stephan huller

An objective examination of the evidence would conclude that Marcion is a very early witness to the gospel. One of many who seem to have held to the idea that Jesus was not the Christ of the Old Testament. You can't just argue that because you don't like someone's point of view that makes them disreputable. That's even too self-serving for this forum.

sotto voce

How could Marcion, born ca. 85, witness that Peter misunderstood 'the gospel secret'?

tanya

Really?

Is that how you behave?

I disagree.

1. What evidence? We possess not a scintilla of evidence from Marcion. Everything in our possession, written about him comes from opponents of his group.

2. If you are referring to "patristic" references, those second and third century documents are themselves corrupt, in most cases. How does one "objectively" analyze writings known to have been redacted?

3. I imagine, suppose, and believe that you are correct about Marcion's having been an early witness to the gospel, maybe he was Mark, who knows the truth? If he lived circa 140, he may have seen the first edition, hot off the presses, not long after expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, by the Romans.

Absent genuine, undisputed documentation, it is very difficult to persuade someone that an "objective" review of Marcion's contribution and role, has been undertaken.

Doug Shaver

There is plenty of old evidence in addition to the historian's, notwithstanding your unsubstantiated and repeated-ad-nauseam claims that the historian manufactured all of it.

Sheshbazzar

While I seriously doubt that the 'historian' manufactured all of it', I have no doubts at all that the 'historian' manufactured some of it.

What is lacking is means of determining how much, and what content, specifically, is manufactured.

Thus it leaves the content of the entire corpus of this church 'historians' works a highly suspect and undependable source.

aa5874

No, it does NOT stand to reason that there was an historical Jesus behind the potrait in gMark.

Doug Shaver

Yes, and how frustrating that must be. It's no fun proving that Christianity is just a mistake. We can't be satisfied until we've proved it's a fraud.

aa5874

At this present time there are means to determine, and there is evidence, that the Roman Church or its agents fraudulently wrote WHOLLY or In part to present a "history" of the Church which was chronologically bogus:

1. Writings called Acts of the Apostles.

2. Writings attributed to Paul.

3. Writings attributed to Ignatius.

4. Writings attributed to Polycarp.

5. Writings attributed to Papias.

6. Writings attributed to Clement of Rome.

7. Writings attributed to Irenaeus.

8. Writings attributed to Tertullian.

9. Writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

10. Writings attributed to Hippolytus.

11. Writings attributed to Origen.

12. Writings attributed to Eusebius.


The following writings show virtually NO fundamental manipulation by the Roman Church or its agents.

1. Writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

2. Writings attributed to Theophilus of Antioch.

3. Writings attributed to Athenagoras of Athens.

4. Writings attributed to Minucius Felix.

5. Writings attributed to Aristides.

6. Writings attributed to Arnobius.

7. Writings ATTRIBUTED to the EMPEROR Julian.

It is EXTREMELY clear that the History of the Roman Church was INVENTED and AUTHORIZED by the Roman Church itself and its agents using ALIASES, and Forgeries.

There are means to determine what was manufactured or manipulated by the Roman Church and its agents.

By the way, the manufacturing and manipulation did NOT all occur in the 4th century under Eusebius.

Duvduv

But how do we understand the extent of such a huge extensive premeditated conspiracy at forgery and can scholars detect enough authentic evidence clearly that can be detected? Surely they were not SUCH perfect and undetectable forgers.......

sschlichter

It was not just Qumran, many rabbis pondered two messiahs (one of Joseph, one of David, one to suffer, one to reign). Prophetic texts spell out both suffering and reigning as messianic activity so they were confused and split him into two.