aa5874

What evidence you ask? The evidence has been handed to us on a PLATTER.

See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 9.2, John 1, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1 and Revelation 22.

And there is more.

But, now back to the OP.

Origen's statement about Hebrews is extremely significant.

So, Origen is claiming that Hebrews was considered to have been written by Paul by "men of old".

Well, let's test his statement and go to Justin Martyr and see who Justin claimed wrote Hebrews.

Justin wrote NOTHING about any Pauline Epistles or epistle to the Hebrews. Justin wrote about the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that were READ in the Churches. A very significant claim.

Let's go to "Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies".

Irenaeus mentioned that Paul wrote Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, and epistles to Timothy but NOTHING about HEBREWS.

Let's go to "Tertullian" in "Against Marcion".

"Tertullian" in book 5 mentioned the Pauilne epistles from Romans to Philemon and again NOT A WORD on HEBREWS.

Now, if "men of old" claimed Paul wrote Hebrews why is it that Jerome, Irenaeus and Tertullian failed to even mention an Epistle called Hebrews?

It would seem that Marcion did not even mutilate Hebrews.

Who were the "men of old" who claimed Hebrews was written by Paul and who were the "men of old" who even knew of Hebrews.

But, it was those "men of the future"AFTER Origen who claimed Paul wrote Hebrews.

After Origen, the Church historian, in the 4th century, claimed Paul wrote 14 epistles which includes Hebrews and John Chrysostom, around the end of the 4th century, claimed Paul wrote Hebrews.

Hebrews may not be as old as Origen claimed.

Cege

Jumping in here with a question that is possibly off topic (I hope not): in Acts 8, Saul/Paul is described as going house to house, rousting out Christians (not clear on the geographic locations of their homes) and dragging them off to prison (apparently in Jerusalem).

What prisons were available and authorized for Saul/Paul to toss "Christians" into?

darstec

Well Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry had Azkabam prison. That is about as close to history and reality as Acts will ever be.

Doug Shaver

That is a problem, if there is a core of historical truth in the documents. But you cannot prove the problem real by assuming that the core exists.

What that is the question at issue, calling it "historical reality" is rather obviously circular.

stephan huller

But the core does exist. It all comes down to this - why would the Catholics make up a story that a rival tradition called 'the Marcionites' had a rival canon of material associated with Paul in the second century? If there is no such a thing as 'the Apostolikon,' if there is no such a thing as Pauline authority - why make this story up? Where did it come from?

I think most of the people who promote this 'mythical Jesus' stuff are either too lazy or too stupid to understand the original material.

The question of whether Jesus had a physical existence (which the Marcionite again denied) has no bearing on whether or not there was an Apostolikon or whether or not there was such a thing as Pauline authority in the second century.

maryhelena

Stephen - this accusation is way out of bounds for this forum - a forum which seeks to uphold rational discussions.

I think you owe this forum an apology.

Iskander

Why an apology?

<edit>Jay has accused fanatical Christians of torturing, burning, murdering millions of children, in the 4th and 5th century, but nobody has requested and apology.

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289980
Post #6

stephan huller

Did you read the WHOLE statement? I am saying there were Christians in antiquity who said that Jesus was not a human being. I should perhaps have said that the 'mythical Jesus' position tends to get distorted by people into a license to ignore the original material. This is inexcusable. If you are going to participate in a rational discussion you have have read the original material.

So let me rephrase that:

I think most of the people who promote this 'mythical Jesus' stuff AND USE IT AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO READ THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL (or actually read the posts of those who have read the original material and are trying to make sense of it at this forum) are either too lazy or too stupid to understand the original material.

<edited>

spamandham

That does seem kind of stupid when you say it like that. Good thing then that hardly any mythicist says that (do any?). What difference does it make to ahistoricism if the Apostolikon really was Marcion's sect's collection of texts?

This is obnoxious, unwarranted, and indemonstrable.

Iskander

You have quoted extensively from Christians writers as evidence that those Christian writers do no exist?