Patristics BELIEVED Paul Had a Written Gospel --- So What?

[robert j]

It’s important to distinguish between tradition and historical truths.

I believe it is entirely expected that the mid-late 2nd C. (and later) Church Fathers would believe that Paul had access to a written synoptic-like gospel. And like many still do today, they mistakenly read Paul through the lens of the synoptic gospels.

Did they really know that Paul that had a written gospel? No. Well maybe they did in Stephan Huller’s world ---- but not for those willing to see the extreme and inherent weaknesses in the patristic sources, as well as the textual, literary evolution of the synoptic gospels over time.

From the perspective of 2nd C. church tradition, with a human Jesus that had died at the hands of the Romans in the early 1st C., and whose disciples and their companions wrote accounts of his ministry, it would be expected for them to think that Paul, a self-admitted late-comer to the early movement, would have had access to at least one of these gospels, these accounts of Jesus. Stands to reason.

That was just church tradition, the party line. The Church Fathers are known liars --- that is well established. They were also adamant polemicists --- aggressively attacking --- saying whatever was necessary to denounce heretical doctrines (i.e. different from theirs). And they apparently wrote with the primary purpose of promoting their own “true” faith and the early-catholic doctrines.

Anyone trying to use the patristic materials to reconstruct historical truths is faced with the Herculean task of separating truths from lies. The results are merely broad speculation about historical truths based on a long series of decisions that can’t help but support one’s pre-existing point of view.

The results of such efforts may accurately represent late 2nd C. proto-orthodox church traditions --- no more.

robert j.

[Stephan Huller]

better than exclusively listening to ideas of people at the forum. lot of kooks. at least it makes the conversations grounded in something other than twin poles of "belief" disguised as "scholarship" and "hate" disguised as "probative inquiry"

[outhouse]

Anyone trying to use the patristic materials to reconstruct historical truths is faced with the Herculean task of separating truths from lies.


.

Actually they are not.

Cultural and social anthropology dictate truth, and it is easy to strip away the mythology from theology and rhetoric, and then place the foundation of the legends in context.

Your going about this backwards in a way no credible research is done. They don't put the book first, and then and try to fit anthropology around it. Its juts the opposite.


We don't know most of the details, but were not blind either.

[outhouse]

The Church Fathers are known liars ---


.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Each one stands on his own merits or actions. They cannot all be labeled as such, you only reduce your own credibility by such falsehoods.

Ignorance, desperation, or dishonesty I don't really care. These early church fathers wrote using rhetoric and mythology which was normal and accepted practices of the time period.

Giving you a chance here, can you provide credible sources that all church fathers are liars?????????????????????????

[robert j]

The Church Fathers are known liars ---


.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Each one stands on his own merits or actions. They cannot all be labeled as such, you only reduce your own credibility by such falsehoods.

Ignorance, desperation, or dishonesty I don't really care. These early church fathers wrote using rhetoric and mythology which was normal and accepted practices of the time period.

Giving you a chance here, can you provide credible sources that all church fathers are liars?????????????????????????

Without getting into a debate over the term “liar”, someone providing information with the intent of giving the wrong impression fits the bill. And to be clear, I didn’t say, as you state, that they ALL lied. Some later writers apparently passed on material from their predecessors, and may have even believed it to be true. But to your objection, here’s an example from two well-known patristics --- an example where a reasonably honest person would outright reject the concept rather than subject it to writing.

Justin cleverly implied that Marcion practiced cannibalism (First Apology, 1.26). Tertullian was more explicit. Tertullian wrote of Marcion’s people,

“The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts … Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there … Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. …” (Adv Marc, 1.1.3-5).

If you choose to see honesty in these statements of these writers --- if you accept that Marcion’s people in Pontus enjoyed medium rare prime rib of mom and dad along with BBQ lamb chops --- well, fine and dandy. I say they lied.

[Stephan Huller]

the question isn't whether they lied. Everyone lies and lies more than they tell the truth about important things. The question is what are the options for making sense of the development of earliest Christianity once you exclude the testimony of the Church Fathers. It would seem to me at least that once you erase the earliest witnesses to Christianity you are left with the kind of nutbar theories that float around this forum. In other words, anything goes and since Robert j is a promoter or at a sympathizer with said 'nutbar theories' his desire to eliminate the testimony of Patristic sources has less to do with eliminating uncertainties associated with their testimony as it is to 'open the field' to nutbars such as himself.

The reality is that even if the Church Fathers could be demonstrated to have committed ever grievous sin known to mankind they are 'closest to the fire' as it were. One doesn't have to love them to recognize their value to the study of earliest Christianity - even if we have to figure out ways to get around the inherent bias associated with their testimony. How we do that, and whether we successfully 'get around' that bias is an open question. But if a known racist was the only witness to a murder of a black person and we somehow get our hands on correspondences he had with other racists over the course of his life, it would be hard to argue that that testimony - in spite of the problematic bias associated with the only witness - would be ignored by prosecutors.

Everyone would agree that we would have to go through that testimony with a fine tooth comb except of course for Robert j ...

[robert j]

A “nutbar? What do you think, a Payday, Almond Joy, Big Hunk?

Once again Stephan Huller resorts to the lowest form of debate --- name-calling.

[Stephan Huller]

no not naming calling. labelling

[outhouse]

The Church Fathers are known liars ---


.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.


Each one stands on his own merits or actions. They cannot all be labeled as such, you only reduce your own credibility by such falsehoods.

Ignorance, desperation, or dishonesty I don't really care. These early church fathers wrote using rhetoric and mythology which was normal and accepted practices of the time period.

Giving you a chance here, can you provide credible sources that all church fathers are liars?????????????????????????

Without getting into a debate over the term “liar”, someone providing information with the intent of giving the wrong impression fits the bill. And to be clear, I didn’t say, as you state, that they ALL lied. Some later writers apparently passed on material from their predecessors, and may have even believed it to be true. But to your objection, here’s an example from two well-known patristics --- an example where a reasonably honest person would outright reject the concept rather than subject it to writing.

Justin cleverly implied that Marcion practiced cannibalism (First Apology, 1.26). Tertullian was more explicit. Tertullian wrote of Marcion’s people,

“The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts … Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there … Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. …” (Adv Marc, 1.1.3-5).

If you choose to see honesty in these statements of these writers --- if you accept that Marcion’s people in Pontus enjoyed medium rare prime rib of mom and dad along with BBQ lamb chops --- well, fine and dandy. I say they lied.

That does not make the church father a liar. He could be repeating what he had heard.


This is exactly my point, you don't have a clue who is or is not being truthful here. You just want to discredit these people for your own personal agenda. Shame on you.

[outhouse]

robertJ could you read up on this before posting unsubstantiated rhetoric?


http://www.academia.edu/787977/Eating_P ... nd_Century