The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem »

pavurcn wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:09 am
hakeem wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:09 am
You cannot show me that Paul and the Epistles are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Pliny the Younger, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, Municius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Arnobius, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, 1 Peter, Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Paul and the Epistles were manufactured.
1. Why would you expect Paul's letters to be universally known and given scriptural or high status so soon? The emphasis was on Jesus Christ and the Word, not on Paul. Paul's letters were not collected, circulated, and given their great importance till a later date, after the original eyewitnesses died off and the communities were growing and there was need for some authoritative guidance...Just as we should expect. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 106 / 107) already reveres Paul.
If the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before 70 CE and directly to Churches in the Roman Empire then it is not expected to take over a 100 years for the Epistles to be known or given importance.

In addition, it is also claimed Paul travelled around the Roman Empire and preached the Gospel.

It is just completely bizarre to claim letters from a supposed early founder of Christianity to the Churches would not be collected, not be circulated and not be given great importance by the very Churches which he supposedly started.

In a supposed letter of Ignatius it is implied the author knew all the Epistles of Paul.

Ignatius to the Ephesians
You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
Now, if the so-called Pauline letter to the Ephesians was fabricated and falsely attributed to Paul then Ignatius Ephesian Epistle is not credible.
2. Why would someone like Pliny the Elder be referring to something that probably had not yet been collected yet, much less widely circulated?
Why would Pliny mention the Essenes and not mention Jesus, Paul or Christians?
3. There are many books known to have existed at that time that were not cited by the writers you mention. Non-mention is not equivalent to non-existence.
Non-mention is not equivalent to existence.

Things which have no existence will not be mentioned.

The argument for non-existence is always suppported by non-mention.
There is still no evidence of fabrication. The traditional picture is a fully coherent one.
Even people who claim that there are authentic Pauline letters admit that some were fabricated and falsely attributed to Paul.

The reason why Paul and the Epistles were unknown by Christian and Non-Christian writers was due to the fact that they were manufactured at a late time. All [not some] the so-called Pauline letters were fabricated and falsely attributed to an invented character with a fake conversion.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by pavurcn »

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am
If the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before 70 CE and directly to Churches in the Roman Empire then it is not expected to take over a 100 years for the Epistles to be known or given importance.
It is only 30 years to Ignatius of Antioch, and less time to Clement of Rome.

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am
In addition, it is also claimed Paul travelled around the Roman Empire and preached the Gospel.

It is just completely bizarre to claim letters from a supposed early founder of Christianity to the Churches would not be collected, not be circulated and not be given great importance by the very Churches which he supposedly started.
Christian communities were very small, very widely separated, very lacking in organization. To have all most of the letters collected by the mid 2d c. is quite reasonable. There had to arise a need for the collection first.
hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am In a supposed letter of Ignatius it is implied the author knew all the Epistles of Paul.

Ignatius to the Ephesians
You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
Now, if the so-called Pauline letter to the Ephesians was fabricated and falsely attributed to Paul then Ignatius Ephesian Epistle is not credible.
Paul mentions Ephesus in undisputed or generally accepted letters: 1Cor 15:32; 16:8; 1Tim 1:3; 2Tim 1:18; 4:12. Ignatius used the plural (letters). He may not have the letter to the Ephesians in mind at all. Who knows what else has been lost or what he was remembering? He seems to be recalling plural mentions of Ephesus, and that is what we see.

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am Why would Pliny mention the Essenes and not mention Jesus, Paul or Christians?
The Essenes were hundreds of years older, had a strikingly distinctive ascetical mode of life, and people hear about different things at different times. Christianity had not reached the general celebrity point you assume for it at the time in every literary circle.

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am Even people who claim that there are authentic Pauline letters admit that some were fabricated and falsely attributed to Paul.

The reason why Paul and the Epistles were unknown by Christian and Non-Christian writers was due to the fact that they were manufactured at a late time. All [not some] the so-called Pauline letters were fabricated and falsely attributed to an invented character with a fake conversion.
Why attribute something to a non-existent person? It is more reasonable to believe a celebrity arose and left oral material or writing that might have been elaborated in written form or re-edited or expanded by others.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem »

pavurcn wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:42 am
hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:50 am
If the so-called Pauline Epistles were written before 70 CE and directly to Churches in the Roman Empire then it is not expected to take over a 100 years for the Epistles to be known or given importance.
It is only 30 years to Ignatius of Antioch, and less time to Clement of Rome.
Letters written supposedly by Ignatius and Clement at the end of the 1st century cannot show that Paul actually existed or wrote letters to Churches before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Again, if Paul did not write letters to the Ephesians then the Ignatius mention of Paul is rather useless. Ignatius wrote about fake Paul or some other Paul who wrote to the Ephesians.

Clement is another waste of time. Not even the Church knew when Clement lived or when he was supposed Bishop of Rome.

Some Church writings claim Clement was the first bishop after Peter's death, some say he was second some say he was third and some say he was bishop before Peter was dead.
Some say Clement was bishop immediately after the death of Nero and yet others say he was in the time of Trajan.

Clement is a perfect example of an invented character.

Now, don't forget that every time the order of the Bishopric of Clement is changed the order of the other Bishops will have to altered.

Clement as bishop of Rome is a perfect example of an invented character.


[
Christian communities were very small, very widely separated, very lacking in organization. To have all most of the letters collected by the mid 2d c. is quite reasonable. There had to arise a need for the collection first.
Your claim is baseless. You cannot and never will produce any historical evidence to show that there were Pauline letters and Christian communities which were very small and very widely separated in the 1st century.


Paul mentions Ephesus in undisputed or generally accepted letters: 1Cor 15:32; 16:8; 1Tim 1:3; 2Tim 1:18; 4:12. Ignatius used the plural (letters). He may not have the letter to the Ephesians in mind at all. Who knows what else has been lost or what he was remembering? He seems to be recalling plural mentions of Ephesus, and that is what we see.
The Ignatius letter states that Paul mention the Ephesians in ALL his Epistles---- The statement is false.

Your statement is not credible.

1 and 2 Timothy are not generally accepted as undisputed.

The Essenes were hundreds of years older, had a strikingly distinctive ascetical mode of life, and people hear about different things at different times. Christianity had not reached the general celebrity point you assume for it at the time in every literary circle.
You cannot present a shred of historical evidence to show that there was a Christian cult with any letter of Paul in the 1st century.
Why attribute something to a non-existent person? It is more reasonable to believe a celebrity arose and left oral material or writing that might have been elaborated in written form or re-edited or expanded by others.
Why attribute something to the Holy Ghost?? Why would Christian writings state their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin if it was a known lie?

It is without doubt that Christian writings contain invented characters and events.

The conversion of Paul was manufactured and so were the claims that he heard from Jesus after the resurrection.
There was never any person called Paul who heard or saw Jesus after the non-historical resurrection.
Paul and the Epistles were fabricated.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by pavurcn »

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:18 pm The conversion of Paul was manufactured and so were the claims that he heard from Jesus after the resurrection.
There was never any person called Paul who heard or saw Jesus after the non-historical resurrection.
Paul and the Epistles were fabricated.

You still present no evidence at all that the letters were fabricated. Who did this? When? Where did they meet? Where is the documentary proof of the fabrication? Where is the attestation made? You cannot present a shred of evidence for these things.

Strange, because you seem to have such a high standard for proof for others...You just don't apply this standard to your own arguments.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax »

hakeem wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:18 pm
There was never any person called Paul who heard or saw Jesus after the non-historical resurrection.
Paul and the Epistles were fabricated.
Ok. Why?

Further, if Paul didn't start everything rolling, Who did? In other words how did Christianity begin?
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Michael BG »

”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.
”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.

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)

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)

Papias is the earliest reference to Mark, but he is being quoted by Eusebius, a most untrustworthy witness, and it is generally accepted that what is stated is no true, that Mark did not write his gospel just from talking to Peter.

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.

If the evidence is that the Pauline Epistles existed at the same time as the first gospels for your idea to convince you need to present the case why Mark is earlier than the Epistles. I am not sure such a case can be presented.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem »

Michael BG wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:32 pm
”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.

It is a fact that the story in Acts was fabricated where Saul/Paul talked to the resurrected non-historical Jesus after being blinded by a bright light.

The story in the so-called Pauline letters was fabricated where it is claimed Paul and over 500 persons were seen of the resurrected non-historical Jesus.

Paul and the supposed Pauline letters are fabrications.
”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.

The earliest manuscript of the so-called Pauline letters [Papyri 46] were written by multiple persons no earlier than the mid 2nd century.
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.
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.
Papias is the earliest reference to Mark, but he is being quoted by Eusebius, a most untrustworthy witness, and it is generally accepted that what is stated is no true, that Mark did not write his gospel just from talking to Peter.
Now I hope you realise that You have admitted your sources are not credible.
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 author of gMatthew used gMark or his sources but not Pauline teachings.

The first writer to mention Marcion did not mention Paul or the Epistles.
If the evidence is that the Pauline Epistles existed at the same time as the first gospels for your idea to convince you need to present the case why Mark is earlier than the Epistles. I am not sure such a case can be presented.
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.

The short gMark must have preceded all Gospels and Epistles with claims of post resurrection visits by Jesus.

In the short gMark no-one was visited by the resurrected Jesus but by the time of the Pauline letters the number of people was over 500 hundred..
Edward M.
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:05 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Edward M. »

Hakeem,
Do you believe Polycarp’s letter circa 120-140 where he mentions Paul’s letters is authentic?
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Michael BG »

”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).
Post Reply