Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[Shermana]

As long as you imagine well.

The question dictates the answer.

I use all the sources at my disposal to reconstruct the best possible understanding of various episodes in history.

Interesting, considering all the ones you throw out, you have nothing left but Clement, and he doesn't even quote from Paul's epistles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Interesting, considering all the ones you throw out, you have nothing left but Clement, and he doesn't even quote from Paul's epistles.

I agree that Clement is completely useless for the question we're asking, and so is every other Christian writer, theologian, or "historian." Everyone who wrote after 100 CE is useless, and none of them address the question of when Christianity separated from Judaism - at least in the sense that we're asking. All of the Christian writers that wrote between 150-415CE had a pressing theological bias that sought to unite Judaism with Christianity. Because of this bias, nothing can be used from these writers to answer our question.

The answer lies in a careful study of Judaism from 1st CE - 1st BCE, the time when the earliest Christian documents appear. This study will show that all early Christian writings only pretend to be a continuance of Judaism.

 

[Shermana]

I agree that Clement is completely useless for the question we're asking, and so is every other Christian writer, theologian, or "historian." Everyone who wrote after 100 CE is useless, and none of them address the question of when Christianity separated from Judaism - at least in the sense that we're asking. All of the Christian writers that wrote between 150-415CE had a pressing theological bias that sought to unite Judaism with Christianity. Because of this bias, nothing can be used from these writers to answer our question.

The answer lies in a careful study of Judaism from 1st CE - 1st BCE, the time when the earliest Christian documents appear. This study will show that all early Christian writings only pretend to be a continuance of Judaism.

Explain in detail your last sentence.

So we've established that you throw out ALL writings of the early church, yet you claim you examine all the sources to make an accurate reconstruction. We've established that the Romans considered the original Jewish sect no different than other Jews. We've established that Marcion appears to be the first major anti-Judaizer known about, and also, coincidentally, the first person who quotes Paul's epistles.

Why do you suppose, that Marcion gives the first accounts of Paul's epistles?

Wait, did you say that they wanted to UNITE Christianity with Judaism? What school are you going to? There was a movement to SEPARATE Judaism from Christianity. Can you please provide a source to back your claim? The Roman Church had to OUTLAW Sabbath observance with threat of death.

I like the fact that you accuse early church fathers of a pressing theological bias, Like Iraneus for example? I can only imagine how that accounts with your own beliefs.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Explain in detail your last sentence.

So we've established that you throw out ALL writings of the early church, yet you claim you examine all the sources to make an accurate reconstruction. We've established that the Romans considered the original Jewish sect no different than other Jews. We've established that Marcion appears to be the first major anti-Judaizer known about, and also, coincidentally, the first person who quotes Paul's epistles.

Why do you suppose, that Marcion gives the first accounts of Paul's epistles?

I like the fact that you accuse early church fathers of a pressing theological bias, I can only imagine how that accounts with your own beliefs.

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant to the question. Marcion wrote long after the separation between Judaism and Christianity.

My beliefs are irrelevant to the question, as are all the opinions of later Christian theologians.

Maricon did play a great role in this bias, and I was specifically thinking of his Christian polemists. Because of Marcion, the polemists could not allow any separation between Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Shermana]

I really don't understand your reply, the same Polemics that Marcion espoused against practices of Jewish Law were later espoused by other Church Fathers as the Orthodox movement became more and more gentile.

Once again, the Romans didn't consider there to be any difference between the Jewish Sect known as "Christians" and other Jews.

And I suppose one day it's possible we may find evidence of another who quotes from Paul's epistles earlier than Marcion, but I think its interesting Justin Martyr never quotes from any of them. On what basis do you conclude that the Pauline epistles are in fact authentic?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I really don't understand your reply, the same Polemics that Marcion espoused against practices of Jewish Law were later espoused by other Church Fathers as the Orthodox movement became more and more gentile.

Once again, the Romans didn't consider there to be any difference between the Jewish Sect known as "Christians" and other Jews.

And I suppose one day it's possible we may find evidence of another who quotes from Paul's epistles earlier than Marcion, but I think its interesting Justin Martyr never quotes from any of them. On what basis do you conclude that the Pauline epistles are in fact authentic?

I can see why you'd be confused.

A critical examination of history must seem like gibberish.

It may be interesting that Justin "never quotes Paul." But he quite obviously has a knowledge of Paul. This is so obvious in studies on Justin that I don't care to give examples. You can find that yourself.

I don't suppose that you've read the apostolic writings. I understand that Marcion is the so-called first person to quote Paul, but we don't even have any extant writings by Marcion -- they are only preserved in the writings of people who hated him. And Marcion didn't quote Paul - he preserved Paul's writings and edited them. Christians before Marcion copied Paul's writings as well. There are several examples of early Christians who use Pauline concepts, phrases, and such without saying "Paul said" - but then again, neither does Marcion.

Now Paul is dated from the Gallio stone, and his epistles are authenticated by the unity in vocabulary, syntax, rhetoric, and so forth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Once again, the Romans didn't consider there to be any difference between the Jewish Sect known as "Christians" and other Jews.

duh... no need to keep repeating the abundantly obvious.

 

[Shermana]

Knowledge of Paul is one thing, quoting his epistles is another. Does it prove that Paul's concepts make him an Apostle by what Justin says about him?

What exactly is a "Pauline" concept that these "Early Christians" write about that you speak of, examples please.

On what basis do you conclude that Paul was a true apostle?

 

[Shermana]

duh... no need to keep repeating the abundantly obvious.

Yes, so that one alone should show that the early Church was pretty much not too different than other Jews except belief in the Moshiach and avoidance of the Pharisee artificial rulings.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Knowledge of Paul is one thing, quoting his epistles is another. Does it prove that Paul's concepts make him an Apostle by what Justin says about him?

What exactly is a "Pauline" concept that these "Early Christians" write about that you speak of, examples please.

On what basis do you conclude that Paul was a true apostle?

Yeah, I agree. But it the difference is completely insignificant, especially when you contrast Marcion (a Christian bishop, btw) was first to quote when many Christian writers obviously knew the same thing. There's no reason at all to marvel at Marcion, a Christian bishop, and in any way think that it's superior to all of the other writings that came before him.

I'm not going to discuss in detail the writers who knew about Paul. Had you read the apostolic fathers, you'd know. It's not like they are difficult to find.

I didn't claim that Paul was a true apostle. This kind of thing is symptomatic of your failure to interpret your sources appropriately.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, so that one alone should show that the early Church was pretty much not too different than other Jews except belief in the Moshiach and avoidance of the Pharisee artificial rulings.

No, it means that the Romans couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews.

I would think that first century Jews understood themselves better than second century Romans.

.... failure to interpret sources ....

 

[Shermana]

No, it means that the Romans couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews.

I would think that first century Jews understood themselves better than second century Romans.

.... failure to interpret sources ....

Why do you suppose the Logical and Meticulous Romans wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60 A.D. era Jews and "Christians"? I'd think it would be a bit unscholarly to assume they were too lazy to see any differences.

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, I agree. But it the difference is completely insignificant, especially when you contrast Marcion (a Christian bishop, btw) was first to quote when many Christian writers obviously knew the same thing. There's no reason at all to marvel at Marcion, a Christian bishop, and in any way think that it's superior to all of the other writings that came before him.

I'm not going to discuss in detail the writers who knew about Paul. Had you read the apostolic fathers, you'd know. It's not like they are difficult to find.

I didn't claim that Paul was a true apostle. This kind of thing is symptomatic of your failure to interpret your sources appropriately.

Well you can't just say "If you've read the Apostolic fathers you'd know what I'm talking about", there is no indication from any of the early writings that Paul kept in conformity to Jesus teachings, one can just as easily conclude he's one of the false preachers whom Jesus warned would even fool the elect...

I really don't understand where you're coming from on the "Marvel at Marcion" thing, I used him as an example of the beginning stages of the friction of the Gentile separation from its Jewish roots.

 

[Otherright]

Oh, it's fine. I just couldn't let you keep calling me a PhD in good conscience.

My profs started calling me Dr. Angellous when I was an undergrad, especially when they were upset. haha

Professionally, or is it bad luck? My best friend got his PhD in biophysics (his BS was RGT) a few years back. We used to call him Dr. Todd and he'd whine like a little girl, "Don't call me that, I'm not finished yet." Now he's one of the World's go to guys on techniques for protein synthesis. He's co-authored several papers, even had one published in Nature.

We're proud of him, but he's still wrong about stuff also.

 

[Otherright]

The answer lies in a careful study of Judaism from 1st CE - 1st BCE, the time when the earliest Christian documents appear. This study will show that all early Christian writings only pretend to be a continuance of Judaism.

I was under the impression that the first Christian writings are dated to 47AD with Thessalonians. What predates Thessalonians?

 

[Shermana]

I was under the impression that the first Christian writings are dated to 47AD with Thessalonians. What predates Thessalonians?

I notice it is difficult to find links that discuss the reason why that date is given, pre 52 A.D.

Schrader and Baur may have good reasons to contest its authenticity.

 

[Otherright]

I notice it is difficult to find links that discuss the reason why that date is given, pre 52 A.D.

Schrader and Baur may have good reasons to contest its authenticity.

That may be. I can accept 47AD, because it fits right into my belief. It actually works better knowing the Gospels are from 55AD with Mark out to 90-105AD with John.

 

[Otherright]

Of course this is because Paul was dead in 67 AD, before at least two of the Gospels were written.

 

[Shermana]

Of course this is because Paul was dead in 67 AD, before at least two of the Gospels were written.

What do you think of the idea that Gospel to the Hebrews was the original Matthew, and that it was written around 40-50? I hear the Didache dating goes to 60.

 

[Otherright]

What do you think of the idea that Gospel to the Hebrews was the original Matthew, and that it was written around 40-50? I hear the Didache dating goes to 60.

Every paper I've seen says that Mark comes first, around 55 AD.