arnoldo

I haven't read those books, however while searching the books contents on google books I couldn't find anything to indicate the author cited believes Paul's writings are anachronistic. On his website he has several papers available for download concerning this allegory.

aa5874

But, I hope you are taking notes of the abundance of evidence that demonstrate the Pauline writings are anachronistic.

The evidence has been available for hundreds of years. And there is more.

Examine the book called Revelation.

Some writer called John claimed he had revelations from Jesus Christ and this Jesus Christ told him that he was coming very quickly.

This revelation by John is from Revelation 1.7 This revelation FROM Jesus Christ to John is compatible to the Synoptics when Jesus told the Sanhedrin that they would see him coming in the clouds.

Mark 14.62 And when the Son of Man comes in the clouds heaven and earth will pass away. The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give light and the stars will fall.

Re 6:12 -

The author of Revelation culminates his revelations in Revelation 22.1-2 The kingdom of God from heaven will come after the present heaven and earth have passaed away.

And then Revelation 21.23 Now, the Jesus Christ in Revelation is in complete synch with the Synoptic Jesus. The revelations of John from his Jesus Christ mirror the words of the Synoptic Jesus when he was on earth. The Synoptic Jesus was coming back very soon, the Sanhedrin will see him.

The kingdom of God was at hand.

But, the Pauline writer did not get any revelation that his Jesus was coming back shortly and that the Sanhedrin will see him. There is hardly any urgency from the Pauline revelations.

John's revelations are not at all like the Pauline revelations.

John's Jesus just want people to repent and believe in him for the kingdom of God is at hand but Paul's Jesus just do NOT want people to be circumcised. But, the Synoptic Jesus was circumcised.

The Pauline Jesus revealed to Paul to preach to the uncircumcised, but the Synoptic Jesus came precisely for the Jews and even told his disciple to only preach to Jews.

This is Paul's revelation from his Jesus.

Ga 5:2 - Paul's Jesus is not compatible with the Synoptic and Revelation Jesus.

John's Jesus does not care if you are circumcised or not. Just repent and believe the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Re 22:12 - Mark 1:15 - It would appear to me that the Pauline Jesus is not compatible with the Synoptic and Revelation Jesus and is outside the time zone of the Synoptics and Revelation well after the failed prophecy of the coming of Jesus in the cloud when the new Jerusalem failed to arrive as predicted.

Justin Martyr cannot account for the revelations from the Pauline Jesus up to the middle of the 2nd century, but Justin accounted for the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels and Revelation by John.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

arnoldo

Pauline writings would be anachronistic if for example the writer mentioned he emailed his letters to the galatians. So far you've presented that the Pauline writer knew about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. which indeed would be a genuine anachronism. Now, it has been established that Marcion was not aware of any Pauline writings in the early second century and neither was Justin Martyr in the middle second century. Therefore this fictitious Pauline writer must have written sometime in the late second century or beyond. Surely there must be more anachronisms in the entire Pauline writings besides an allegorical reference to Jerusalem being in bondage/experiencing wrath,etc. Or do you have more examples of Paul omitting references to doctrine in the book of revelations?

Toto

??

Marcion was the first recorded collector of the Pauline letters. He has been accused of being an editor or author.

There are many apparent references in the Pauline letters to gnostic principles. (See Elaine Pagel's Gnostic Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk).) Mainstream scholars date gnosticism to the second century. The standard explanation is that Paul was arguing with "proto-gnostics" but these references may all be anacronisms.

arnoldo

I was going along with aa's comments below;


From this persepctive Marcion did not use/know about the Pauline writings. For that matter Justin Martyr makes no mention of Pauline writings either. Therefore I was trying to establish a date for the Pauline writings for the late second century( or beyond). A late second century writer of the Pauline writings would know about the destruction of Jerusalem thus if this is indicated in the writings (allegorical or otherwise) it would establish that; The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Toto

Why would you go along with aa's comments? Do you actually agree with him?

It is the general consensus of everyone who has studied the matter that Marcion published a compilation of Paul's letters in his Apostolicon. I am not sure if aa is claiming that all of our sources are forged, or just that Marcion did not derive his gospel from the Pauline letters, or what.

aa5874

How can it be true that everyone who has studied the matter agree that Marcion published a compilation of Paul's letter in his Apostolicion?

Who is "everyone"? This is just a blatant appeal to authority.

Please tell me what is the basis for your "everyone" consensus? Is it faith based?

And, in any event, your "everyone" consensus cannot remove the anachronisms in Romans 11.


But, perhaps you are not reading my post so you may be totally uninformed.

I have already shown that Hippolytus have contradicted the notion that Marcion mutilated the Pauline writings.

I have already shown that Origen contradicted the notion that Marcion mutilated the Gospels.

I have already shown that Tertullian admitted that the writing he attributed to Marcion was an anonymous writing

I have already shown that Tertullian in "Against Marcion" claimed that there were copies of books with his name that were full of mistakes about Marcion.

Now, it has been deduced that there were more than one person who used the name Paul to write letters but Tertulian in "Against Marcion" did not admit that to be the case.

Tertullian does not know what Paul actually wrote or when Paul wrote.

In "Against Marcion" Tertullian claimed Marcion mutilated the Epistles to Timothy and Titus but these Epistles may have been written after Marcion had died.

Based on Hippolytus Marcion preached a doctrine of Dualism which was plagerised from Empedocles, and the Pauline Epistles do not support Dualism.

Marcion had no need whatsoever of the Pauline writings.

Now, the Pauline writings show virtually no sign of being used by the Synoptic authors. The main theme of the Pauline writings is "salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ" but the main theme of the Synoptics is "destruction of Jerusalem because of rejection of Jesus and that the kingdom of God was at hand.

And further, in the Synoptics Jesus did not teach his disciples that he would die and resurrect to save mankind from sin. Jesus only repeatedly claimed he would be raised on the third day. No reason was given for the resurrection in the Synoptics.

The Pauline writer appeared to know why his Jesus was raised from the dead, it must be or very likely that the Synoptic authors did NOT put flesh on the Pauline Jesus but most likely "flesh" was placed on the Septuagint starting with Isaiah 7.14.

The Synoptic Jesus is virtually wholly or fundamentally from the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

And as soon as the Pauline writer claimed "Severity fell on the Jews" it was all over.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Toto

I have trouble reading aa's posts, so perhaps I missed something.

Marcion on ECW

The debate is over whether Marcion removed parts of Paul's letters, or whether the proto-orthodox church added material. There is no debate over whether Marcion claimed to have some of the letters attributed to Paul.

This is completely independent of whether Paul's letters contain anachronisms, where I would tend to agree that they do. But this is compatible with the letters being written in the late first or early second century. There is no need to push them into the later second century as arnoldo seems to want to do.

aa5874

I don't think that you have any trouble at all reading my post. Tell me exactly what you don't understand when I say the Pauline writings are anachronistic.

This is just the opinion of some source. There is no authority that prevents debate or determine when debates can no longer be carried out.

You have missed something. We are debating that the "Pauline writings are anachronistic" on this board.

Are you implying that some other person controls the debate on this board?

What you have posted makes no sense whatsoever. Any position or opinion about Marcion and the Pauline writings can be debated by anyone, even in the very link you provided I can't find where it is claimed any debate is over.

Now, I cannot recall where the writings of Hippolytus, "Refutation of all Heresies" have been taken into consideration when dealing with the teachings of Marcion.

Hippolytus have clearly stated that Marcion PLAGERISED Empedocles. And the PaULINE writer claimed "Severity fell on the Jews".

The debate has already begun.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

aa5874

I can only present the anachronisms that I see, and I only need to show one of significance. Romans 11 is a very significant anachronism. The Pauline writer wrote after "Severity fell on the Jews" or after 70 CE.

You seem not to realise that there may have been efforts to make sure that any evidence to show the Pauline writings were late were removed, masked or carefully avoided.


Well, examine Colossians 1. The Pauline writer refers to the son of God as the Creator of everything in heaven and in earth.
Colossians1.12-17And this is the author of gJohn.
John 1:1-6 - It must be noted that no Synoptic writer claimed Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth,or that Jesus was the light of men.

Jesus as the Creator and the light of men can be found in only the Gospel of John.

Once it is admitted that the Synoptics were written after the Fall of the Temple then this may tend to or likely indicate that there were no known written sources or any oral tradition at the time of writing of the Synoptics that Jesus was considered the Creator of heaven and earth and the light of men.

Once it is admitted that gJohn is after the Synoptics, then Jesus as the Creator of heaven and earth was a late upgraded status of Jesus.

The Pauline claim that Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth is most likely an anachronism. The passage in Colossians was very likely written after the Synoptics or after 70 CE.