”hakeem” wrote: Now I hope you realise that You have admitted your sources are not credible.
I am not sure you understood what I was trying to say. The purpose of my previous post was to try to get you to present your case.
”hakeem” wrote:Michael BG wrote:”hakeem” wrote:
The version of the Jesus story in the short gMark predates …the Pauline Epistles.
This is an interesting idea, but I am not sure you have presented a convincing argument.
Whether or not you find my argument interesting or convincing you will not ever be able to show any historical evidence that Paul actually existed in the time of Aretas and wrote Epistles before gMark or before c 70 CE.
I was not trying to argue that Paul’s Epistles were written before Mark’s gospel. My point is that you haven’t presented a case for Mark’s gospel being older than Paul’s Epistles. When I write I think this is an interesting idea, I mean just that, I am interested in this idea and would like you to present the best case you can for this theory.
”hakeem” wrote:”hakeem” wrote:
Paul and the Epistles are very late fabrications---invented after "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.
This is also an interesting idea.
I assume that you must believe that there are at least two groupings of fabricated Pauline Epistles – those considered by most scholars as authentic and those considered by most scholars to be questionable.
All Scholars have no historical evidence that any Epistle under the name of Paul are authentic. There are no such thing as authentic Pauline letters.
I think you have misunderstood me. The point I was trying to make was that scholars see at least two different authors of the Pauline Epistles. Therefore for your theory to be correct there is one author who fabricated what most scholars consider the “authentic” letters and another one or more fabricators of the other letters attributed to Paul.
”hakeem” wrote:Michael BG wrote:Your case should start with presenting the earliest mention of these items.
Clement of Rome – you seem to think this is later than 95 CE. You need to present the case for why you think this. (I think I can be convinced)
Again, you seem not to understand the fundamental historical problems with Clement. Clement could not have written any letter at 95 CE if he was already dead or was not bishop at that time.
Christian writings claim Clement was bishop of Rome around c 68-78.
In addition, the supposed letter of Clement is not historical evidence that Paul actually existed and actually wrote Epistles to Churches or that the Epistles were written before gMark.
Please can you present the Christian writings which claim that Clement died c 78 CE.
If 1 Clement was written c 95 this is evidence that the letters of Paul were known then. Please present your evidence that it was written later than this, and when it was written.
”hakeem” wrote:Michael BG wrote:Ignatius of Antioch – you seem to think this is later than 107 CE. You need to present the case for why you think this. (I think I can be convinced)
Ignatius is useless to detemine if Paul was an actual figure of history. Ignatius believed the Holy Ghost was historical and was the father of Jesus.
Are you conceding that the letters of Ignatius were written before 117 CE?
Please can you give the quotations where Ignatius writes these things?
”hakeem” wrote:Michael BG wrote:By the time of Marcion (c 150 CE) it is generally accepted a Lucan version of the gospel existed and versions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
Christian and non-Christian writings contradict your claim.
Aristides mentioned stories of Jesus but not Paul and the Epistles.
Justin mentioned stories of Jesus called Gospels but never mentioned Paul and the Epistles.
Celsus mentioned stories of Jesus but never mentioned Paul and the Epistles.
The first writer to mention Marcion did not mention Paul or the Epistles.
Aristides of Athens Apologyis is normally dated to c 140 CE. In Kay’s translation I only found this:
Take, then, their writings, and read therein (XVI)
there are found in their other writings things which are hard to utter and difficult for one to narrate (XVII)
He does not mention either gospels or epistles and if therefore not a witness to either, but it is possible he is talking about two different types of writings.
Justin Martyr (c 156 CE) has memoirs of the apostles or gospels but does not call them, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Do you quote Dialogue with Trypho 106 as evidence of the existence of the gospel of Mark?
and when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder
It is possible he didn’t know Mark (3:16-17) but a different gospel. I think Cassels proposes that the “Memoirs of the Apostles” is the title of the book Justin is quoting from.
Dialogue with Trypho 95 in the same way is based on Gal 3:10, 13,
"For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' … But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, … If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, … as if He were accursed, …
Gal 3:10, 13
[10]For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."
…
[13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree"
Wikipedia suggests that there are references in the works of Justin to Romans, 1 Corthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. If you know which parts are being referred to, please can you quote them and make out the case that no knowledge of the relevant Pauline Epistles are needed?
We do not have Celsus’ works only quotes from them. Origen wrote in the third century (c. 248). Where would you expect Celsus to quote from Paul? Does he quote from Mark’s gospel?
Who is the first author to mention Marcion?
What is your case that Tertullian and Epiphanius fabricated the idea that Marcion had ten letters which were attributed to Paul?
”hakeem” wrote:You need to get historical evidence to show that the so-called Pauline letters were written before gMark. I am sure that you will not ever be able to do so.
I don’t understand why you think this. All I have stated is that there is no evidence that the gospel of Mark existed before the Pauline Epistles. My point being that the only evidence we have is that by the time of Marcion (c 150) there was a “gospel” and 10 letters attributed to Paul.
If you have any evidence that the gospel of Mark was in existence before 132 CE I would be very interested in seeing it, because some people have suggested that all the gospels were first written after the Bar Kkhba War (132-36).