknown until the end of the second century, or beginning of third century, when writers began describing themselves as "christians".

Sam

watersbeak

Really?

How about this:
Epistle to 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-17, has some text similar to that, not quite the same, but, nota bene, this is in any event, WRITING BY ORIGEN, not Celsus. At best, you could claim that libraries possessed the epistles of Paul, in the THIRD century, based on this text. I find no evidence that Celsus wrote about Paul, Santa Claus, or Mr. Magoo. There are no extant writings of Celsus.

As far as Origen, himself, he certainly does not provide attribution to Paul's letter to Thessalonians in this passage.

Here is a web page on Inachus, son of Phoroneus:
http://www.theoi.com/Potamos/PotamosInakhos.html

Isn't it curious that Origen felt constrained to cite an obscure legend from ancient Greece, but not Paul''s epistle? Do you genuinely believe that Celsus described Paul's epistles, based on what Origen claimed, or do you have some other third century author to substantiate Origen's writing? How do you explain Origen's omission of Paul's name in his text? He mentions Moses, and Josephus, why not Paul?

Sam

aa5874

In Origen's "Against Celsus" all references to the Pauline Corpus were not from Celsus' "True Discourse" but was from Origen or whoever actually wrote "Against Celsus"

In "Against Celsus" there is no rebuttal to any passage taken from "True Discourse" about any part of Acts and the Pauline Corpus.

Virtually all arguments Against Celsus are about the stories of Jesus in the Gospel.

In fact, the supposed biography of Jesus is NOT in the Pauline Corpus.

It must also be noted that there is NO rebuttal to any passage from Acts of the Apostles or the Entire Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline] taken from Celsus "True Discourse".

Celsus' "True Discourse" is evidence against any Christian writings known as Acts of the Apostles, and Epistles to Jesus cult Churches of the Roman Empire.

In effect, whether or not there were Public Libraries in the 2nd century, there were NO Christian Jesus cult writings known as Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus until sometime in the late 3rd century or later.

The writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagors of Athens, Municius Felix, and Arnobius are evidence against Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus as Jesus cult writings of the 2nd century.

These writers show that up to the 3rd century the Jesus cult of Christians was NOT developed by any Pauline teachings.

stephan huller

I'm not going to waste my time. Koo koo koo koo