Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 11-02-2010, 06:38 AM

It seems like taking the phrase "my gospel" as a written document is anachronistic. It originally meant military victory; at least in the 1st century. It's not until Christians started being aware of "the good news of Jesus Christ" being read in house churches that the phrase became known as a written document.

Where Paul seems to be referring to a written document is actually in Galatians: You foolish Galatians! Who has tricked you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed (προεγραφη) as crucified.

dog-on · 11-02-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It seems like taking the phrase "my gospel" as a written document is anachronistic. It originally meant military victory; at least in the 1st century. It's not until Christians started being aware of "the good news of Jesus Christ" being read in house churches that the phrase became known as a written document.

Where Paul seems to be referring to a written document is actually in Galatians: You foolish Galatians! Who has tricked you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed (προεγραφη) as crucified.

He was referring to the musical...

show_no_mercy · 11-02-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It seems like taking the phrase "my gospel" as a written document is anachronistic. It originally meant military victory; at least in the 1st century. It's not until Christians started being aware of "the good news of Jesus Christ" being read in house churches that the phrase became known as a written document.

Where Paul seems to be referring to a written document is actually in Galatians: You foolish Galatians! Who has tricked you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed (προεγραφη) as crucified.

He was referring to the musical...

lol

Well, the word that I highlighted is pro-e-graphee. It looks like it's refering to some sort of writing (graph).

dog-on · 11-02-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

He was referring to the musical...

lol

Well, the word that I highlighted is pro-e-graphee. It looks like it's refering to some sort of writing (graph).

Maybe Ur-lucas. Though I actually think that he was referring to his own assertion that Jesus was crucified via his interpretation of the revelation revealed in the LXX.

aa5874 · 11-05-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....You are reduced to guessing as to who might have been the author, as to what was the form, and what were the the details of whatever text the Marcionites -may- have employed -might have been-.
But without access to whatever actual text it was that they -might have- employed, all that you can presently validly arrive at are a string of perhapses and 'possibles', with no known surviving texts to confirm the correctness of any of these guesses at 'perhapses and 'possibilities'.

We are not really guessing. We are using the evidence provided by the compilers of the NT Canon.

The evidence provided by the compilers of the NT Canon show that the Pauline writers were likely to be LIARS.

We do not have to guess that there are Pauline writings. We have the writings.

The Pauline writings, in effect, are no different from the written statement of a witness who was found guilty of perjury. It must be that the written statement MUST BE used as the EVIDENCE of the perjury itself.

The Pauline writings as presented depict the words of a LIAR. It is almost certain that Jesus, if he was just a man, could not have been raised from the dead and "Paul" is the ONLY writer in ALL of the NT to have LIED about the resurrection.

1 Cor .15

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There is no need to guess. The writings have been presented and attributed to "Paul". Whether or not Jesus did exist, the Pauline writer LIED about the resurrection.

stephan huller · 11-05-2010, 03:17 PM

These words you cite were probably NOT in the original Marcionite recension. The Marcionites also did not believe that Jesus was a man. The formula here was very close to what we read in many documents at Qumran - i.e. God coming down to earth at the end of times. The Marcionites understood the gospel narrative as beginning with God's descent and then his proclamation as the Jubilee approached of the coming of the awaited messiah. Jesus wasn't the messiah, wasn't the Son of God, wasn't the Son of Man, wasn't the son of David, - wasn't the son of anything - according to the Marcionite exegesis of the Bible.

stephan huller · 11-05-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Now, Please state which book, which source, can verify that the Marcionites did not think so.

Google the words 'Marcion' and 'Acts' (especially with Google Books). The idea is confirmed in Tertullian Against Marcion Book 5, Adamantius's Dialogues, Irenaeus Against the Heresies Book Three (chapter 14, 15, 16). It is common knowledge that the Marcionites did not use or accept Acts, nor the Pastoral Epistles, not the canonical gospels, nor the canonical anything. They thought the Catholic canon was completely corrupt.

Sheshbazzar · 11-05-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....You are reduced to guessing as to who might have been the author, as to what was the form, and what were the the details of whatever text the Marcionites -may- have employed -might have been-.
But without access to whatever actual text it was that they -might have- employed, all that you can presently validly arrive at are a string of perhapses and 'possibles', with no known surviving texts to confirm the correctness of any of these guesses at 'perhapses and 'possibilities'.

We are not really guessing. We are using the evidence provided by the compilers of the NT Canon.

The evidence provided by the compilers of the NT Canon show that the Pauline writers were likely to be LIARS.

We do not have to guess that there are Pauline writings. We have the writings.

There is no need to guess. The writings have been presented and attributed to "Paul". Whether or not Jesus did exist, the Pauline writer LIED about the resurrection.

AA, if you will look again at the context of that quotation, and my previous posts, you will see that actually I am in complete agreement with the position you have been arguing.
In the first sentence of the referenced post I clearly stated;

Quote:

What I presented was consistent with, supplements, (and) affirms aa's four points, and his conclusion as listed above.
And thus is most certainly relevant to the "-Evidence Paul Knew and Used a Written Gospel

The word 'affirms', means, 'to be in agreement with'.

And my statement to Steven also pointed out;

Quote:

Certainly I agree with your assessment of the contents of the NT, particularly Acts and Galatians as being 'garbage' as factually relating real NT events.
In this example alone 'Paul' perjures himself.
However, these are the only NT texts that we actually have to work with.

To reiterate and clarify my statement; The NT texts that we have are garbage. filled with lies.

"In this example alone 'Paul' perjures himself." I stated in other words the very same thing you are arguing, that being -by the texts that we HAVE- Paul is made to be a Liar, that was what my post was attempting to establish by quoting and highlighting the NTs internal contradiction.

The final paragraph which you quoted was NOT speaking of the NT texts -which we DO HAVE-, and can examine, and can establish conclusions regarding.
IE, that these texts ARE contradictory, and taken as written, reveal 'Paul' to be a perjurer (that is a Liar, as you bluntly put it)

What I was saying to Stephan is that the Marcionite 'texts' that he is attempting to reconstruct, or to draw any conclusions from DO NOT EXIST, and that for that reason;

Quote:

....You (Stephen) are reduced to guessing as to who might have been the author, as to what was the form, and what were the the details of whatever text the Marcionites -may- have employed -might have been-.
But without access to whatever actual text it was that they (THE MARCIONITES) -might have- employed, all that you can presently validly arrive at are a string of perhapses and 'possibles', -with no known surviving texts to confirm the correctness of any of these guesses at 'perhapses and 'possibilities'.

There is no evidence within the NT cannon that can establish the authorship (the 'who'), or the 'form' of, or the 'details' of -whatever- text THE MARCIONITES -may- have employed.

In other words this paragraph addresses Stephan's desire to employ non-existent Marcionite gospel texts to reach conclusions about Paul. Can't be done.

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

11-02-2010, 06:38 AM	#11
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	It seems like taking the phrase "my gospel" as a written document is anachronistic. It originally meant military victory; at least in the 1st century. It's not until Christians started being aware of "the good news of Jesus Christ" being read in house churches that the phrase became known as a written document. Where Paul seems to be referring to a written document is actually in Galatians: You foolish Galatians! Who has tricked you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed (προεγραφη) as crucified.

11-05-2010, 03:17 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	These words you cite were probably NOT in the original Marcionite recension. The Marcionites also did not believe that Jesus was a man. The formula here was very close to what we read in many documents at Qumran - i.e. God coming down to earth at the end of times. The Marcionites understood the gospel narrative as beginning with God's descent and then his proclamation as the Jubilee approached of the coming of the awaited messiah. Jesus wasn't the messiah, wasn't the Son of God, wasn't the Son of Man, wasn't the son of David, - wasn't the son of anything - according to the Marcionite exegesis of the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.