Quote:If you're going to disregard the idea that Ignatius quoted Paul's epistles that just leaves the First Epistle Of Clement from the right time period because only fragments of Melito's writings survived.
Ah...Clement of Rome!
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginni...lementrome
Quote:"Clement of Rome"
"We must bid farewell to all slandering, lewd and unclean coupling, drinking and rioting, vile lusting, odious fornication,and the pride which is an abomination."
– 1 Clement, 30.
Nothing is known of the life or death of "Saint" Clement (often grandly, if anachronistically, styled either first, second, third or fourth 'pope'!).
5th century fantasy invented a colourful martyrdom for the guy, involving drowning in the Black Sea with an anchor round his neck and a sub-marine shrine built by angels. The fable probably owed much to a confusion with his namesake, Titus Flavius Clemens, a consul executed by Emperor Domitian. The confusion is further compounded by the common assumption that Clement's reference to the "recent misfortunes" of the Roman Church relates to a supposed persecution instigated by Domitian. But this "persecution" is bogus and Clement actually makes no mention of martyrdom even when it refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul.
Whoever he really was, Clement is credited with the most important Christian text outside the New Testament – his First Epistle, a document which is primarily concerned with remonstrating with the brethren in Corinth who had deposed their presbyters. (Perhaps too readily they had seen through the priestly fraud!)
Examined closely, the epistle is clearly less of a genuine letter and more a tract on maintaining communal discipline and priestly authority. It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute "Apostolic succession" to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.
The epistle, important as it is in the gathering up of papal authority, says nothing of an historical Jesus. Its fancies include reference to the "500-year-old phoenix bird".
"Clement" (or, rather, the coterie of pseudonymous fraudsters) authored further nonsense throughout the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, notably the Clementine Recognitions.
Quote:As I said before, Justin must have heard of Paul if he knew about the Marcion heresy.
Recall the timing though. Marcion allegedly is writing c 144. Justin is writing a mere 16 years (more or less) later.
The xtian bullshit story is that there was some grand council in fucking Rome itself who smacked Marcion down but really, how likely is that?
All of this seems to date from a much later dispute between the Roman and Eastern xtian centers over supremacy...much like all of this heroic horseshit about "peter" and "paul" going off to by martyred in Rome.
No, Justin's knowledge of Marcion may have been of another perhaps even rival group. If so, if that was his only knowledge of "Paul" then I can see why he does not get too much into it as he would have regarded Marcionism as "suspect." Or...more likely... he had but an imperfect understanding of Marcionism as Marcion was from Sinope in modern Turkey and all of this "let's go to Rome" horseshit most likely dates from the time when the Roman branch was trying to exert control.
In either case, Ape, you must contrast it with the OFFICIAL STORY. That Paul was this virtual founding figure in the first century AD who single-handedly brought xtianity to the gentiles.... except no one seems to know about him until much later.
