rlogan

I agree they are fiction. The point of the discussion between us is how the Hebrew Bible is integrated (or not) into the two creeds, and I thought you were trying to make a point that one was anti-Judaism whereas the other was not.

I made it pretty explicit what I was drawing from that paper. Not sure why you have chosen to ignore it and argue over something we have no disagreement over in the first place. I have stated emphatically these are all fictional characters.

aa5874

The point I am trying to make is that much of the information about Marcion may not be really true.

Those who wrote about Marcion had to propensity to writes fables and present them as the truth.

Look at Tertullian in Against Marcion 1.1 So, what is the truth about Marcion?

Tertullian warns the reader, beware, there are "various forms scattered about", You may become "perplexed".

And Tertullian warns the reader when Marcion was already DEAD.

rlogan

I don't see the point in further exchange if our posts do not relate to each other.


I am still trying to clarify why you think Marcion is not responsible for letters of the mythical Paul.

Your answer now seems to be that we can't trust what is said about Marcion. But your first answer was to trust what Justin Martyr said about him, and draw a concusion ( I think) that Marcion cannot have made up letters by Paul because of what you believe to be an inconsistency.

Two of us have tried to address that, but you are not staying on point with us. The last bit here seems to be a general "we can't know anything about Marcion" comment which can't serve as much in the way of advancing any point one way or the other.


What is known about Marcion is that he put together the first Bible. It consisted of letters of Paul and a sort of Lukish Gospel. I know of nowhere prior there are letters of Paul either published or used as championing a gospel.

If you have information contradicting that I have an open mind and with pleasure will read about it.

aa5874

I am not asking you to trust anyone, I have only drawn your attention to Justin Martyr's story about Marcion, and the fact that he didn't mention anything about Luke, Acts of the Apostles, Paul or the thirteen Epistles.

Marcion was alive when Justin wrote about him.

Marcion was DEAD when Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius wrote about him.

According to an author of the Epistles, Paul claimed to be a Jew and believed in the son of the God of the Jews who was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven according to the Scriptures.

The Paul of the Epistles claimed to be called by Jesus Christ to be a missionary of the gospel during the time of King Aretas and Cladius and founded many Churches and it is to those Churches that he "Paul" wrote at least nine epistles.

Now, if Marcion was still alive in the middle of the 1st century and just started his new doctrine why would he claim someone named "Paul" wrote Epistles to Churches that did not exist. Marcion had no Church in the middle of the 1st century. And according to Tertullian, Marcion's gospel had no name attached to it.

And if Marcion invented "Paul", he would also have to invent Luke. And further, Marcion's Jesus was not the son of the God of the Jews as prophecied in the Scriptures.

Justin Martyr never mentioned any Gospel named Luke, he mentioned the "memoirs of the apostles", and these memoirs were read in all the Churches during Justin's time, however, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius never mentioned these memoirs, all of a sudden, these writers mentioned the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and "Pauline Epistles.

But oddly enough, the "memoirs of the apostles" appear to have many, many passages that are similar to the Synoptics.

What happened to the "memoirs of the apostles", Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius never mentioned them at all?

Based on Justin, then, Marcion would have known about the "memoirs of the apostles", they were read in all the Churches in the city and the country, and his "Antithesis" was likely to be based on these memoirs of the apostles.

The names of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Epistles written by Paul, Peter, James John and Jude appear to second century inventions or at least after Justin.

rlogan

One thing at a time. As a normal courtesy of exchange. You have not stayed on point, but here is the closest you have come.


The Christian Jesus Christ is not the Jewish saviour "according to the scriptures". That is clearly a con game played now by the existing churches, and at the time by the proto-orthodoxy.

The proto-orthodoxy pretends that they can interpret the Hebrew Bible to mean the opposite of what it says. Neither Marcion nor the proto-orthodoxy is a champion of Judaism. It is important to the proto-orthodoxy to imbue the "new testament" with a false pedigree by pretending it is both in harmony with, and the prohpecized fulfilment of the Hebrew Bible.

But it clearly is not. The proto-orthodoxy negates the Hebrew Bible rather than fulfiling it. So you cannot charge Marcion with being an "anti-semetic" and pretend that the proto-orthodoxy is not. They both are.

It seems important to you to ignore the point I have introduced to you. You wish to avoid it and introduce a lot of other things, each of which can also be taken point by point.

But you do not discharge a point by ignoring it. Both Marcion and the proto-orthodoxy are "antisemetic" so to speak, in the context of the article I cited strictly for the purpose of discussing this single point. In the Journal "Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations".

Well, I can't just keep repeating myself, so cheers...

aa5874

If you think that you have points, then you must develop your points.

My position on Marcion appears to be different to you, and I can only deal with my position.

My position is that it appears to me that fictitious characters called Luke and Paul were invented, sometime after the writings of Justin Martyr, to create a false history of the Christian Church.

And further, it appears to me, based on Justin Martyr, that Marcion did not hear about Luke and Paul, only the "memoirs of the apostles".

According to Jiustin Martyr, the "memoirs of the apostles" were read in the sunday meetings at places in the city and country wheverever the Christians met.

aa5874

There is one fundamentally true position with respect to the Jesus of the NT, supported by MJ and HJ, and it is that the Jesus of the NT is false.

The MJ accepts this falsity and claim Jesus was a myth.

The HJ accepts the falsehood and are looking for another Jesus.

Now, if the main character of the NT, Jesus, is fundamentally fiction, it stands to reason that the entire cast, his so-called disciples and self proclaimed apostle Paul may very well be of the same fictitious nature.

It is inconceivable that every single person who would have come in contact with Jesus, the son of God, would have made false statements about him, including his own mother.

It is far more likely that the NT is just a work of fiction, written long after the supposed events.

Peter, a supposed disciple, claimed Jesus was resurrected, this is obviously false.

Peter, a supposed disciple, could heal people by merely talking to them, this is really fiction.

Paul did likewise make similar false claims.

All these false and erroneous claims are cannonised as true and witnessed events in the NT.

The NT must be rejected as a book filled with erroneous, mis-leading and false claims about Jesus, the disciples and Paul UNTIL further information can be found to substantiate its veracity.

aa5874

Many Christians and Christian apologist believe "Paul" was indeed a real person, living in the 1st century, a contemporary of Jesus of the NT and also of his apostles, having met Peter and others.

But upon close examination, it can be shown that "Paul" is a prime source for the mythical Jesus, the Jesus that was just believed to have existed, believed to be both God and man.

Based on 2 Corinthians 11.32, "Paul" claimed during the time of Aretas he was in Damascus, hiding in a basket. So, if Paul words are true, then he was a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, if they actually lived at all.

And here is where the problem lies with Paul. He did not give any account of a living Jesus with his disciples or the thousands of followers that followed Jesus everywhere he went, sometimes up in the mountains and at the seaside.

Paul made no claim in all of his epistles to have seen a physical Jesus, anywhere. He does not claim he knew where Jesus was crucified or where he was buried. Paul did not write about the earthquakes and the 3-hour darkness that signalled the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

In 1 Corinthians 15.9, Paul claimed he persecuted the Church, but again, Paul gave no information of the time he actually started this devious activity, and he did not claim that he persecuted Jesus or his disciples or any of his thousands of followers when they were with Jesus.

Paul gave no physical description of Jesus, the place where Jesus lived as a child, or his manner of dress.

Paul did not give a description of Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, or write any thing about Joseph, or where they lived.

Now, at some time Paul became converted, he heard a voice, while he was being blinded, that claim to be that of Jesus as written in Acts 9.

Paul's conversion is based soley on belief, he did NOT need or MEET a physical Jesus.

And Paul's gospel does NOT need a physical Jesus, he received his gospel by revelation as written in Galations 1.

In effect, Jesus did not have to come to or live on earth for Paul's conversion or gospel to have been realised.
Paul was in direct contact with Jesus in heaven through belief and revelations.

Paul, based on the NT, started his ministry just with BELIEF and REVELATIONS from Jesus to become the single most sussessful missionary, developing seven Churches, and would have had the foresight to preach about the demise of the Jewish law while the Temple was still intact.

Paul has then confirmed that BELIEF is a very effective tool in the propagation of Christianity.

The HJ was not necessary for Paul, it is not necessary for anyone else.

Jesus can be fiction and Christianity will still spread, people will still BELIEVE Jesus existed and this indeed seems to be the case.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are fiction, but people still BELIEVE the NT is true, some say, this truth was revealed to them by some God.

Species8472

Those are both irrelevant arguments in a scientific context.
I have never seen the outer planets of the solar system, so they cannot exist.

As much as I may agree that your hypothesis sounds plausible, I cannot accept you argumentation supporting it as sufficient to call it a fact, or a verified theory.

We know from historical sources that NT like characters were common, and there may very well have been one called Jesus with a load of followers (there were more than 12 disciples, but only 12 in the inner circle according to NT). This make the background of the NT story very plausible, but the miracles are obviously not. The fact that the stories have been "fixed" doesn't prove they have no basis in reality, nor does the stories prove that they have. Either claim would require evidence, and you have provided none for your claim.

Edit: Oh dear FSM, I did it again, I forgot to notice that there was a load of pages after the post i quoted. Ah well, I'll leave the post anyway

aa5874

[QUOTE=Species8472;5404394] The conception of Jesus is not science, it is more like science fiction.

And I have not made any finding about the solar system.

Now you have not seen Achilles, and Hercules so they must exist?

That's all I can present, a plausible hypothesis, based on the available evidence.


Perhaps you haven't read the story of Jesus, about his conception, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension and that these were all witnessed by either his mother or his disciples.

Characters like Jesus are not common, unless you think Achilles was a common character.

Josephus wrote the history of the Jews and never recorded any characters who were COMMONLY believed to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, or who were COMMONLY believed to have been resurrected or was witnessed by their mothers and followers to have been the son of the God of the Jews that pre-existed before the world was made.