Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Casper · 02-10-2008, 08:46 AM

I've often wondered myself if Marcion were a fabricated "boogeyman" used by the church to put a face on an otherwise nameless movement.

That that fictional "face" could have garnered followers later is not beyond the realm of possibilities. Although I don't see it as probable, just possible.

aa5874 · 02-10-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not my view that Marcion fabricated "Paul", that, it appears, was done by the author of Acts, some scholars call the author Luke,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Fine. You are basically implying that the Catholic church tried to match the Marcion Pauline epistles with Acts. Then why do Paul's epistles agree in probably 100 places with Acts, yet appear to disagree on several critical issues? You can't get around this problem.

All I have found is that the history of "Paul" as written in Acts is fiction. And that Jesus, while in heaven, appears to have revealed parts of gLuke to "Paul" although "Paul" was already dead.

How is that possible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But "Paul" was supposed be already dead long before gLuke was written, but Eusebius claimed "according to my gospel "means "Luke's gospel"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Eusebius was wrong if that is what he said. Galatians itself says "I recieved my gospel from no man." Paul's "gospel" has little to do with any of the four "gospels". Paul's Gospel is that of salvation to the Gentiles through faith in Jesus. You are simply barking up the wrong tree on this one, though it is certainly possible that Luke and Paul knew each other as is the orthodox view.

ted

It is almost certain that "Paul", if he was real, must have gotten his gospel through some earthly means. "Paul" either heard rumors or read the writings of others. It is unrealistic for "Paul" to have heard only from Jesus in heaven.

And, according to Eusebius in Church History, almost everybody all over the known world heard of the miracle worker , Jesus. Stories about Jesus had been circulated far outside Judaea long before "Paul", even a King who ruled beyond ancient Euphrates sent a letter by courrier to Jesus asking him to come and heal him.

Church History 1.13.1-2

Quote:

The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wonder working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judaea......

For instance the King Abgarus, who ruled with great glory the nations beyond Euphrates........sent a message to him by courier and begged him to heal his disease..

So based on Eusebius, "Paul", a supposed contemporary, in and out Jerusalem, may have been the only person in the world who had never heard about Jesus, so had to receive his gospel from "no man".

"Paul" is unrealistic.

TedM · 02-10-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Fine. You are basically implying that the Catholic church tried to match the Marcion Pauline epistles with Acts. Then why do Paul's epistles agree in probably 100 places with Acts, yet appear to disagree on several critical issues? You can't get around this problem.

All I have found is that the history of "Paul" as written in Acts is fiction. And that Jesus, while in heaven, appears to have revealed parts of gLuke to "Paul" although "Paul" was already dead.

How is that possible?

Why don't you answer my question for a change?:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Eusebius was wrong if that is what he said. Galatians itself says "I recieved my gospel from no man." Paul's "gospel" has little to do with any of the four "gospels". Paul's Gospel is that of salvation to the Gentiles through faith in Jesus. You are simply barking up the wrong tree on this one, though it is certainly possible that Luke and Paul knew each other as is the orthodox view.

It is almost certain that "Paul", if he was real, must have gotten his gospel through some earthly means. "Paul" either heard rumors or read the writings of others. It is unrealistic for "Paul" to have heard only from Jesus in heaven.....So based on Eusebius, "Paul", a supposed contemporary, in and out Jerusalem, may have been the only person in the world who had never heard about Jesus, so had to receive his gospel from "no man".

I agree that he got information about Jesus from others. But, that wasn't his gospel. Once again: Paul's Gospel is that of salvation to the Gentiles (and Jews too of course) through faith in Jesus.

It might benefit you to become familiar with Paul's alleged writings by reading all of them.

ted

aa5874 · 02-10-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I agree that he got information about Jesus from others. But, that wasn't his gospel. Once again: Paul's Gospel is that of salvation to the Gentiles (and Jews too of course) through faith in Jesus.

It might benefit you to become familiar with Paul's alleged writings by reading all of them.

ted

According to Eusebius,in Church History, everybody all over the world far from Judaea already knew about Jesus long before "Paul", that would probably mean millions of people knew about the wonder working power of Jesus, and all these millions of people heard about Jesus while Jesus himself was alive.

In effect, the whole world knew about Jesus before "Paul", his missionary work appears to be fabricated.

And "Paul" contradicts you in Galations 1.11

Quote:

But I make known to you brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ

"Paul's conversion and revelations from Jesus in heaven are all fiction, he himself appears to be fabricated fictitiously.

mountainman · 02-10-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you say may be true, but at least Justin Martyr who lived in the 2nd century wrote about Marcion and his followers while he was supposed to be living, and preaching his gospel of the phantom, but I cannot find anything from Philo or Josephus about "Paul" at all, and these writers all lived in the 1st century.

And further the history of Paul appears to have been written in the second century in a book called Acts which appears to be fiction, so I am prepared to give Marcion the benefit of the doubt.

Isn't it really fortunate that Eusebius gathers
all these writers together for the posterity of
these endless arguments.

What in the name of Jesus Christ would we all
be doing without Eusebius?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

aa5874 · 02-10-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What you say may be true, but at least Justin Martyr who lived in the 2nd century wrote about Marcion and his followers while he was supposed to be living, and preaching his gospel of the phantom, but I cannot find anything from Philo or Josephus about "Paul" at all, and these writers all lived in the 1st century.

And further the history of Paul appears to have been written in the second century in a book called Acts which appears to be fiction, so I am prepared to give Marcion the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Isn't it really fortunate that Eusebius gathers
all these writers together for the posterity of
these endless arguments.

What in the name of Jesus Christ would we all
be doing without Eusebius?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

"Church History" by Eusebius is one his greatest "work", in it he exposes all the fiction of the Galileans and "Paul". I find in it chapters after cahapters of fiction.

TedM · 02-10-2008, 08:53 PM

aa, I'm finished. For whatever reasons I just can't seem to find your views as even close to being reasonable, and you seem unwilling to try and understand the points I'm making.

take care,

ted

aa5874 · 02-10-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa, I'm finished. For whatever reasons I just can't seem to find your views as even close to being reasonable, and you seem unwilling to try and understand the points I'm making.

take care,

ted

1.What is unreasonable about considering that the conversion of Paul as fiction?
2.What is unreasonable about considering that Paul's revelation from Jesus in heaven was fictitious?
3. What is unreasonable about considering the history of Paul in Acts as fiction?

So,if Paul was not converted, heard nothing from Jesus, and his history is fiction, then Paul was just a fabrication, he could not have been a real missionary and evangelist, he appeared to have been manufactured just to deceive.

schilling.klaus · 02-11-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa, I'm finished. For whatever reasons I just can't seem to find your views as even close to being reasonable, and you seem unwilling to try and understand the points I'm making.

unreasonable are the views of those who still believe in any of the canonical pauline epistles to be anywhere near authentic work of a pre-70 Paul.

Klaus Schilling

TedM · 02-11-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

aa, I'm finished. For whatever reasons I just can't seem to find your views as even close to being reasonable, and you seem unwilling to try and understand the points I'm making.

take care,

ted

1.What is unreasonable about considering that the conversion of Paul as fiction?
2.What is unreasonable about considering that Paul's revelation from Jesus in heaven was fictitious?
3. What is unreasonable about considering the history of Paul in Acts as fiction?

"Considering" it as a possibility is reasonable. "Concluding" it as real without addressing my arguments is unreasonable.

ted

View Poll Results: Whose history is more doubtful, Marcion of Pontus or Paul of Tarsus?
Paul	10	58.82%
Marcion	2	11.76%
Don't know	5	29.41%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2008, 08:46 AM	#11
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	I've often wondered myself if Marcion were a fabricated "boogeyman" used by the church to put a face on an otherwise nameless movement. That that fictional "face" could have garnered followers later is not beyond the realm of possibilities. Although I don't see it as probable, just possible.

02-10-2008, 08:53 PM	#17
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	aa, I'm finished. For whatever reasons I just can't seem to find your views as even close to being reasonable, and you seem unwilling to try and understand the points I'm making. take care, ted

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.