Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 01:07 PM

That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. There is every reason to believe that all the gospels were intended to be part of set of texts supplementing one another.
There were never Christians who accepted 2 gospels and 5 epistles, or 6 gospels and 11 epistles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

"Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?*" by David C. Sim [School of Theology/Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University]

"Most scholars acknowledge Matthew’s debt to Mark in the composition of his own Gospel, and they are fully aware of his extensive redaction and expansion of this major source. Yet few scholars pose what is an obvious question that arises from these points: What was Matthew’s intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesus’ mission? Did he intend to supplement Mark, in which case he wished his readers to continue to consult Mark as well as his own narrative, or was it his intention to replace the earlier Gospel? It is argued in this study that the evidence suggests that Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account."

It costs £20 to read this journal. so i thought that it is better for me to purchase a book about why scholars think matthew wanted to replace mark. does any one know any latest titles on the subject? thank you

Toto · 06-11-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. ...

I don't' think this is true. Marcion only had one gospel. Justin only refers to the memoirs of the Apostles. We know that some early Christians used the Gospel of Peter, which has mostly lost. It was only after Irenaeus that the four canonical gospels became joined at the hip, as it were.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. There is every reason to believe that all the gospels were intended to be part of set of texts supplementing one another.
There were never Christians who accepted 2 gospels and 5 epistles, or 6 gospels and 11 epistles...

You keep on making known erroneous statements although you have notified. There is no actual evidence that "the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts".

Please, I beg of you, discontinue your fallacy.

You are putting forward the absurdity that all the gospels of the Canon were composed around the same time with known discrepancies and contradictions.

aa5874 · 06-11-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. ...

I don't' think this is true. Marcion only had one gospel. Justin only refers to the memoirs of the Apostles. We know that some early Christians used the Gospel of Peter, which has mostly lost. It was only after Irenaeus that the four canonical gospels became joined at the hip, as it were.

We do not know that early Christians used the Gospel of Peter.

The Church writer Eusebius denied that the Gospel of Peter was used by early Christians.

[u]Church History 3.25.6

Quote:

...we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings...

Your claim about the Gospel of Peter is essentially fiction, madeup, without any corroborative evidence from antiquity.

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 02:06 PM

There is no evidence of any of this except among the statements of the church spokesmen. The logic just doesn't hold up. There is no evidence for the existence of Marcion or his alleged community anywhere, no surviving texts, nothing. All that exists are what always existed: a set of canonical texts described since the 4th century as the Christian texts. What was "lost" is no evidence at all since anyone could say that anything was "lost."
All the Justin text says about "memoirs of the apostles" are elements that ended up in the gospels anyway, and of course regardless of any differences among them.

A sect that followed 3 gospels and 9 epistles, or 6 gospels and 20 epistles never existed. The set described was always the 4 gospels including the canonical epistles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. ...

I don't' think this is true. Marcion only had one gospel. Justin only refers to the memoirs of the Apostles. We know that some early Christians used the Gospel of Peter, which has mostly lost. It was only after Irenaeus that the four canonical gospels became joined at the hip, as it were.

Toto · 06-11-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is no evidence of any of this except among the statements of the church spokesmen. The logic just doesn't hold up. There is no evidence for the existence of Marcion or his alleged community anywhere, no surviving texts, nothing.

There is evidence of Marcion in he writings of his enemies. This is usually considered sufficient evidence.

Your constant repetition of this point, without responding to your critics, is getting boring. Please find something more interesting to post.

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 02:49 PM

You mean to tell me that some text whose authorship itself can never be empirically proven writes about an alleged "enemy" for whom NOTHING exists in the real world as evidence is sufficient proof for the existence of this enemy?!
And you suggest that this is logically sound. If someone comes along and describes Bilaam as the enemy of Moses, is this sufficient empirical evidence for you for the existence of Bilaam beyond the realm of faith?

Your view establishes a doctrine that cannot be refuted even by logic. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is no evidence of any of this except among the statements of the church spokesmen. The logic just doesn't hold up. There is no evidence for the existence of Marcion or his alleged community anywhere, no surviving texts, nothing.

There is evidence of Marcion in he writings of his enemies. This is usually considered sufficient evidence.

Your constant repetition of this point, without responding to your critics, is getting boring. Please find something more interesting to post.

Toto · 06-11-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You mean to tell me that some text whose authorship itself can never be empirically proven writes about an alleged "enemy" for whom NOTHING exists in the real world as evidence is sufficient proof for the existence of this enemy?!
...

It's not a "proof." It's evidence that is about as good as you can expect for this period of history.

Duvduv · 06-11-2013, 05:08 PM

You are avoiding the point I made, preferring to hide behind the patronizing hobby horse accusation. At least be intellectually honest and admit the challenge to your doctrine about Marcion. It's boring to you, Toto because it is uncomfortable to face the challenge. Especially since you know that there is no more evidence for the existence of Marcion than for the existence of Bilaam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You mean to tell me that some text whose authorship itself can never be empirically proven writes about an alleged "enemy" for whom NOTHING exists in the real world as evidence is sufficient proof for the existence of this enemy?!
...

It's not a "proof." It's evidence that is about as good as you can expect for this period of history.

Toto · 06-11-2013, 05:33 PM

I am not avoiding your point. I am meeting it head on, again, and there is nothing more to say.

The existence of Marcion means nothing to me, but it does seem to make sense of the history.

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

06-11-2013, 05:33 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am not avoiding your point. I am meeting it head on, again, and there is nothing more to say. The existence of Marcion means nothing to me, but it does seem to make sense of the history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.