FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-27-2013, 05:11 PM   #11
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent F View Post
How do you deduce from this that Marcion did not have the Pauline corpus? Why are Paul and Mark mentioned here when Hippolytus is trying to refute Marcion? Isn't it because Marcion had their writings?...
Hippolytus supposedly wrote long after the time of Marcion and Irenaeus

It is claimed Hippolytus wrote 'Refutation Against All Heresies' between c 220-235 CE.

1. At around the 2nd-3rd century Acts of the Apostles mentioned NOTHING of the Pauline Corpus.

2. At around 117-138 CE, Aristides, a Christian author, wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

3. At around 138-160 CE, Justin Martyr a Christian author, wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

4. At around 175-180 CE, Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus based on Origen's Against Celsus 1.

5. At around c 175-180 CE, Athenagoras, a Christian, wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

6. At around c 175-180 CE, Theophilus of Antioch, a Christian author, wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

7. At around c 175-180 CE, Irenaeus, a supposed Presbyter, could NOT have claimed Jesus was crucified at around 49 CE and simultaneously that Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE.

Irenaeus is a REJECT--Not credible.

8. Sometime in late 2nd -3rd century Minucius Felix a Christian author wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

9. Sometime in the late 3rd century Arnoubius, a Christian author wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

10. Sometime in the late 2nd-3rd century, in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER Revelation.

11. The author of the Pauline Corpus was ALIVE after gLuke was composed based on Origen--gLuke was supposedly first mentioned c 175-180 CE.

12. "Against Marcion" in 3 books by Ephrem does NOT show that Marcion was aware of and manipulated the Pauline Corpus. Ephrem's Against Marcion contradicts Tertullian's 'Against Marcion"

The Pauline Corpus was not used at all in the early development of the Christian cult.

"Against Heresies"-- the first source to mention the Pauline Corpus is completely contradictory as soon as it was argued that Jesus was crucified around 49 CE under Claudius or about 20 years AFTER the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

"Against Heresies" is most likely a blatant forgery or falsely attributed writing

There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity that support the argument that the Pauline Corpus was unknown at least up to 180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 10:21 AM   #12
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

It is extremely easy to logically deduce that the Pauline Corpus is a very late composition when we examine the NT Canon and writings attributed to the Jesus cult and its apologist.

gMark considered the earliest story of Jesus in the NT Canon shows that the character called Jesus of Nazareth had NO intention of forming a new religion or to abolish the Laws of the Jews.

The Jesus character in gMark boasted in the presence of his disciples that he did NOT want the Populace to be converted but to remain in sin. The same character ALSO claimed that he did NOT want his own disciples to identify him as the Christ.

And most fascinating, the Jesus character in gMark, deliberately spoke in PARABLES so that the Populace could NOT understand him.

The gMark story is really to show that the Jews were Evil and caused the death of Jesus and even his disciples betrayed, abandoned or denied Jesus when he 'proved' he was from God by his multiple miracles.

All the writings in and out the Canon that claim Jesus came to be a Savior of mankind by sacrifice and to abolish the Laws of the Jews are LATE writings.

The earliest story is simply that the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God.

The earliest story in gMark is to explain why the Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed c 70 CE--The Jews Killed or caused the death the Son of God and must REPENT because the Kingdom of God was near.

1. Aristides, writing around c 117-138 CE, ADMITTED that there was a tradition that the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

2. Justin writing around c 138-150 CE, ADMITTED there was a tradition that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God--the reason for the destruction of the Temple.

3. Hippolytus, supposedly writing around the 3rd century, ADMITTED there was a tradition that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God--the reason for the destruction of the Temple.

4. Origen, supposedly writing in the mid-3rd century, ADMITTED there was a tradition that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God--the reason for the destruction of the Temple.

4. Tertullian, supposedly writing around the 3rd century, ADMITTED there was a tradition that the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God--the reason for the destruction of the Temple.

5. Lactantius, writing around the 4th century, ADMITTED there was a tradition that the Jews KILLED Jesus the Son of God.

All the books of the NT Canon are after the short gMark Jesus story.

gMark's Jesus was NOT a Savior of mankind.

gMark is about the Killing of the Son of God--Not Salvation by sacrifice or resurrection and the abolishing of the Laws of the Jews.

The Pauline Corpus and Gospel was INVENTED after gMark in the NT Canon.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 11:09 AM   #13
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Pauline Corpus is an extremely late work of fiction and forgeries.

The supposed very first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus was Irenaeus who was claimed to be a presbyter of the Church of Lyons. .
Clement of Rome mentions a writing attributed to Paul in the 1 Clem 47:1-3.

Quote:
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
A highly recommended book concerning the date of compoistion of 1 Clement is Reverend Herron's , Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk).
arnoldo is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 02:39 PM   #14
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Pauline Corpus is an extremely late work of fiction and forgeries.

The supposed very first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus was Irenaeus who was claimed to be a presbyter of the Church of Lyons. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Clement of Rome mentions a writing attributed to Paul in the 1 Clem 47:1-3.

Quote:
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
I am delighted that you mention a writing attributed to Clement called 1 Clement.

1 Clement is a forgery or falsely attributed to Clement of Rome and may have been composed sometime after the end of the 4th century.

It was a writing attributed to Irenaeus, a source of fiction and forgery, that first mention the Clement letter but it will be seen that the order of the bishops was REJECTED by Church writers up to 200 years later.

In 'Against Heresies' the order of the bishops of Rome is Peter-Linus-Anacletus-Clement

Even if there was a Great Dissension in the Church of Corinth c 95 CE, Clement was NOT bishop of Rome c 95 CE based on at least FIVE Church writers

Up to the 5th century, writers of the Church knew NOTHING of 1st Clement.

1.4th century Optatus knew nothing of 1st Clement when he declared the order of the bishops of Rome. [Peter-Linus-Clement-Anacletus...]

2.4th century Augustine of Hippo knew nothing of 1st Clement when he declared the order of the bishops of Rome.[Peter-Linus-Clement-Anacletus...]

3. 3rd century Tertullian knew nothing of 1st Clement when he declared the order of the bishops of Rome .[Peter-Clement..]

4. 4th century Rufinus knew nothing of 1st Clement when he declared the order of the bishops of Rome. [Linus-Peter--Clement..]

5. The 4th century author of the Chronograph of 354 knew nothing of 1st Clement when the order of the bishops of Rome was documented. [Peter-Linus-Clemens-Cletus]

It is an extremely simple exercise to identify that 1st Clement is a forgery or false attribution which follows the same pattern of the NT Canon which is filled with FAKE authors.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 02:53 PM   #15
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . Even if there was a Great Dissension in the Church of Corinth c 95 CE, Clement was NOT bishop of Rome c 95 CE based on at least FIVE Church writers
Yes, the argument is that Clement was not Bishop of Rome when 1 Clement was written, hence it's given an early rather than latter date by Reverend Herron. James Jeffers makes a similar argument for an early date for 1 Clement in his book Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Quote:
By the late second century, monoepiscopacy (which is anticipated, though not mentioned, in 1 Clement) was established in Rome. Apostolic succession and hierarchical government, separation of church membership into clergy and laity, property ownership, and emulation of Roman models, all advocated or anticipated in I Clement, were becoming the norm for the Roman church.
FWIW, Dionysius of Corinth allegedly wrote to the the Romans acknowledging Clement's letters as well as mentioning the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome.


Quote:
We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement. . . Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...dionysius.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 07:18 PM   #16
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . Even if there was a Great Dissension in the Church of Corinth c 95 CE, Clement was NOT bishop of Rome c 95 CE based on at least FIVE Church writers
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Yes, the argument is that Clement was not Bishop of Rome when 1 Clement was written, hence it's given an early rather than latter date by Reverend Herron. James Jeffers makes a similar argument for an early date for 1 Clement in his book Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk).
Such an argument for an earlier date is illogical when it is claimed that 1st Clement was written in response to a Great Dissension at around c 95 CE of the Church of Corinth.

This means that 1st Clement is not only a forgery or false attribution but it could not have been written before c 95 CE.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3
Quote:
.....in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians...
There was NO letter called 1st Clement or documented evidence KNOWN in the Church up to the 5th century or else Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine, Rufinus and the author of the Chronogragphy 354 would have placed Clement at around c 95 CE--Not as early c 68 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 08:13 PM   #17
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Well, Clement of Alexandria also mentions Paul's letters in Stromata, Book III.

Quote:
That is why Paul also instructs the Galatians in these words: "My little children, with whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." And again he writes to the Corinthians: "For though you may have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you have not many fathers. For in Christ I have begotten you through the gospel."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...3-english.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 09-28-2013, 10:42 PM   #18
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Well, Clement of Alexandria also mentions Paul's letters in Stromata, Book III.

Quote:
That is why Paul also instructs the Galatians in these words: "My little children, with whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." And again he writes to the Corinthians: "For though you may have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you have not many fathers. For in Christ I have begotten you through the gospel."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...3-english.html
It is very good that you mention Clement of Alexandria. Clement mentioned Multiple "Pauls".

First it is already established the Epistle called 1st Clement must be a forgery and composed AFTER 95 CE or after the supposed Dissension which the letter itself mentions based on Tertullian, Augustine, Rufinus, Optatus and the author of the Chronograph 354.

It is also established that Irenaeus could NOT have known of the Pauline Corpus when he PUBLICLY argued while a Presbyter that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age or at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius at around c 49 CE under Claudius.

Now, please look at the 'Stromata' and the 'Instructor' [writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria]

The writer called Clement of Alexandria had NO idea that there were MULTIPLE authors under name of Paul.

Clement did NOT know that the Pauline Corpus was a source of forgeries or false attribution.

In effect, Clement did NOT know who was the Real Paul, did NOT know when the Real Paul Lived, did NOT know what the Real Paul wrote and did NOT know when the Real Paul wrote.

Clement of Alexandria did not know that the Paul of Corinthians was NOT Paul in the Pastorals to Timothy and Titus.

Telling me Clement mentioned Paul is like telling me Eusebius mentioned the TF.

As soon as it was discovered and accepted almost universally that there were MULTIPLE authors called Paul then all writings which mention Paul become highly questionable.

Clement of Alexandria did NOT establish who the Real Paul was.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 08:07 AM   #19
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

It is extremely easy to logically determine the time period of the Pauline Corpus.

In the Pauline Corpus and in Acts of the Apostles it is claimed Saul/Paul PERSECUTED the Jesus cult.

The Jesus cult MUST predate the Pauline Corpus.

Based on the earliest story of Jesus, there was NO Jesus cult up to the time gMark was composed.

The author of gMark specically stated NO was told Jesus was raised from the dead because the supposed visitors to the empty tomb were afraid.

The very last words of gMark is extremely important.

Mark 16.8
Quote:
And they went out quickly, and fled the sepulcher, for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man for they were afraid.
There was NO Jesus cult of Christians when gMark was composed.

1. In gMark, Jesus wanted the Populace to remain in Sin.

2. In gMark, Jesus did not want the Populace to know he was the Christ.

3. In gMark, Jesus did NOT want to abolish the Jewish religion.

4. In gMark, the Jews Rejected Jesus as the Christ and Son of God and had him crucified the very same day.

5. The supposed disciples of Jesus either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied Jesus.

The earliest story of Jesus in gMark had NOTHING whatsoever to with Salvation of mankind, Nothing to do with the start of a New Religion.

The author of gMark DEMONISED the Jews as those responsible for the death of the Christ and Son of God.

The Jesus cult of Christians started AFTER Non-Jews BELIEVED the story that the Jews Killed the Christ and Son of God.

In the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius--all 1st century characters, there is NO mention whatsoever of a Jesus cult of Christian.

The first non-apologetic writer to argue AGAINST the Jesus cult is Celsus in True Discourse c 175-180 CE.

Along with Aristides, Justin, Theophilus, and Athenagoras Celsus' "True Discourse" established a terminus ante quem for the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Corpus could NOT have been composed BEFORE c 175-180 CE since we would have expected Celsus to attack the discrepancies in the Pauline Corpus as was done by Porphyry around the early 4th century.

Origen admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul in True Discourse. See "Against Celsus 1.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 11:35 AM   #20
arnoldo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. .The Pauline Corpus could NOT have been composed BEFORE c 175-180 CE since we would have expected Celsus to attack the discrepancies in the Pauline Corpus as was done by Porphyry around the early 4th century.
Jerome Murphy O'Conner, writes in Paul: A Critical Life (or via: amazon.co.uk) that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul and that at some time a section of it was interpolated into 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 . Jumping to the conclusion that the Pauline Corpus could NOT have been compsed BEFORE c 175-180 CE doesn't follow because there were MULTIPLE authors called Paul, IMHO. :banghead:

Given that since no one disputed the Pauline letters in the second century they didn't exist, does it follow that since Serapion, Bishop of Antioch [a.d.circa 190-200-211.], disputed the Gospel of Peter, that the earlier letters attributed to Peter existed? If so, what is the significance of 2: Peter 3:14-16 reference to Paul's epsitles?

Quote:
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
arnoldo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.