Ben C Smith

Refer also to Against Marcion 5.14.9:

If Marcion has of set purpose cut out these passages, what is this exclamation his apostle [apostolus eius] makes?

Paul = his apostle = the apostle of Marcion.
Marcion = heretic.
Marcionites = heretics.
Paul = apostle of the heretic(s).

Ben.

aa5874

This is most illogical.

You have no understanding of logics at all. You are hopeless.

Tertullian uses Paul to show that Marcion was indeed a heretic and now you claim Paul was also an heretic. This is incredible stuff.

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius ALL refer to Marcion as a HERETIC.

Irenaeus wrote a book about heretics, he did not mentioned that Paul was a heretic.

Origen did not claim Paul was a heretic, neither Eusebius who wrote the history of the Church.

Paul becomes an apostle of heretics just from an ambiguous passage. This is just mind-boggling.

Ben C Smith

Please show me where I said Paul was a heretic. What I said was that Paul was, according to Tertullian, the apostle of heretics.

Correct.

Correct (so far as I know).

Correct (again so far as I know).

But you forgot Tertullian. Tertullian does not call Paul a heretic either. He calls Paul the apostle of heretics, or the apostle of Marcion (his apostle, where the his refers back to Marcion).

The passage is not ambiguous at all. Tertullian, I suspect, would never call Paul a heretic; but he most certainly did call Paul the apostle of heretics. That is not the same thing.

I get the distinct impression you have no idea what calling Paul the apostle of heretics meant.

Ben.

spamandham

I think caution is warranted against making too much of this passage (and many others that have Paul referring to Jesus as fleshy).

I recently addressed this particular passage in another thread:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...&postcount=101

Casper

I may very well be mistaken. I'll have to check. If that is the case then we have 3 Josephus sources for gLuke and two for gMarcion.

aa5874

I cannot follow your illogical equations.

[Paul = his apostle = the apostle of Marcion.]

Marcion rejected Paul. Paul is not an apostle of Marcion. Paul was not regarded as a Marcionite.

Casper

I am confused. Who was the attributed author of the Apostolicon? Not the compiler but the author of the letters? A rejected prophet or mentor would not be venerated in such a way, in my mind.

aa5874

The information coming from Tertulian about Marcion and Paul is flawed and dubious. Tertuulian appear not know when Acts of the Apostles or Luke were written. Tertullian appear not to know when or who wrote the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, he thought that they were written by the same Paul who wrote the other Epistles.

Justin Martyr never mentioned Luke wrote any gospel or that any person named Paul wrote any epistles. Justin never mentioned Acts of the Apostles or that Luke wrote the Acts.

Tertullian himself claimed there were three different versions of Against Marcion circulated during his time, all ,initially, written by Tertullian. One, he did in a hurry, another, full of mistakes and the third amended.

This is total confusion.

dog-on

AA, though it was amusing for a while, maybe you should step back and let the trip wear-off.

No one ever claimed that Paul was a heretic (at least as far as Ireneaus and forward). I do think that there possibly was a time prior to Paul's reformation, that he may have been exclusive to the other team, but any such reference must be in Roger's 99% pile.

(Maybe Justin would have viewed Paul as a heretic, I don't know, but do have my suspicions).

Ben C Smith

Incorrect, as has been shown you before.

Tertullian said Paul was the apostle of Marcion. I gave you the text, and it is plain.

Correct. Paul came before Marcion, and therefore could not have been a Marcionite.

Ben.