aa5874

"Against Marcion" by "Tertullian" is work of fiction.

When one examines a book called "On the Flesh of Christ" by the very supposed "Tertullian" it becomes even more obvious that it was most unlikely that Marcion needed gLuke or the Pauline writings.

"Tertullian" would claim Macion denied the FLESH and NATIVITY of JESUS.
"On the Flesh of Christ" And now examine "First Apology" LVIII by Justin Martyr.

So Marcion does NOT even need Hebrew Scripture, he does not need Genesis, he does not need the God of the Jews. Marcion therefore does not the so-called prophecies about the Nativity of Jesus, Marcion's Christ was NOT born of a Virgin or Woman as found in IsAIAH 7.14.

All the so-called prophecies from conception to resurrection in Hebrew Scripture are NOT applicable to Marcion's Christ.

1. Marcion did NOT need the Hebrew Scripture. His God was not of the Jews.

2. Marcion did NOT need the so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

3. Marcion did NOT need Isaiah 7.14.

4. Marcion's Christ had NO FLESH.

5. Marcion's Christ had NO BLOOD.

6. Marcion's Christ had NO BODY.

It is obvious that Marcion did NOT need gLuke or the Pauline writings.

But there is one other problem.

Justin Martyr's writings tend to suggest that neither gLuke nor the Pauline writings did exist up to the time Justin wrote.

All claims that Marcion used gLuke and the Pauline writings appear to be false by "Tertullian".

It would appear gLuke and the Pauline writings did NOT even exist in the middle of the 2nd century or up to the time Justin wrote.

"Against Marcion" by "Tertullian" is a work of fiction

mountainman

Marcion is refering to the historicity or the history of Jesus.
But Marcion too, is just another Eusebian mouthpiece.
The books of the new testament are a fiction of men.
Their wickedness is that they are a fabrication of influential men
passed off to the plain and simple uneducated classes as historically true.

aa5874

Marcion was most unlikely to be a mouthpiece of the Church. Marcion's Christ was not from the God of the Church and was not born of a Virgin.

It must be noted that the NT as Canonised was not the mouthpeice of Macion and Marcion's Christ was NOT likely to have been named Jesus.

Marcion's Christ was not a product of Isaiah 7.14 or the so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

There were no angels to tell Mary or any woman of the name of Marcion's Christ at birth.

Marcion's Christ was NOT the offspring of a Ghost of God and Mary.

Now, it is not my view presently that ALL the so-called Church writings were manipulated by the Church.

For example, It is my view that "Ad Nationes" by "Tertullian" was not likely to be manipulated but "Against Marcion" and "First Apology" supposedly by "Terullian" were likely to be written or manipulated wholly or in part by the Church or Constantine's apostles.

mountainman

Even when the entire technological state of the pre-Nicaean literature of the Greek civilisation was in the supreme and absolute control of the church? ...... And that we have statements made by Constantine such as ....

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy,
and the 'age' of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

- Constantine's Oration, Antioch, 325 CE,
- to the (captive and non-christian) Saints

Sorry to disagree with you on this issue aa5874, but I think that the rise of "Christian Origins" is satisfactorily explained by an imperial perversion of the literature of the Greek civilisation, which was subsequently lost to the world for a thousand years, and only remained in the world because it sought refuge outside the perverted and Christian-controlled Roman empire.

aa5874

Perhaps I should have said that I am presently of the view that NOT all of the so-called Church writings that I have read were manipulated by the Church.

It is rather simple to find out what the Church invented.

For example, Eusebius is claimed to have written Church History and this writer claimed Acts of the Apostles and all the writings under the name Paul were authentic.

Without Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings Eusebius essentially had no history.

Eusebius NEEDED Acts and the Pauline Epistles.

Acts and the Pauline Epistles MUST be authentic for Church History to be regarded as credible.

Now, just look for all the Church writings that made the very same or similar claim that Acts of the Apostles and/ or all the writings under the name Paul were authentic.

Eusebius in Church History claimed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote Gospels. Just look for all the Church writers who made similar claims.

You wont find that Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagoras made any of those claims.

Dutch_labrat

rf§

Duvduv

How could any scholar with integrity possibly accept the interpretations of propaganda texts in a supposed two sided debate where the reader or audience is never afforded the slightest ability to form an independent opinion based on both sets of available information?!
All a writer named Tertullian does is provide pre-digested interpretation, expecting the reader to take his word for it, which they invariably do in accepting the claims about the bogeyman named Marcion.

But some folks will hang on to the second century scenario at all costs. Even the fanciful imaginings of an unknown writer who is identified as second century Tertullian.