dog-on

Then no, to my knowledge, neither Marcion nor Valentinus denied that Jesus appeared to Paul.

Regarding this Jesus's earthly activities, it is hard to say as they could have viewed such activities literally or allegorically, or even a combination of both. What a Christian might refer to as spiritual truths, I suppose.

TedM

I"m not talking about an appearance to Paul. I'm wondering if they thought their Messiah had walked and talked on earth, for all practical purposes like a human being would, in space and in time, as described in the Gospels. It would appear for Marcion that he did, though he took out certain human traits. As such it seems logical to me to conclude that he thought Paul considered Jesus the same way--ie not as a being in heaven who lived, talked, and was crucified in that other sphere at all, as Doherty would have us believe. There is no reason to see Marcion's portrayal of Jesus as an allegory, that I know of.

To me that is a very hard thing for Dohertites to explain.

Duvduv

In his (now online) book An Inquiry into the Third Gospel written 100 years ago, C.P. Sense argues that the view that Marcion was a gnostic or believed the God of the Torah to be a demiurge is incorrect. Since there are no first-hand writings from Marcion, it is impossible to establish an iron-clad view about what he believed simply based on the writings of the later official apologists.

Indeed, the Apology attributed to Justin Martyr gives no information at all about his writings or what Christian texts he had, and supposedly Justin lived at the same time as Marcion in Rome.

dog-on

Ah, well I am not a "Dohertite", but regardless, I am not sure that the conclusion you are trying to reach actually follows from reliance on what Paul, Marcion, or even Valentinus may have actually believed about JC. Again, without applying a seemingly anachronistic understanding to the thought-world of the aforementioned gentleman that is.

Juststeve

Ted:

For well over a thousand years after the death of Jesus no one ever denied his historicity in the sense of your OP. That's no one, in spite of the fact that that opponents of Christianity had every reason for doing so. Why? Because from the beginning everyone knew that Jesus walked the earth, interacted with real live people, and got crucified on the order of the undoubtedly historical Pilate. There may have been disputes about the nature of this person who walked the earth, but never a dispute as to whether he did so. It is only very recently that some clever fellows occupying the very fringe of what they would define as scholarship have raised the issue of Jesus' historical existence.

That's why Valentinus and Marcion never took the myther position.

Steve

Toto

If no one ever denied the historicity of Jesus, why is this evidence of the historicity of Jesus? You have left out a few steps in your logical analysis.

Just remember that for well over a thousand years, anyone who denied that Jesus was fully human and fully divine would be burned at the stake for heresy.

For well over a thousand years, no one ever denied that there were witches and demons who roamed the earth.

One could go on.

aa5874

You mean like how the ANGEL GABRIEL walked and talked on earth like a human being in the Gospel of gLuke???

Luke 1 There is NO BIRTH Narrative for the Angel Gabriel in gLuke and NO birth Narrative for Jesus the Son of God in gMark.

In gLuke the Angel was in NAZARETH without a Birth Narrative and in gMark the Son of God was in the same place without Birth.

They were ALL SENT by God.

The Pauline writer will TELL you too.

Galatians 4:4 KJVGod sent the Angel and his Son in the 2nd century Myth Fables called the NT Canon.

Juststeve

Toto:

If 1000 years from now someone were to assert that John Kennedy was not actually assassinated in Dallas one rejoinder would be that no one ever denied the event at the time. There would undoubtedly be a later day Toto who didn't understand why a thousand year failure to deny the event was evidence.

Steve

aa5874

You present all speculation. The people who have NO actual dated evidence, discredited sources and forgeries are the very people who are arguing for the history of THEIR Jesus from a BIG BLACK HOLE of Presumptions.

How in the world can Myth Fables of the 2nd century be used in a serious disccussion about events in the 1st???

John Kennedy is a well know figure of history and cannot be compared to an unknown preacher.

Toto

I doubt that. The rejoinder would be official records, surviving evidence, written history.

But suppose someone a thousand years from now said that Luke Skywalker was a real person, and as proof - no one has denied the historical Luke Skywalker in that thousand years!!

This is getting tiresome. Can you come up with a better argument? Or at least a better presentation?