Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,

Quote:

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery carried out no earlier than c 400 CE or After the writing of Augustine of Hippo.

Are you talking about the whole of "Against Heresies" or parts of it?
For the second option, what would have been added?
How do you explain that the passage about Jesus reaching 50 years old in AH and "Claudius" in "Demonstration ..." were not deleted then?

Cordially, Bernard

Any claim in Against Heresies that Irenaeus, Marcion, the Church of Lyons, and the so-called Heretics were aware of and had knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters to Churches are products of forgeries, fraud and fiction.

Bernard Muller · 04-01-2013, 03:27 PM

to aa,

Quote:

Any claim in Against Heresies that Irenaeus, Marcion, the Church of Lyons, and the so-called Heretics were aware of and had knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters to Churches are products of forgeries, fraud and fiction.

You did not answer that:
"How do you explain that the passage about Jesus reaching 50 years old in AH and "Claudius" in "Demonstration ..." were not deleted then?"

You should also add the claim in "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching" (that Pilate served as governor under Claudius during Jesus' crucifixion) is a proof that "heretic Irenaeus" did not know about Justin Martyr's writings (which specify Jesus was crucified during Tiberius' reign).
That's obvious: your "heretic Irenaeus", around 180, did not know the Pauline epistles, and 'Acts' and Justin Martyr's works. Do you agree? I am just following your methodology

. Of course, that would mean Justin Martyr's works did not exist yet!!!

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

he only trusts Justin (absurdly)

Your statement is wholly absurd.

I trust no-one. You seem not to understand what is 'credible evidence' and what is 'trust'.

You don't seem to understand what is meant by a "hostile witness".

Again, I use many apologetic and non-apologetic sources and I have mentioned them repeatedly yet you give the complete erroneous impression that I only trust Justin.

How absurd can you be!!!

My argument is IMPECCABLE--the Pauline letters were fabricated after Marcion was Dead or after c 180 CE.

These are some of the sources that I use to date the Pauline writings c 180 CE or later:

1. The short gMark

2. The long gMark

3. gMatthew

4. gLuke

5. gJohn

6. Acts of the Apostles.

7. Revelation

9. Philo

10. Josephus

11. Tacitus

12 Suetonius

13. Pliny the youger

14 The Clement Epistle.

15. Aristides

16. Justin Martyr

17. Lucian of Samosata

18. Theophilus of Antioch

19. Athenagoras

20. Irenaeus

21. Tertullian

22. Origen

24. Eusebius

25. Ephraim

26. Rufinus

27. Optatus

28. The Chronograph of 354

29. Jerome

30. Augustine of Hippo

31. The Recovered Dated NT manuscripts.

32. Julian the Emperor

33. The False Isidore Decretals

34. The Donation of Constantine

35. The Muratorian Canon.

36. Arnobius

37. Hippolytus

Bernard Muller · 04-01-2013, 05:00 PM

to aa,

a) 1 Clement tells about Paul and him having written at least one epistle.
1 Clement was addressed to people which were still considered of the same generation than Paul & Peter, and before the coming soon of the Kingdom, before they dies. See here

b) 2 Peter is normally dated before 160 and also mention Paul and him writing letters.

c) Ignatian letter to the Ephesians which I date around 130 also mentions Paul and him writing letters.

d) The Epistola Apostolorum, dated through the internal evidence at around 150, has passages drawn from 'Acts'. See here.

e) Papias (120-140) knew also about 'Acts' because the following, from his surviving writings, appears to provide an explanation on how Judas "having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Ac1:18b Darby) (which must have perplexed early Christians!):
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." (attributed to Papias by Oecumenius & Theophylact)

f) Eusebius mentioned 'Acts' (with quotes) and Paul's letters (with quotes). He also said that Paul was active during Claudius and Nero's reigns.

g) Tertullian also mentioned Paul's letters were known during Marcion's times (10 of them).

That's a lot to dispatch away in order to keep your pet theory alive even when you claim your "heretic Irenaeus" did not know about the Pauline epistles and 'Acts' (because they did not exist yet!!!).

Even Justin Martyr quoted a very likely interpolation in gLuke, which was drawn from one of Paul's letter. See here.

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller;

...Even Justin Martyr quoted a very likely interpolation in gLuke, which was drawn from one of Paul's letter. See here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Waugh

Marcionite 1 Corinthians Interliner
1 Corinthians] 11:23-27, 30 are all part of a later post Marcion stratum. The concept of Paul receiving a tradition πανέθααμκ ἀπὸ ημῦ ηονίμο as opposed to revelation (Galatians 1:12 πανέθααμκ αὐηὸ μὔηε ἐδζδάπεδκ ἀθθὰ δζ᾽ ἀπμηαθύρεςξ Ἰδζμῦ Χνζζημῦ) is impossible in Marcion, even coming from the Lord. The tradition which follows in verse 11:24-25 is lifted entirely verbatim from Luke 22:19-20. While this material in Luke is attested in Marcion‟s Gospel (AM 4.40.4) it is unique that the Gospel would be quoted in Paul, and a rather later version at that; the reading includes ⌐ ὡζαύηςξ ηαὶ ηὸ πμηήνζμκ for ηαὶ ηὸ πμηήνζμκ ὡζαύηςξ (all mss. except B p75 א U 579)which indicates this came back into 1 Corinthians later. The other problem is this passage is concerned with sacrament in the Church, a concern independent of the early Christian feasts of the surrounding text. This point is apparent in 11:28 when the meaning of the sacrament as a method to separate orthodox from heretic is stated in terms of worthiness, an issue of prominence against Gnostics. In verse 11:26 the concern is with not only the meaning of the sacrament, but also the second coming of the Lord, a Catholic concept differing from Marcion. Finally verse 11:30 is rendered nonsensical without the second coming commentary in 11:26, as 11:21-22, 28-29, 31-34 are dealing with matters of immediacy. The flow is thus restored from 11:22 to 11:28

jj4

aa5874 · 04-01-2013, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,

a) 1 Clement tells about Paul and him having written at least one epistle.
1 Clement was addressed to people which were still considered of the same generation than Paul & Peter, and before the coming soon of the Kingdom, before they dies. See here

b) 2 Peter is normally dated before 160 and also mention Paul and him writing letters.

c) Ignatian letter to the Ephesians which I date around 130 also mentions Paul and him writing letters.

d) The Epistola Apostolorum, dated through the internal evidence at around 150, has passages drawn from 'Acts'. See here.

e) Papias (120-140) knew also about 'Acts' because the following, from his surviving writings, appears to provide an explanation on how Judas "having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Ac1:18b Darby) (which must have perplexed early Christians!):
"Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." (attributed to Papias by Oecumenius & Theophylact)

f) Eusebius mentioned 'Acts' (with quotes) and Paul's letters (with quotes). He also said that Paul was active during Claudius and Nero's reigns.

g) Tertullian also mentioned Paul's letters were known during Marcion's times (10 of them).

That's a lot to dispatch away in order to keep your pet theory alive even when you claim your "heretic Irenaeus" did not know about the Pauline epistles and 'Acts' (because they did not exist yet!!!).

Even Justin Martyr quoted a very likely interpolation in gLuke, which was drawn from one of Paul's letter. See here.

Cordially, Bernard

How many times must you be shown that the NT Canon cannot be used to date the Pauline letters before c 62 CE?

Acts of the Apostles mentions a character called Saul/Paul but made no statement at all that Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches.

2 Peter does NOT belong to the Canon. See Church History.

jakejonesiv · 04-01-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The copies of writings attributed to Justin Martyr are fundamentally CORROBORATED by Apologetics, Non-Apologetics, Scholars, and the Recovered Dated Manuscripts.

Dear aa5874,

Your position is absurd.

Justin is known from a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus Graecus 450) which dates to 1364.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Yes, it is absurd to rely upon a single, 14th century manuscript from an Italian monastery.

Which dated manuscripts do you trust?
Which apologetic sources do you trust?
Which Scholars do you trust. Names please.
Why should we believe you when you believe Justin but disbelieve other "church fathers" who have better manuscript evidence?

ficino · 04-02-2013, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,

Quote:

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery carried out no earlier than c 400 CE or After the writing of Augustine of Hippo.

Are you talking about the whole of "Against Heresies" or parts of it?
For the second option, what would have been added?
How do you explain that the passage about Jesus reaching 50 years old in AH and "Claudius" in "Demonstration ..." were not deleted then?

Cordially, Bernard

Here's a review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review of a 2012 book on Irenaeus' presentation of Valentinianism. One gets the impression that "mainstream" scholarship does not doubt the (at least) substantial authenticity of the Adversus Haereses.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-04-04.html

andrewcriddle · 04-02-2013, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Waugh

Marcionite 1 Corinthians Interliner
1 Corinthians] 11:23-27, 30 are all part of a later post Marcion stratum. The concept of Paul receiving a tradition πανέθααμκ ἀπὸ ημῦ ηονίμο as opposed to revelation (Galatians 1:12 πανέθααμκ αὐηὸ μὔηε ἐδζδάπεδκ ἀθθὰ δζ᾽ ἀπμηαθύρεςξ Ἰδζμῦ Χνζζημῦ) is impossible in Marcion, even coming from the Lord. The tradition which follows in verse 11:24-25 is lifted entirely verbatim from Luke 22:19-20. While this material in Luke is attested in Marcion‟s Gospel (AM 4.40.4) it is unique that the Gospel would be quoted in Paul, and a rather later version at that; the reading includes ⌐ ὡζαύηςξ ηαὶ ηὸ πμηήνζμκ for ηαὶ ηὸ πμηήνζμκ ὡζαύηςξ (all mss. except B p75 א U 579)which indicates this came back into 1 Corinthians later. The other problem is this passage is concerned with sacrament in the Church, a concern independent of the early Christian feasts of the surrounding text. This point is apparent in 11:28 when the meaning of the sacrament as a method to separate orthodox from heretic is stated in terms of worthiness, an issue of prominence against Gnostics. In verse 11:26 the concern is with not only the meaning of the sacrament, but also the second coming of the Lord, a Catholic concept differing from Marcion. Finally verse 11:30 is rendered nonsensical without the second coming commentary in 11:26, as 11:21-22, 28-29, 31-34 are dealing with matters of immediacy. The flow is thus restored from 11:22 to 11:28

jj4

a/ Something odd seems to have happened to the Greek font here.
b/ It is unlikely that the word order in 1 Corinthians 11:25 is based on a late form of Luke 22:20 it is more likely that late manuscripts of Luke have been assimilated to Corinthians.
c/ Although Marcion had some version of the long form of Luke 22:19-20 I doubt whether it had a mention of anamnesis/remembrance, which is part of the Justin Martyr passage. Certainly Tertullian in AM 4.40.4 gives no indication that this idea was present in Marcion's text. See an interesting discussion at luke-22-17-20

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 04-02-2013, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The copies of writings attributed to Justin Martyr are fundamentally CORROBORATED by Apologetics, Non-Apologetics, Scholars, and the Recovered Dated Manuscripts.

Dear aa5874,

Your position is absurd.

Justin is known from a single manuscript (Codex Parisinus Graecus 450) which dates to 1364.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Yes, it is absurd to rely upon a single, 14th century manuscript from an Italian monastery.

Which dated manuscripts do you trust?
Which apologetic sources do you trust?
Which Scholars do you trust. Names please.
Why should we believe you when you believe Justin but disbelieve other "church fathers" who have better manuscript evidence?

If you attempt to argue my position is absurd for using copies of writings then you might as well stop making your absurd claims about Marcion because you MUST, MUST, MUST use the very, very same copies of 14th century texts that are presently available.

Your position appears now to be wholly illogical.

It is accepted universally to use copies of writings of antiquity to develop any argument.

Again, you seem not to understand the difference between "Belief" and "Evidence".

You seem not to understand what is meant by a "hostile witness".

You seem NOT to understand the difference between the "Truth" and "Evidence".

My argument that the Pauline letters were fabricated after c 180 CE is based on over 35 sources of antiquity--not just copies of writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Now, please tell us the earliest dated manuscripts of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius and MARCION??

What dated manuscripts do you use for your claims about Marcion?

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

04-01-2013, 05:00 PM	#864
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to aa, a) 1 Clement tells about Paul and him having written at least one epistle. 1 Clement was addressed to people which were still considered of the same generation than Paul & Peter, and before the coming soon of the Kingdom, before they dies. See here b) 2 Peter is normally dated before 160 and also mention Paul and him writing letters. c) Ignatian letter to the Ephesians which I date around 130 also mentions Paul and him writing letters. d) The Epistola Apostolorum, dated through the internal evidence at around 150, has passages drawn from 'Acts'. See here. e) Papias (120-140) knew also about 'Acts' because the following, from his surviving writings, appears to provide an explanation on how Judas "having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Ac1:18b Darby) (which must have perplexed early Christians!): "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." (attributed to Papias by Oecumenius & Theophylact) f) Eusebius mentioned 'Acts' (with quotes) and Paul's letters (with quotes). He also said that Paul was active during Claudius and Nero's reigns. g) Tertullian also mentioned Paul's letters were known during Marcion's times (10 of them). That's a lot to dispatch away in order to keep your pet theory alive even when you claim your "heretic Irenaeus" did not know about the Pauline epistles and 'Acts' (because they did not exist yet!!!). Even Justin Martyr quoted a very likely interpolation in gLuke, which was drawn from one of Paul's letter. See here. Cordially, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.