ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th February 2019, 10:05 PM   #1361
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,718
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I don't get it. If the epistles considered genuine date from 30 AD to 50 AD or so, then you wouldn't expect him to have heard of the Revelation of John.
It is my understanding that modern biblical scholarship is quite sure that Revelation was not written by the apostle John, but a later author. This seems like a red herring.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 12:13 AM   #1362
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The possible answers to that are
No. Or
Yes, and here are the names he cites ....

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP> Edited for rule 12 and rule 0
Needless to say, Dejudge has not answered my question. Given his usual methods of debate I didn't expect other thing.
Conclusion: His apparently conclusive argumentation doesn't show anything.

However, many reputed exegetes that argue in the opposite sense --this is to say, that Justin quotes Paul-- don't do the things better. A Justin's sentence only similar to Paul epistles is considered a "quote".

For me, the point is whether Justin quotes the Old Testament and not Paul with literal quotations. This is the only situation that would be conclusive. I don't know the answer.

Celsus never quotes Paul. But this is irrelevant because Celsus didn't have a first hand knowledge of the Bible. He mentions only common Christian beliefs. We cannot expect that he quoted the Pauline epistles.

Last edited by zooterkin; 14th February 2019 at 02:33 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 12:26 AM   #1363
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As I pointed out, it would have made much more sense to attribute that detail to Peter who was supposed to have been there at the first Eucharist and who was supposed to have received the commission to found the church.
Quite the opposite. Telling the story by a secondary character gives a sense of plausibility. It is an usual literary resource. Furthermore, in the early Christianity there were conflict parties. The Pauline epistle are an attack on Peter's group. (This doesn't necessarly mean that Paul and Peter were actual persons, but icons of the confronted sections).

I am not claiming that Peter and Paul never existed, but that they also could be legendary characters. Your argument is not compelling.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 01:49 AM   #1364
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,209
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Needless to say, Dejudge has not answered my question. Given his usual methods of debate I didn't expect other thing.
Conclusion: His apparently conclusive argumentation doesn't show anything.

However, many reputed exegetes that argue in the opposite sense --this is to say, that Justin quotes Paul-- don't do the things better. A Justin's sentence only similar to Paul epistles is considered a "quote".

For me, the point is whether Justin quotes the Old Testament and not Paul with literal quotations. This is the only situation that would be conclusive. I don't know the answer.

Celsus never quotes Paul. But this is irrelevant because Celsus didn't have a first hand knowledge of the Bible. He mentions only common Christian beliefs. We cannot expect that he quoted the Pauline epistles.
English translations of Justin Martyr are easy to find online here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

I believe Dejudge was talking about the Dialogue with Trypho, which is here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

I just had a quick look at the Dialogue and found this bit where Justin is saying something that sounds very "Pauline" (I'm not sure if it is a direct quote from an epistle) and also quoting some OT Prophets by name:
Quote:
...Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law--namely, Christ--has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shah be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt'). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety...
Justin goes on (and on) quoting OT Prophets directly to support his Christian theology. This theology of his is the same as Paul's, although he doesn't (AFAIK) credit Paul anywhere:
Quote:
...this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed s those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death, who died for this very reason...
Had he read Paul, or just picked up these beliefs from other Christians? I don't know.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 01:49 PM   #1365
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I don't get it. If the epistles considered genuine date from 30 AD to 50 AD or so, then you wouldn't expect him to have heard of the Revelation of John.
Well, if the character Paul did not exist then we wouldn't expect him to have written the epistles.

Again, there is no supporting contemporary historical evidence anywhere that a character called Paul, a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, was a contemporary of Aretas.

No supporting contemporary historical evidence anywhere that a character called Paul a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin preached Christ crucified in the time of Aretas.

No supporting contemporary historical evidence anywhere that a character called Paul a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin wrote letters to anyone anywhere.

Again, there are no NT epistles under anyone's name (Paul or not) that have been dated to 30-50 AD.

Manuscripts of NT Epistles have been dated no earlier than the mid 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...stament_papyri
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 02:41 PM   #1366
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As I pointed out, it would have made much more sense to attribute that detail to Peter who was supposed to have been there at the first Eucharist and who was supposed to have received the commission to found the church.

To invent some other character and a new revelation and new commission as though it was some afterthought just mucks up the narrative.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
You seem not to understand that epistles under the name of Paul are almost universally accepted as forgeries or false attribution.

The Epistles to the Ephesians and Timothy are now considered forgeries.

Wouldn't it just muck things up to invent Epistles to the Ephesians and Timothy from Paul when the people of Ephesus and Timothy himself would not have ever received them and that the supposed Paul, if he was alive, would have denied ever writing to the Ephesians and Timothy?

It took at least 1500 years before it was discovered the Epistles under the name of Paul are a compilation of forgeries and fiction.

If the Epistles to the Ephesians and Timothy are forgeries and falsely attributed to the character Paul then it implies that those Epistles were really written long after the supposed events in the Epistles and that there weren't any Church of Ephesus or person called Timothy since they (and Paul if he did live) would have exposed the Epistles as fake.

The supposed Pauline Epistles have only shown that Paul, all the Churches and Paul's associates were fabricated.

No person (Paul or not) could have written a letter to the Church of Rome before 70 CE when no such thing existed until the 4th century.

Christians cults were not known by the name of the city but by the name of the leader until sometime after the Roman Government took control of Christian cults in the 4th century.

It is just complete non-historical nonsense that a person could have written a letter to the Church of Rome before c 70 CE.

Last edited by dejudge; 7th February 2019 at 02:43 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 04:25 PM   #1367
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
....Justin goes on (and on) quoting OT Prophets directly to support his Christian theology. This theology of his is the same as Paul's, although he doesn't (AFAIK) credit Paul anywhere:

Had he read Paul, or just picked up these beliefs from other Christians? I don't know.
Your post is just bizarre nonsense. If "Justin goes on (and on) quoting OT Prophets directly to support his Christian theology" then it implies he is directly using the OT and not Epistles to Churches to support his theology.


The author admits he used the OT and Memoirs of the Apostles--not Epistles to Churches or from Paul.

The author of Dialogue with Trypho states the names of his sources over a hundred times and we can find those very passages in the books of those very named sources.

Dialogue with Trypho XI
Quote:
Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shah be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?'

And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt')...

Isaiah 51:4-5
Quote:
Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people...

Jeremiah 31.31-32
Quote:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…
It is quite the opposite in the NT Epistles to the Churches, the authors hardly ever reveal their actual sources for their theology. In fact, the authors falsely claimed their teachings came directly from a resurrected dead called Jesus which is total fiction.

Galatians 1. 11-12
Quote:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Anyone who has read the NT Epistles to the Church would easily and quickly realise the authors were really using the OT and known stories about a resurrected Jesus but falsely pretending to have received revelations from the supposed dead.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 05:00 PM   #1368
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,209
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your post is just bizarre nonsense. If "Justin goes on (and on) quoting OT Prophets directly to support his Christian theology" then it implies he is directly using the OT and not Epistles to Churches to support his theology.
No, he uses the OT Prophets to justify his Christian Theology in his dialogue with the Jewish man Trypho. His Christian Theology entails things that are not contained in the OT. At the very least it shows that the same form of "Gentile Christianity" as espoused in Paul's epistles was being followed by people like Justin in the mid 2nd century. At no point does Justin claim to have originated this form of belief, so it must have existed before he wrote his "Dialogue".

Quote:
...
It is quite the opposite in the NT Epistles to the Churches, the authors hardly ever reveal their actual sources for their theology. In fact, the authors falsely claimed their teachings came directly from a resurrected dead called Jesus which is total fiction.
I have no problem with the idea that Paul was lying about his "Road to Damascus" conversion moment, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Quote:
...
Anyone who has read the NT Epistles to the Church would easily and quickly realise the authors were really using the OT and known stories about a resurrected Jesus but falsely pretending to have received revelations from the supposed dead.
Paul was a liar. OK, no problem. I'll go even further and claim that he was lying in service of a particular agenda:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=267096
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 07:16 PM   #1369
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
No, he uses the OT Prophets to justify his Christian Theology in his dialogue with the Jewish man Trypho. His Christian Theology entails things that are not contained in the OT. At the very least it shows that the same form of "Gentile Christianity" as espoused in Paul's epistles was being followed by people like Justin in the mid 2nd century. At no point does Justin claim to have originated this form of belief, so it must have existed before he wrote his "Dialogue".
You only repeat the same nonsense. The very NT Epistles to Churches show that their authors were not the originators of their belief.

Romans 1:8
Quote:
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Galatians 1:23
Quote:
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Romans 16:7
Quote:
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

1 Corinthians 15:9
Quote:
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I have no problem with the idea that Paul was lying about his "Road to Damascus" conversion moment, but that is an entirely different discussion.
The NT Epistles to Churches do not claim anywhere at all that any of their authors was on a road to Damascus, was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice say " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me".

The blinding light on the road to Damascus about Saul/Paul is found in Acts of the Apostles of unknown authorship. See Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.

Even in Acts Saul/Paul was not the originator of Gentile Christian belief.

It is claimed in Acts that three thousand were converted after Peter preached the wonderful works of God to Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes long before Saul/Paul was even converted.


Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Paul was a liar. OK, no problem. I'll go even further and claim that he was lying in service of a particular agenda:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=267096
The NT Epistles to Churches appear to be the product of many liars.

Last edited by dejudge; 7th February 2019 at 07:21 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2019, 08:44 PM   #1370
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,209
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You only repeat the same nonsense. The very NT Epistles to Churches show that their authors were not the originators of their belief.

Romans 1:8

Galatians 1:23

Romans 16:7


1 Corinthians 15:9
Yes, I agreed that Paul was lying about that stuff. I think he was making it up.


Quote:
The NT Epistles to Churches do not claim anywhere at all that any of their authors was on a road to Damascus, was blinded by a bright light and heard a voice say " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me".

The blinding light on the road to Damascus about Saul/Paul is found in Acts of the Apostles of unknown authorship. See Acts 9, Acts 22 and Acts 26.
Yes I know that. I put "Road to Damascus" in quotes for a reason.

Quote:
Even in Acts Saul/Paul was not the originator of Gentile Christian belief.

It is claimed in Acts that three thousand were converted after Peter preached the wonderful works of God to Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes long before Saul/Paul was even converted.
Was Peter preaching against circumcision and keeping the OT Laws of Moses?


Quote:
The NT Epistles to Churches appear to be the product of many liars.
And with that I'm joining CraigB in the there's-no-point club.

Good luck with your useless arguments.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 12:41 AM   #1371
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
English translations of Justin Martyr are easy to find online here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

I believe Dejudge was talking about the Dialogue with Trypho, which is here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

I just had a quick look at the Dialogue and found this bit where Justin is saying something that sounds very "Pauline" (I'm not sure if it is a direct quote from an epistle) and also quoting some OT Prophets by name:


Justin goes on (and on) quoting OT Prophets directly to support his Christian theology. This theology of his is the same as Paul's, although he doesn't (AFAIK) credit Paul anywhere:

Had he read Paul, or just picked up these beliefs from other Christians? I don't know.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to take a look at the epistles now. I assumed Dejudge knew what he was talking about.

Literal Old Testament quotations in a debate with a Jew are logical, as you said. Absence of literal quotations from the New Testament is not significant. Because there are two possibilities at least:

Either Justin didn't know the Pauline epistles or he didn't like them. The argument of silence is only valid when we have a strong indication that the author needed the quote and did not.

Last edited by David Mo; 8th February 2019 at 12:59 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 06:38 AM   #1372
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Unfortunately, I don't have time to take a look at the epistles now. I assumed Dejudge knew what he was talking about.

How absurd!!! You don't have time to examine the Epistles in a thread that deals with the existence of Paul.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Literal Old Testament quotations in a debate with a Jew are logical, as you said. Absence of literal quotations from the New Testament is not significant. Because there are two possibilities at least:

Either Justin didn't know the Pauline epistles or he didn't like them. The argument of silence is only valid when we have a strong indication that the author needed the quote and did not.
You seem not to even know that Dialogue with Trypho is not the only writing attributed to Justin.

There are literal OT quotes in First Apology which was addressed to the Roman Emperor and people of the Roman Empire.


You have also falied to admit one other possibility that the Epistles to the Churches were not yet fabricated n the time of Justin.


It must be noted that Justin mentioned supposed Christians that he did not like and mentioned what they preached.


So-called heretics like Simon Magus to Marcion were mentioned by Justin but nothing at all about the supposed Paul.


In any event, regardless of what Justin liked or disliked he stated that it was the OT and the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...stapology.html
First Apology
'
Quote:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read...

Paul and the Epistles to Churches were not yet fabricated up to the writings of Justin.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 06:45 AM   #1373
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
How absurd!!!
I see nothing's changed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2019, 03:50 PM   #1374
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,457
I just felt a breeze

That'll teach me to post a derivative little joke about inventing Paul.

"Paul" has been a firm construct for two millennia, whether one or more historical Pauls existed or not. The Christianist bosses have always relied on that twisted doctrine to maintain their strength -- a doctrine that amounts to nothing more than BE AS MISERABLE AS YOU CAN AND YOU'LL GET HOLY.

There, another derivative little joke. It is a joke, right, Chrrristanz? Hello? Goodbye.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil

Last edited by sackett; 8th February 2019 at 03:51 PM.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 12:12 AM   #1375
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
How absurd!!! You don't have time to examine the Epistles in a thread that deals with the existence of Paul.


You seem not to even know that Dialogue with Trypho is not the only writing attributed to Justin.

There are literal OT quotes in First Apology which was addressed to the Roman Emperor and people of the Roman Empire.


You have also falied to admit one other possibility that the Epistles to the Churches were not yet fabricated n the time of Justin.


It must be noted that Justin mentioned supposed Christians that he did not like and mentioned what they preached.


So-called heretics like Simon Magus to Marcion were mentioned by Justin but nothing at all about the supposed Paul.


In any event, regardless of what Justin liked or disliked he stated that it was the OT and the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...stapology.html
First Apology
'


Paul and the Epistles to Churches were not yet fabricated up to the writings of Justin.
Thanks for the answer.

I don't see why Justin should quote Paul in his writings. Although I don't have time to review them (of course I know there are some more than the Dialogue with Trypho), I remember that Justin used to quote the Old Testament and classical literature more or less accurately. He almost never quotes the New Testament and the apocryphal gospels (the Gospel of Peter once, if I remember correctly). All quotations are sayings of Jesus that don't appear in Paul's epistles. It is logical because the Pauline Epistles barely mention a saying of Jesus ("Paul's silence," you know). Therefore, the quotations from the Pauline epistles were not relevant to Justin, in case he knew them. We can't know if they aren't quoted either because he wasn't interested or because he didn't know them. In case he didn't know them we can't tell if they existed or not.

That is why Justin's silence on the Pauline epistles does not mean that they didn't exist in his time. It is inconclusive.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 07:53 AM   #1376
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Thanks for the answer.

I don't see why Justin should quote Paul in his writings. Although I don't have time to review them (of course I know there are some more than the Dialogue with Trypho), I remember that Justin used to quote the Old Testament and classical literature more or less accurately. He almost never quotes the New Testament and the apocryphal gospels (the Gospel of Peter once, if I remember correctly). All quotations are sayings of Jesus that don't appear in Paul's epistles. It is logical because the Pauline Epistles barely mention a saying of Jesus ("Paul's silence," you know). Therefore, the quotations from the Pauline epistles were not relevant to Justin, in case he knew them. We can't know if they aren't quoted either because he wasn't interested or because he didn't know them. In case he didn't know them we can't tell if they existed or not.

That is why Justin's silence on the Pauline epistles does not mean that they didn't exist in his time. It is inconclusive.
Your response only exposes your lack of knowledge of the contents of the writings attributed to Justin.

Justin could not have quoted from the New Testament when no such thing existed in his time.

You keep forgetting that the author of First Apology stated that it was 12 illiterate Apostles who preached the stories of Jesus to every race in the world.

You keep forgetting that Justin stated his stories of Jesus was derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Such claims show that the author knew nothing at all of a character called Paul who was supposedly one of the early evangelists who preached the stories of Jesus around the Roman Empire and knew nothing of his Epistles to Churches.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...stapology.html

Quote:
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God..
Quote:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read...
If the stories about Pau's evangelism in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Churches were already known and circulated in the very Churches for about one hundred years then we would expect Justin to at least acknowledge Paul as a significant early evangelist.


The writings attributed to Justin and multiple 2nd century writings have exposed that the stories of Paul in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Churches were fabricated very late or at least sometime after the late 2nd century.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 12:57 AM   #1377
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Justin could not have quoted from the New Testament when no such thing existed in his time.
This is your private opinion. This opinion is strongly subjective. It is not backed by a waste majority of experts, including mythicists as Richard Carrier and others.

Furthermore, you don't follow my argument. I am speaking of literal quotings. There are some in Justine that correspond to synoptic gospels. There are some coincidences that are not literal and other Justin's claims that are different to the gospels in their current version. This is not significant in any sense. If Justin was quoting from memory it be normal that he included some personal variances and other inaccurances.

I repeat: It is normal that Pauline epistles --if existed-- were not quoted by Justin because they don't tell the stories and deeds of Jesus that Justin is commenting. Please, take note of my comments and respond to them. We will avoid inutile explanations.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You keep forgetting that the author of First Apology stated that it was 12 illiterate Apostles who preached the stories of Jesus to every race in the world.

You keep forgetting that Justin stated his stories of Jesus was derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Such claims show that the author knew nothing at all of a character called Paul (...)

Books and other writings of antiquity were not usually written by their authors, but by professional scribes. There is no contradiction between saying that the apostles were illiterate and that there was a "Memory of the Apostles.

What you say does not prove that the Pauline Epistles did not exist in Justin's time or that he did not know them. It is likely that in Justin's time there was a great variety of texts and oral accounts about Jesus that we do not know, beside to the current gospels, perhaps in a different version.

It always surprises me to see how orthodox and mythologists want to draw absolute certainties from this swampy terrain.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:21 AM   #1378
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,515
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post


Paul and the Epistles to Churches were not yet fabricated up to the writings of Justin.
So you say, but none of your "evidence" suggests such a conclusion.

For example we wouldn't expect Paul's epistles to be part of the scriptures used in Justin's time if they were from the first century

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 02:00 AM   #1379
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is your private opinion. This opinion is strongly subjective ...

Furthermore, you don't follow my argument ...

Please, take note of my comments and respond to them. We will avoid inutile explanations.
These sound observations and reasonable requests from you, addressed to dejudge, are completely hopeless.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP> Edited for rule 12

Last edited by zooterkin; 14th February 2019 at 02:35 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:45 AM   #1380
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is your private opinion. This opinion is strongly subjective. It is not backed by a waste majority of experts, including mythicists as Richard Carrier and others.
How absurd can you be?! Please, is your opinion not subjective??

My argument is based on existing writings of antiquity not on the assumed opinion of people today.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Furthermore, you don't follow my argument. I am speaking of literal quotings. There are some in Justine that correspond to synoptic gospels. There are some coincidences that are not literal and other Justin's claims that are different to the gospels in their current version. This is not significant in any sense. If Justin was quoting from memory it be normal that he included some personal variances and other inaccurances.

First of all you have already admitted you don't have the time to examine writings attributed to Justin so your argument is directly based on ignorance.

You have no idea that Justin almost always identified sources for his belief and stories of Jesus.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

I repeat: It is normal that Pauline epistles --if existed-- were not quoted by Justin because they don't tell the stories and deeds of Jesus that Justin is commenting. Please, take note of my comments and respond to them. We will avoid inutile explanations.

You only continue to expose your ignorance of the writings attributed to Justin.


You seem to have no idea that both the writings attributed to Justin and Paul tell stories of a character called Jesus Christ.

Both the supposed Justin and Paul commented on the resurrection, the last supper and the seconding coming.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Books and other writings of antiquity were not usually written by their authors, but by professional scribes. There is no contradiction between saying that the apostles were illiterate and that there was a "Memory of the Apostles.
Was the author of the so-called Pauline Epistles regarded as one of the illiterate Apostles?

Could an illiterate Apostle Paul write personal letters to friends and fellow-believers or did he engage a professional scribe?
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What you say does not prove that the Pauline Epistles did not exist in Justin's time or that he did not know them. It is likely that in Justin's time there was a great variety of texts and oral accounts about Jesus that we do not know, beside to the current gospels, perhaps in a different version.
What you say proves nothing.

Your assumptions based on ignorance or lack of knowledge about what was likely or not is not evidence at all.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

It always surprises me to see how orthodox and mythologists want to draw absolute certainties from this swampy terrain.
You seem to have no idea what an argument is!!!

The argument, theory, hypothesis that the character called Paul and the Epistles to Churches were fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd century is based directly on the existing evidence in multiple writings of antiquity.

The argument that Paul existed is directly based Acts of the Apostles universally accepted as fiction.

Last edited by dejudge; 10th February 2019 at 06:48 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 07:23 AM   #1381
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
How absurd can you be?! ... your argument is directly based on ignorance... You have no idea ... You only continue to expose your ignorance ... You seem to have no idea ... What you say proves nothing ... Your assumptions based on ignorance ... You seem to have no idea what an argument is!!!
You're either tolerant to a fault, or a mere masochist, to consent to put up with the treatment dejudge sees fit to mete out to people trying to discuss this question with him. Nothing is worth this.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 08:09 AM   #1382
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you say, but none of your "evidence" suggests such a conclusion.

For example we wouldn't expect Paul's epistles to be part of the scriptures used in Justin's time if they were from the first century

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Your statement is highly illogical!!!!

Based on your absurdity Justin would not be expected to use the so-called revelation of John to show his belief about the second coming since the revelation of John is claimed to have been written in the 1st century.


Dialogue with Trypho
Quote:
..And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.

Again, based on your clueless reasoning, Justin would not be expected to use the so-called Memoirs of the Apostles to show what he believed about the character called Jesus because the "Memoirs of the Apostles" was supposedly written by people who lived in the 1st century.


First Apology
Quote:
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone..

Justin not only mentioned the supposed 1st century Apostles and their writings but also 1st century so-called heretics like Simon Magus and Menander.

First Apology
Quote:
And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him...

It is most significant to note that the Apostles, Simon Magus and Paul are mentioned in Acts of the Apostles but the character called Paul and his supposed letters are nowhere in all the writings attributed to Justin.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 08:35 AM   #1383
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You're either tolerant to a fault, or a mere masochist, to consent to put up with the treatment dejudge sees fit to mete out to people trying to discuss this question with him. Nothing is worth this.
Neither tolerant nor masochist. I just need to practice my English and dejudge is a fun sparring. I don't need to make any effort to answering his silly things.

By the the way, the "mythologist" of my last comment was "mythicist". I hope the meaning of the sentence was clear.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 09:28 AM   #1384
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Neither tolerant nor masochist. I just need to practice my English and dejudge is a fun sparring. I don't need to make any effort to answering his silly things.

By the the way, the "mythologist" of my last comment was "mythicist". I hope the meaning of the sentence was clear.
"Mythicist" is already an ambiguous expression. Webster's dictionary gives it two meanings
Definition of mythicist. 1 : a student or interpreter of myths. 2 : an adherent of the view that apparently supernatural persons or events have their origin in human imagination especially as revealed in myth.
The first of these corresponds to "mythologist", and that is what I understood it to mean. But it hardly matters, given the purpose of your posts, that you are now saying you intended the other meaning.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 02:15 PM   #1385
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,515
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your statement is highly illogical!!!!



Based on your absurdity Justin would not be expected to use the so-called revelation of John to show his belief about the second coming since the revelation of John is claimed to have been written in the 1st century.

That only shows you have no understanding of logic or how evidence works.

"You would not expect X" is not the same as "X can't happen"

In the context of evidence, it does not mean "You would expect X not to happen", nor does it mean "X is unlikely".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 10th February 2019 at 02:46 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:41 PM   #1386
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
That only shows you have no understanding of logic or how evidence works.

"You would not expect X" is not the same as "X can't happen"

In the context of evidence, it does not mean "You would expect X not to happen", nor does it mean "X is unlikely".
Again, you don't make any sense.

You are now hopelessly contradicting yourself.

You have no idea what evidence means or else you would not have made the ridiculous claim that "we wouldn't expect Paul's epistles to be part of the scriptures used in Justin's time if they were from the first century" when you say "in the context of evidence, it does not mean "You would expect X not to happen", nor does it mean "X is unlikely".
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 11:51 PM   #1387
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
"Mythicist" is already an ambiguous expression. Webster's dictionary gives it two meanings
Definition of mythicist. 1 : a student or interpreter of myths. 2 : an adherent of the view that apparently supernatural persons or events have their origin in human imagination especially as revealed in myth.
The first of these corresponds to "mythologist", and that is what I understood it to mean. But it hardly matters, given the purpose of your posts, that you are now saying you intended the other meaning.
I was using "mythicist" in the second sense. It is a neologism that not all dictionaries include.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 12:49 AM   #1388
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
First of all you have already admitted you don't have the time to examine writings attributed to Justin so your argument is directly based on ignorance.
It is true. But what I remember of Justine is more than sufficient to debunk your fancies.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You have no idea that Justin almost always identified sources for his belief and stories of Jesus.
Like this one. There is a great deal of debate about what Justin's sources were and whether some passages can be compared to canonical or apocryphal sources. We don't even know exactly what the "Memories of the Apostles" he mentioned were. I would like you to quote these "identified sources" here.
I am speaking of Christian sources, of course. Philosophical or biblical sources are other thing.


Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem to have no idea that both the writings attributed to Justin and Paul tell stories of a character called Jesus Christ.

Both the supposed Justin and Paul commented on the resurrection, the last supper and the seconding coming.

Was the author of the so-called Pauline Epistles regarded as one of the illiterate Apostles?

Could an illiterate Apostle Paul write personal letters to friends and fellow-believers or did he engage a professional scribe?
When Justin says that apostles are illiterate he is speaking of the group that followed Jesus. For example, in the First Apology he sets this clairly:
For a band of twelve men went forth from Jerusalem, and they were common men, not trained in speaking, but by the power of God they testified to every race of mankind that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the Word of God (39)
But later, when he rose from the dead and appeared to them, and taught them to consult the prophecies, in which it was predicted that all these things would happen; and when they had seen him ascending into heaven, and believed on him, and received the power which he sent them from there, and went into every race of men, they taught these things and were known as apostles. (50)
(By the way, this is a correct way of identifying sources).

Even if he knew Paul's writings this one had not any "memoire" of Jesus.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The argument, theory, hypothesis that the character called Paul and the Epistles to Churches were fabricated no earlier than the late 2nd century is based directly on the existing evidence in multiple writings of antiquity.

The argument that Paul existed is directly based Acts of the Apostles universally accepted as fiction.
Please, speak correctly. It is not true that Acts be "universaly" considered a fiction. It is not true that the only evidence of Paul' existence is Acts. It is not true that there is evidence that Paul was an invent of the second century. Your categorical way of speaking is ridiculous and makes you look rather fanatic.

There is no evidence of Paul's existence nor the opposite. Some arguments may be given in a sense or the other.

Last edited by David Mo; 11th February 2019 at 12:52 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:23 AM   #1389
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Dejudge
First of all you have already admitted you don't have the time to examine writings attributed to Justin so your argument is directly based on ignorance.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It is true. But what I remember of Justine is more than sufficient to debunk your fancies.
What I remember is that you admit it is true your argument is directly based on ignorance.



Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

Please, speak correctly. It is not true that Acts be "universaly" considered a fiction. It is not true that the only evidence of Paul' existence is Acts. It is not true that there is evidence that Paul was an invent of the second century. Your categorical way of speaking is ridiculous and makes you look rather fanatic.

There is no evidence of Paul's existence nor the opposite. Some arguments may be given in a sense or the other.
You are contradicting yourself. You have debunked your own fancies.

You just claim that " It is not true that the only evidence of Paul' existence is Acts" but then state that "There is no evidence of Paul's existence nor the opposite."

You don't make any sense at all.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:12 AM   #1390
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,900
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What I remember is that you admit it is true your argument is directly based on ignorance.

You don't remember correctly. I said that I had not time to take a look "now". I read Justin's writings some time ago. His two apologies are in my library. Therefore I can quote him accuratelly.


Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You are contradicting yourself. You have debunked your own fancies.

You just claim that " It is not true that the only evidence of Paul' existence is Acts" but then state that "There is no evidence of Paul's existence nor the opposite."
There is no evidence of Paul's existence in one sense or the other. But if one wants to call some arguments "evidence", it is not true that the only "evidence" that those who defend his existence have presented is Acts. That they are true "evidences" is something else.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.