|
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. |
6th February 2019, 10:05 PM | #1361 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,328
|
|
__________________
'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 |
|
7th February 2019, 12:13 AM | #1362 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
7th February 2019, 12:26 AM | #1363 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
7th February 2019, 01:49 AM | #1364 |
Nasty Brutish and Tall
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
|
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:
Quote:
|
7th February 2019, 01:49 PM | #1365 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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 |
7th February 2019, 02:41 PM | #1366 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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. |
7th February 2019, 04:25 PM | #1367 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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:
Isaiah 51:4-5
Quote:
Jeremiah 31.31-32
Quote:
Galatians 1. 11-12
Quote:
|
7th February 2019, 05:00 PM | #1368 |
Nasty Brutish and Tall
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
|
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:
Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=267096 |
7th February 2019, 07:16 PM | #1369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:9
Quote:
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. The NT Epistles to Churches appear to be the product of many liars. |
7th February 2019, 08:44 PM | #1370 |
Nasty Brutish and Tall
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,691
|
Yes, I agreed that Paul was lying about that stuff. I think he was making it up.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Good luck with your useless arguments. |
8th February 2019, 12:41 AM | #1371 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
8th February 2019, 06:38 AM | #1372 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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 '
Quote:
Paul and the Epistles to Churches were not yet fabricated up to the writings of Justin. |
8th February 2019, 06:45 AM | #1373 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
8th February 2019, 03:50 PM | #1374 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,843
|
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. |
__________________
When I spoke out against the bullies, they called me woke. When I lashed them with a length of chain, they called me sir. |
|
9th February 2019, 12:12 AM | #1375 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
9th February 2019, 07:53 AM | #1376 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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:
Quote:
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. |
10th February 2019, 12:57 AM | #1377 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. 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. |
10th February 2019, 01:21 AM | #1378 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,971
|
|
__________________
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army |
|
10th February 2019, 06:45 AM | #1380 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. |
10th February 2019, 07:23 AM | #1381 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
10th February 2019, 08:09 AM | #1382 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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:
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:
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:
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. |
10th February 2019, 08:35 AM | #1383 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. |
10th February 2019, 09:28 AM | #1384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
"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. |
10th February 2019, 02:15 PM | #1385 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,971
|
|
__________________
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army |
|
10th February 2019, 06:41 PM | #1386 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
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". |
10th February 2019, 11:51 PM | #1387 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
11th February 2019, 12:49 AM | #1388 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
It is true. But what I remember of Justine is more than sufficient to debunk your fancies.
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. 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)(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. 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. |
11th February 2019, 04:23 AM | #1389 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
Originally Posted by Dejudge
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. |
12th February 2019, 12:12 AM | #1390 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|