Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 04:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That Justin made it up.

No Jew would ever consider eating flesh or drinking blood. It was an abomination. The apostles did not create "memoirs". "Gospels" were statements of belief for use in worship services.

Justin saying "it is written" does not prove anything. You insist on taking them at their word. Methinks you are really a theist.



How could Justin make up dozens of Gospel quotes which include both what Jesus said and what the narrator of the gospels said unless you are trying to say that Justin Martyr wrote the Gospels himself?

How is it possible that he could quote dozens of identical and verbatim quotes from something he says was "written," and called "Gospels," and with every last quote he makes being found in the current Gospel canon, and it NOT be from a Gospel?

Justin made it up? Seriously? For him to make it up you are basically saying that Justin Martyr is the author of the Gospels, and even then if that were true, WE STILL HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 2ND CENTURY.

Me a theist? Is that some kind of "last resort insult" when the evidence completely and totally destroys your pet and unsupported theories?

No. You are clinging to fringe theories by a hair, and there's nothing you can do to substantiate them.

I have substantiated what I claim over and over, and all you can do is make unsubstantiated claims against it.

That is not pro. Not cool. And most definitely not scholarly.

At least Mark is wide open to accepting evidence and to changing his point of view. He knows that the only way to advance is to stay dynamic.

You are static, and spinning your wheels while going nowhere. Enjoy the view.


I think Bucky is having trouble understanding why it's so important for you to believe the canonical gospels were around in Justin's time (although I may be wrong...Bucky can speak for himself) I don't understand why it's so important to you. Can you tell me?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 09:04 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 08:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unfortunately many old people consider any assertion contrary to their supposedly patronizing infallible, (yet unsupported) assertions as "insults". I have not made one insult. I said "nonsense". That is not an insult, unless one is afflicted by paranoia.
The Q Source is not generally accepted as a "collection of sayings". It was used, IN CONJUNCTION with a book of sayings.
As usual he asserts things, often incorrectly, and assumes we must swallow the crap. He provided not one source, or supporting bit of evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
Lighten up people.
Ummm .. until you can demonstrate some maturity and a smidgen of intellectual honesty, I'm afraid this conversation I am having with Mark will exclude you.

I much prefer to converse on a scholarly level with people who can demonstrate mutual respect, and that is just not happening with you. Aside from that, this is Mark's thread, and I am not going to allow it to be derailed by your poor attitude.

So carry on with you ad hominems, intellectual dishonesty, and immaturity, but understand I will no longer respond.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 09:06 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 04:51 PM)Free Wrote:  How could Justin make up dozens of Gospel quotes which include both what Jesus said and what the narrator of the gospels said unless you are trying to say that Justin Martyr wrote the Gospels himself?

How is it possible that he could quote dozens of identical and verbatim quotes from something he says was "written," and called "Gospels," and with every last quote he makes being found in the current Gospel canon, and it NOT be from a Gospel?

Justin made it up? Seriously? For him to make it up you are basically saying that Justin Martyr is the author of the Gospels, and even then if that were true, WE STILL HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 2ND CENTURY.

Me a theist? Is that some kind of "last resort insult" when the evidence completely and totally destroys your pet and unsupported theories?

No. You are clinging to fringe theories by a hair, and there's nothing you can do to substantiate them.

I have substantiated what I claim over and over, and all you can do is make unsubstantiated claims against it.

That is not pro. Not cool. And most definitely not scholarly.

At least Mark is wide open to accepting evidence and to changing his point of view. He knows that the only way to advance is to stay dynamic.

You are static, and spinning your wheels while going nowhere. Enjoy the view.


I think Bucky is having trouble understanding why it's so important for you to believe the canonical gospels were around in Justin's time (although I may be wrong...Bucky can speak for himself) I don't understand why it's so important to you. Can you tell me?
I responded to that in an earlier post to you. Look back a couple of posts of mine.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 09:51 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 05:46 PM)Free Wrote:  If the wheels were spinning you would know, or at least attempt to learn, that the Q source is a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and does not include the narrative of the gospel authors.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The Q source is NOT a Gospel, but instead it is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What I have shown you cannot come from the Q source, since I have shown you the narrative of the Gospel writer.


You do realise that "Q" is an integral part of both Matthew and Luke?
Yes, but it is not a narrative.

Most people are under the mistaken belief that the Q source represents an original gospel, but it does not. For what they have determined is that it is merely a collection of the sayings of Jesus with no narrative like the gospels have.

That is assuming the Q source ever existed in the first place. For all we know, Mark or Matthew could be the original source.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 09:54 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:04 PM)Free Wrote:  Ummm .. until you can demonstrate some maturity and a smidgen of intellectual honesty, I'm afraid this conversation I am having with Mark will exclude you.

I much prefer to converse on a scholarly level with people who can demonstrate mutual respect, and that is just not happening with you. Aside from that, this is Mark's thread, and I am not going to allow it to be derailed by your poor attitude.

So carry on with you ad hominems, intellectual dishonesty, and immaturity, but understand I will no longer respond.
As I said, paranoia will dictate many interesting things in older people who do not wish to be contradicted.
My "poor attitude" is simply a refusal to accept you unsupported assertions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 10:19 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 08:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Firstly, I think you must agree that NOWHERE does Justin mention the names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is undeniable fact.


That is true, but we both agree that the narrators of the Gospels were not actually named on those Gospels until Papias names both Mark and Matthew as authors around AD 125. Even then, the names were still not written on the texts.

Quote:So Justin doesn't quote "the" gospels. "The" gospels didn't exist in their present form when Justin wrote mid second century.


Not only does he quote them, he names them as Gospels. Have another look below:

Quote:Justin Martyr - First Apology

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels ...


We both know what "memoirs" are, as they indicate a written text. We both know the names of the apostles, and the one we are focusing on is Matthew.

We have no way of knowing if the Gospels that are in their present form are any different than what was available during the 1st and 2nd century. What we do know is that Justin Martyr makes numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of what we see in Matthew, and he makes no quotes that cannot be found in the current canon.

Again, we must ask this very important question:

Q: If Justin was sourcing something other than what is in the current canon, then why do we not see one single instance of anything that is unique to that supposed source?

Quote:There were scores of "gospels" in the second century. Everyone had a go at it. They borrowed bits from each other, from the old testament, and from the teachings of numerous rabbi's, for example Hillel. This is why what Justin wrote is similar to what is in the now canonical gospels.


That's only an assumption, for again Justin does not make one single quote that is unique to an unknown source. All of his quotes regarding Jesus are either verbatim, near verbatim, or paraphrased of something we find in the current canon.

Quote:Your statement that Trypho is quoting the one and only gospel of Matthew is making an unsupported assumption.


When we demonstrate with textual evidence numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of Jesus, and verbatim quotes of the source's narrator, we are by no means making an "unsupported assumption." This premise has demonstrated considerable support.


Quote:"Trypho" ie Justin, was quite capable of naming his source, but he doesn't.


Presuming the name of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were written on the sources as "The Gospel According To ..."

We both know those names were not written on the texts, Mark, so how could Justin "name" his source with any degree of certainty? He merely says that he was in possession of Gospels that were written by the apostles, and then he quotes from them.

Quote:Justin's source was ...we don't know...but whatever it was, someone borrowed it to write bits of Matthew.


Not according to church tradition and textual evidence, which records that Papias lists both Mark and Matthew as writers around AD 125, which is before Justin Martyr. In addition to this, we already agree that it is almost universal that ALL the gospels in the canon were written in the 1st century, and just because they didn't have the names of the authors on them does not mean they were not available.

They were available.

Quote:If you're right and Justin was quoting from canonical Matthew...so what? I'm not sure why you're making an issue of it. Whether Matthew was stitched together early second century (pre Justin) or late second century (post Justin) makes little difference to me, so what's your point?


The point is that you have claimed that the Catholic church edited the Gospels and Paul to reflect interpolations and a re-working to reflect a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified to support your belief that Paul didn't believe his "Yeshua" actually existed.

My aim is to textually demonstrate that your premise is inaccurate and unsupported. After all, if you are going to write about any of this stuff it would only serve you well to be prepared for these types of critiques and affronts.



Re...
"What we do know is that Justin Martyr makes numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of what we see in Matthew, and he makes no quotes that cannot be found in the current canon."

Um....where did you get this from? I have never read that anywhere. Please have a read of this article...
http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm and tell me whether you still have the same opinion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 25-11-2012 11:25 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 08:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Firstly, I think you must agree that NOWHERE does Justin mention the names Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is undeniable fact.

That is true, but we both agree that the narrators of the Gospels were not actually named on those Gospels until Papias names both Mark and Matthew as authors around AD 125. Even then, the names were still not written on the texts.

Quote:So Justin doesn't quote "the" gospels. "The" gospels didn't exist in their present form when Justin wrote mid second century.

Not only does he quote them, he names them as Gospels. Have another look below:

Quote:Justin Martyr - First Apology

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels ...

We both know what "memoirs" are, as they indicate a written text. We both know the names of the apostles, and the one we are focusing on is Matthew.

We have no way of knowing if the Gospels that are in their present form are any different than what was available during the 1st and 2nd century. What we do know is that Justin Martyr makes numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of what we see in Matthew, and he makes no quotes that cannot be found in the current canon.

Again, we must ask this very important question:

Q: If Justin was sourcing something other than what is in the current canon, then why do we not see one single instance of anything that is unique to that supposed source?

Quote:There were scores of "gospels" in the second century. Everyone had a go at it. They borrowed bits from each other, from the old testament, and from the teachings of numerous rabbi's, for example Hillel. This is why what Justin wrote is similar to what is in the now canonical gospels.

That's only an assumption, for again Justin does not make one single quote that is unique to an unknown source. All of his quotes regarding Jesus are either verbatim, near verbatim, or paraphrased of something we find in the current canon.

Quote:Your statement that Trypho is quoting the one and only gospel of Matthew is making an unsupported assumption.

When we demonstrate with textual evidence numerous verbatim and near verbatim quotes of Jesus, and verbatim quotes of the source's narrator, we are by no means making an "unsupported assumption." This premise has demonstrated considerable support.


Quote:"Trypho" ie Justin, was quite capable of naming his source, but he doesn't.

Presuming the name of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were written on the sources as "The Gospel According To ..."

We both know those names were not written on the texts, Mark, so how could Justin "name" his source with any degree of certainty? He merely says that he was in possession of Gospels that were written by the apostles, and then he quotes from them.

Quote:Justin's source was ...we don't know...but whatever it was, someone borrowed it to write bits of Matthew.

Not according to church tradition and textual evidence, which records that Papias lists both Mark and Matthew as writers around AD 125, which is before Justin Martyr. In addition to this, we already agree that it is almost universal that ALL the gospels in the canon were written in the 1st century, and just because they didn't have the names of the authors on them does not mean they were not available.

They were available.

Quote:If you're right and Justin was quoting from canonical Matthew...so what? I'm not sure why you're making an issue of it. Whether Matthew was stitched together early second century (pre Justin) or late second century (post Justin) makes little difference to me, so what's your point?

The point is that you have claimed that the Catholic church edited the Gospels and Paul to reflect interpolations and a re-working to reflect a flesh and blood Jesus who was crucified to support your belief that Paul didn't believe his "Yeshua" actually existed.

My aim is to textually demonstrate that your premise is inaccurate and unsupported. After all, if you are going to write about any of this stuff it would only serve you well to be prepared for these types of critiques and affronts.


Hi Free. I'm repeating myself...but...Justin most definitely DOESN"T QUOTE THE CANONICAL GOSPELS. You have just admitted he doesn't mention Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Therefore, ipse facto, he hasn't quoted them. Get it? You are claiming that his writings are very similar, even the same, as bits of the now canonical gospels, and therefore he's quoting them. I simply disagree. I acknowledge the similarity, but I'm not going to jump to your conclusion for all the reasons I've already mentioned.

Ok....please understand the following. Paul never used the name Yeshua. So I'm not claiming Paul didn't believe in "his" Yeshua....I've got no idea what you mean here.

Yeshua was the Jewish brother of James. He was the leader of the Nazarenes who was executed by the Romans for being a naughty boy. I believe he almost certainly existed (you seem to keep implying I don't think he was a real person).

Where we don't agree is that you (in common with all Christians) think Paul's Christ was Yeshua. I don't. How we got on to Justin I can't remember, and why it's such an issue for you I'm not sure. You seem to somehow think that if Justin quotes from the canonical gospels, Paul thought his Christ was Jesus. Sorry...I may misunderstand you....but I can't follow your trail of thought.

Please tell me why you think Paul's Christ was Yeshua (or Jesus if you prefer)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 09:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I think Bucky is having trouble understanding why it's so important for you to believe the canonical gospels were around in Justin's time (although I may be wrong...Bucky can speak for himself) I don't understand why it's so important to you. Can you tell me?

I responded to that in an earlier post to you. Look back a couple of posts of mine.



Maybe if you reworded it a little I might get what you're saying.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 02:07 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(24-11-2012 10:32 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Free....the fact remains Paul rambled on about his "Christ" and said virtually nothing about a once living person. If he thought his "Christ" was a recently departed once living person he would have documented details about that person...but he doesn't!

I have pointed out many of those details you keep saying don't exist. Again ...

1. The Last Supper. (1Cor 11:34 - 36)
2. Jesus was betrayed. (1Cor 11:33)
3. Jesus was in the presence of Pontius Pilate. (1Tim 6:13)
4. Jesus was crucified. (Numerous places)
5. Jesus was resurrected. (Numerous places)
6. Baptism by water. (Various places)
7. Miracles being performed as per Gospel instructions from Jesus. (1 Cor 12:10, 12:28, 12:29, Gal 3:5)
8. Gospel being preached as per Jesus' commandment. (Numerous places)
9. He names several of the original apostles. (Various places)

You seem to be hung up on Paul not quoting much from the written gospels as being some kind of evidence that Paul's "Jesus" didn't exist. The fact remains that the details I have listed above are all found in the gospel records, as well as non biblical sources. Since those detail bear a striking identity to what we determine to be the historical Yeshua, I find any argument that Paul's Jesus was not the same person as to be unrealistic and incomprehensible.

Quote:Consider an analogy. I want to start a religion. I think John Lennon was God. The new religion is one day to be called "Beatleanity." John Lennon is my recently departed hero. How am I going to convince people to join my John Lennon cult? Well....I'm going to play his music, make a movie about him, put his pictures on the internet, talk to Yoko, his mother, his son, his brothers and sisters, and anyone who knew him. I'll bad mouth anyone who disagrees with my image of him, and I'll say why. I'd promote his life's story, start a fan club, and sit back and watch the cash roll in.

What I won't be doing is saying "listen here fuckers, this spirit type guy died for you and that's all you need to know. Believe that and you'll go to Beatle heaven. If you don't have faith in what I'm telling you, you're fucked. If any of you play Rolling Stones records I curse you. Yet that is what Paul did.


Like any kind of folk-lore/legend, Paul simply took a few facts about this Jesus fellow and built a religion around an actual person. It's really that simple, Mark.

Quote:I rest my case that Paul's "Christ" wasn't Jeebus, but someone/something else.

R.I.P.

Smile
Hi again....I missed writing about some things you wrote.

Re "You seem to be hung up on Paul not quoting much from the written gospels
as being some kind of evidence that Paul's "Jesus" didn't exist."

Well...no. Paul quotes NOTHING from the gospel's Jesus....that's a fact....because he couldn't have, as the gospels were written post Paul.

My point is that Paul says almost nothing about a once living person. Please understand this. The only exception is Paul's description of the last supper, which I suspect is an interpolation.

BTW, it's commonly stated Paul's writings are relatively free of changes. The longer I waste time thinking about this, the less I suspect it's true. Paul was "cut and pasted" heaps.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2012, 02:40 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(25-11-2012 09:51 PM)Free Wrote:  
(25-11-2012 09:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You do realise that "Q" is an integral part of both Matthew and Luke?
Yes, but it is not a narrative.

Most people are under the mistaken belief that the Q source represents an original gospel, but it does not. For what they have determined is that it is merely a collection of the sayings of Jesus with no narrative like the gospels have.

That is assuming the Q source ever existed in the first place. For all we know, Mark or Matthew could be the original source.
Q existed, but there's no evidence it was associated with Yeshua. I agree it is not a narrative.

I think it is pretty well established Mark was written before the other three.

It could be "the original source"....but, once again, I'll point out there's no good evidence any source for any of the gospels had anything to do with Yeshua. The one just possible known exception is the "gospel of the Nazarenes," which may have been used to help write some bits of Matthew.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: