That is quite simply untrue. The evidence given has included a discussion of the date of death of Aretas, mentioned by Paul as ruler of Damascus, and notes on the continued existence of the Temple at the time Paul wrote. It is you, not your opponents, who depend on mere vehemence and almost supernatural repetition, as well as arbitrary accusations of forgery and falsification, rather than anything that might be described as evidence, to sustain your bizarre case.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
It is your claim that is a fallacy and quite illogical.
The mention of Aretas in 1 Corinthians gives no indication when the Epistle was composed. Aretas was used as a supposed historical marker for when Paul was in a basket by a window.
How in the world could the mention of the Temple in any Epistle determine that a Pauline Epistle was composed pre 70 CE when the FAKE authors of Gospels wrote about the Temple?
Apparently you are not aware of the term forgeries and what it means.
Are you not aware that there may be at least 7 different authors of the letters in the Pauline Corpus?
2 Thessalonians mention the Temple as if it was still standing but 2nd Thessalonians was most likely composed after c 70 CE.
2ND Thessalonians has been deduced to be a forgery or disputed.
2 Thessalonians have destroyed all claims that so-called Pauline that mention the Temple are pre 70 CE
2 Thessalonians 2.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
All right, then. I'll quote from the link which you clearly did not bother to read.
The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians cannot be a fourth-century forgery, as it is quoted by Polycarp who died c. 156.
You showed me evidence that the Pauline writings were most likely composed AFTER c 70 CE. You statement is therefore false.
You have not shown any evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 180 CE.
You completely forgot that Epistles that have been deduced to be forgeries or disputed talk about the Temple as if it was still standing.
The forgeries or falsely attributed Epistles called Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians were most likely composed AFTER 70 CE and write about the Temple as if it was still standing.
You seem to have no idea that forgeries and false attributed writings are deliberately fabricated to make late writings appear to be early.
What?? Please present the evidence from antiquity to support your claim that Polycarp wrote anything at all up to 156 CE!!!
Please, present supporting evidence from antiquity that there was a character called Polycarp who actually died c 156 CE.
Please, present evidence from antiquity that Polycarp mentioned Clement and Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians.
You want to come here and make unsupported statements. That is completely unacceptable. Please, get your evidence together.
I no longer accept assertions without supporting evidence---this is not Sunday School.
Last edited:
Notices of a reigning Nabatean king, Aretas, who died in 50 AD, and of an extant Temple destroyed in 70 AD are evidence that the works containing them were composed after 180 AD? My, my.
I think you are now uttering things at random, rather than making reasoned comments.
You stated your opponents were arguing "without evidence". But I showed you that I had produced evidence. The fact that you reject it doesn't mean I didn't produce it. If I offer you a £50 banknote and you refuse it, does that mean I didn't offer it? You say, I won't take it - it is forged. But I disagree, I say, look at the security strip and the watermark, all there and in order. You say: that proves the note is forged, because forgers include such details in their fabrications. Don't pretend you don't know that. Why are you offering me a note that by your own statement contains proof of forgery?!? You must be a swindler!
In fact your position in this is even more ridiculous than my banknote fantasy. We know the motive for forging banknotes. It is obvious. But you have presented us with a forgery theory with a huge flaw. Why did the forgers go to this trouble? In any case the prodigious feat you ascribe to them is obviously impossible. And you have nothing to tell us about who and where they were. Leave that aside ... what could they have gained by it, that could not have been achieved with much less toil and trouble?
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
From the link which dejudge did not read:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
Clement refers to several of the Pauline epistles in his epistle to the Corinthians, which, as I showed earlier, cannot be a fourth-century forgery. This establishes an upper limit for the Pauline corpus of no later than AD 99 (the year of Clement's martyrdom), and some scholars (including Joseph Ratzinger) date Clement's work as early as AD 70. This would likely place the Pauline epistles before the destruction of the Temple, which is consistent with the description of the Temple as still standing in some of them.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
Clement refers to several of the Pauline epistles in his epistle to the Corinthians, which, as I showed earlier, cannot be a fourth-century forgery. This establishes an upper limit for the Pauline corpus of no later than AD 99 (the year of Clement's martyrdom), and some scholars (including Joseph Ratzinger) date Clement's work as early as AD 70. This would likely place the Pauline epistles before the destruction of the Temple, which is consistent with the description of the Temple as still standing in some of them.
A knowledge of these early works is also exhibited by Justin and Irenaeus as has been demonstrated already. But dejudge dismisses the parts of their writings contains this evidence as forgeries. And since forgeries must necessarily contain details indicating a false date for the fabricated works, like a false past date on a forged banknote, then dejudge uses this to argue that the very evidence of early composition is in itself proof of his forgery hypothesis. Thus, a reference to the pre-70 AD temple is even proof of a post-70 origin of the epistles. This, bizarrely, is what he is now arguing.
Last edited:
We know what the letter contains so telling me that the contents of the letter is the evidence of when it was written is a complete waste of time.
You seem to be saying that whatever is in the Clement letter is true.
You must find corroboration for the Clement letter. You must find evidence that the letter was indeed written since the 1st century at the time of a Dissension of the Church of Corinth.
You cannot do so.
Based on Tertullian, the Chronography of 354 and Optatus Clement would be dead by c 76 CE or log before 93 CE.
Clement's letter was supposedly written some time between 93-101 CE when there was a Dissension of the Church of Corinth.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
You're not even trying now. Polycarp was one of the three chief Apostolic Fathers (with Clement and Ignatius) and you're claiming he never existed? Irenaeus, of all people, talks about him extensively, saying he heard Polycarp preach in his (Irenaeus's) youth. Polycarp was ordained bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John (according to St. Jerome) and communicated with many who had seen Jesus (according to Irenaeus).
Kinda implies that Jesus actually existed if Polycarp was able to communicate with people who had seen him, dunnit?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Wait... what?
You have a very short memory or have not even read what Irenaeus said about the time Jesus was crucified.
Can you recall that Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or when Jesus was FIFTY years old?
If Jesus was crucified c 50 CE at 50 years of age then you can dump Acts of the Apostles, Pauline Corpus, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius as products of historical and theological diarrhea.
See Against Heresies 2.22--the Elders of the Church, the disciples and the Gospel all TAUGHT that Jesus was 50 years old at crucifixion.
Even if that detail is false (because Irenaeus was capable of uttering complete nonsense, as his "Four Gospels" doctrine shows), the existence of Polycarp himself is surely secure.
Your post highlights the grave problem for those who argue for HJ. You are forced to admit your sources are not historically reliable but still rely on them without corroboration for history.
Paul saw the resurrected Jesus. The disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea.
Polycarp communicated with people who saw things that could not have happened.
I expressed reservations for the very reason that some detail might not be reliable. We don't even have the complete original Greek of Irenaeus, or anything like it. Merely a later Latin translation. But that Justin and Irenaeus knew the early Christian texts is proven by their own surviving writings. Your forgery theory, on the other hand, is not sustained by any text at all saying "I, Severus Archontius (or whoever) forged these books." Where are your entirely reliable texts that sustain the late forgery hypothesis?
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
dejudge
I personally saw a male pedestrian step out into traffic from the median strip on the New Jersey Turnpike, and pass in front of my car before he disappeared unharmed.
It was three in the morning. I had been driving too long.
It is physically unavoidable that anybody who can see will occasionally see what isn't there. "Receiver operating characterisitc" is the searchable term. Only the blind never see what isn't there.
Polycarp communicated with human beings who had eyesight.
I personally saw a male pedestrian step out into traffic from the median strip on the New Jersey Turnpike, and pass in front of my car before he disappeared unharmed.
It was three in the morning. I had been driving too long.
It is physically unavoidable that anybody who can see will occasionally see what isn't there. "Receiver operating characterisitc" is the searchable term. Only the blind never see what isn't there.
I have not followed or taken any part in any of this discussion about the actual date of Clement's writing. But, do you know the date of any extant copies of that writing from Polycarp?
Is the extant copy actually accurately dated to a time just before 156AD?
Or is it like the writing of Tacitus, Josephus and the rest, where although often claimed in these HJ threads as circa.100AD, in fact the earliest known extant copies actually date from around the 11th century! I.e., a whopping 1000 years after the claimed original date!
The writings attributed to Justin shows that he did not know of Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Churches and the Pauline REVEALED Gospel--remission of Sins by the Resurrection.
Remission of Sins by the Resurrection is a very late doctrine and cannot be found in any other non-PAULINE book of the NT and early apologetic writings.
It has been shown over and over that Irenaeus could not have known of Acts of the Apostles and the PaULINE Corpus when he argued Jesus was crucified c 50 CE and at the age of FIFTY.
In the Pauline writings PAUL supposedl preached Christ Crucified in the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.
Belz...
Fiend God
What's funny is that in your attempt to do that, you are blindly believing the text of the Bible, somehow thinking that all events in there are linked. Remove one, and you remove all else. This is as extreme and silly as stating that removing all supernatural elements from the story gives us a historical Jesus, and is just as unhelpful.
- Status