dog-on

Let's consider this.

What if,in their original state, the Paulines had nothing to at all to do with Judaism? Simply a peripheral acknowledgement of the existance of Jews?

Marcion may have originated in some sort of proto-orthodoxy, but due to some serious cognative dissonance relating to LXX God and having discovered some writings of "Paul", came to believe that his Savior must have indeed come from a superior God than the one espoused by that orthodoxy. So he "adjusts" Mark.

He then tries to get Rome to see the "light" and is branded a heretic as a result, for whatever reason.

The problem is, apart from some spurious writings like Ignatius and Clement, the Paulines seem to be unheard-of prior to Marcion's antics.

That Marcion was, however, successful in establishing congregations, may simply be, due to the fact, that he may have had financial resources at his disposal and these congregations may have proven very inviting to the Roman Church. The trick, for Rome, was that, in order for Rome to get it's slice of Marcion's pie, "Paul" would have to be dealt with.

Luke/Acts and various stinging apologetics seemingly did just the trick.

I really don't believe that anyone from anywhere near Palestine had anything at all to do with any of this stuff...

Solitary Man

No, he "adjusts" Luke.

Do you have a reason for labeling Ignatius and Clement as spurious?

While your faith is nice and dandy for church, it doesn't belong here.

dog-on

Prove it.
Why, yes I do.
Have to place it somewhere!

Solitary Man

Proof is for mathematics and liquor. Early writers when commenting on Marcion noted that it was Luke without Jewish references. Do you have any evidence for the contrary? Hint: I do. There are plenty of scholarly articles on the subject. But it's still contended. Your move.

Great! But until you show it, I'm afraid I'll have to ignore it for now.

Sure! Keep it to yourself. Or go to GRD.

aa5874

"Paul's encounter with the "man in Christ", as described in "his epistles" is laden with credibilty problems. If "the man in Christ" is mere mortal and had already died, "Paul" could not have received any gospel from "this man". And further, if "Paul" did not consult with anyone after his encounter, then he has no gospel.

"Paul's" meeting with the "man" may then be of a supernatural nature, in this way, "Paul" can make any claim, "his gospel" can be revealed through this spiritual being and he does not have to consult with anyone. Whatever he claimed to have been received from the "man in Christ" is now "his gospel".

But, there is a major problem, "Paul" in his epistles maintained that he received "his gospel" from a dead man without consulting the dead man's followers. "Paul" is either a liar or has mental problems.

Solitary Man

Or perhaps a third option is that you do not understand his culture? :huh:

spin

All you have here is evidence that Luke existed at the time of Irenaeus, as did Marcion's gospel, which seemed like Luke without the Jewish bits and Irenaeus accepted Luke. In short you've got zippo, as usual.

aa5874

I forgot about the culture. You may be right, there could be a third option that is culturally based. "Paul" was dreaming and had visions according to the scriptures.

Solitary Man

And the converse is exactly that. Now you're privileging Marcion over Luke, likewise with nil for evidence. At least I have ancient testimony. You're just blowing hot air. Typical of spin, though, riddled as he is with assumptions, biases, and no evidence, though he pretends that everyone else is instead.

spin

Cutting out your rubbish, we are left with an ancient testimony which you aren't willing to read critically. Your ancient testimony acknowledges both texts and claims that one has priority. Beyond that nothing. That, as I said, is what you've got.