Sheshbazzar

I only presented the alternative viewpoint and persuasion, and the reasonings it was based upon, for such persons as were not aware that there was such an alternative understanding of the intent of the statement of Mark 15:39.

The respective arguments have already ran their course in this thread. To each his own. Accept whatever it is that you are personally persuaded of.

As far as I am concerned discussion of this matter in this thread was, and is finished.

If you are dying to discuss Mark 15:39 further, feel free to open a thread of your own devoted to the subject.

Return to Topic; 'Dating Paul'

jakejonesiv

Hi Bernard, point of clarification: Are you agreeing that Marcion may be the first collector of the Pauline Epistles, or were you talking about something else?

Horatio Parker

There's another interpretation that the centurion said "a" son of god, not "the" son of God. Apparently the Greek could be interpreted either way.

He does not call Jesus Messiah or Christ, which would remove any doubt.

Perhaps the author wanted the reader to speculate on whether the centurion was unimpressed, impressed, or converted.

stephan huller

Yes by the same token Led Zeppelin II 'must not have been popular' in 1950 by the lack of airplay.

If Mark doesn't have an ending beyond the empty tomb there is no conflict.

The purpose of Acts is to rescue ecumenism from hostility and diversity. Plain and simple.

stephan huller

Aquila uses an unusual Greek word to translate Daniel 9:26 which may have properly substituted for the Aramaic mrq:

The root ἀλείφω is entirely compatible with the Aramaic mrq:



I am now wondering if 'Marcionite' might have been the original Aramaic term behind the Latinized Greek term 'Christian.' The idea comes up over and over again in the Syriac writings. We are told that the Marcionites had a monopoly on the name 'Christian' in the East. But what does that really mean?

This is always what has bothered me about the term 'Christian' or 'Christianity.' There can't be any royal or messianic meaning associated with the anointing. How could every Christian be a 'Christ'? The consistent Pauline identification of the initiate as an 'athlete' would fit the idea if the original term 'Marcionite' somehow meant 'rubbed with oil,' 'polished,' 'cleansed' and 'purified.'

Remember there are no Targums for Daniel. I don't know if that is because the work already appears in part in Aramaic or there is some other reason. Daniel is a most mysterious text.

maryhelena

Jake, these are my questions for you. Post #488. You have not answered them - and yet now you want me to answer your question....:huh:

1) What dating are you using for Paul?
2) Do you find the Paul=Marcion theory credible?

Jake, put your cards on the table. This 20 page discussion is going around the houses. What are you wanting to propose re Paul and Marcion?

How does "all the Pauline epistles are inauthentic" relate to the two questions I have asked?

Why are you not providing a straight answer to my questions?

stephan huller

ימרקון ית חוביהון "they will cleanse their sins" FT (fragmentary targum) Lev 26:43 http://books.google.com/books?id=_xq...%D7%9F&f=false

Full reference:

another fragmentary Targum reads ymrqo

aa5874

According to the Church Paul did NOT live 120-220 CE so what you claim does NOT make much sense.

The reason why Paul and the Pauline letters were unknown is because the Pauline character and letters were NOT fabricated up to at least 180 CE when it was claimed by a French Man Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50 years.

It is virtually impossible for Irenaeus [the FRENCH Man] to have ARGUED that Jesus was crucified under Cladius at about 50 years of age if he was AWARE that Paul preached CHRIST CRUCIFIED since 37-41 CE and was in Damascus in a basket in the reign of King Aretas.

See Against Heresies 2.22 and the Demonstration of Apostolic Teachings attributed to Irenaeus.

The "orthodox" claimed Acts of the Apostles was UNIVERSALLY authentic and was written in the 1st century by Luke a companion of Paul.

Why would the "orthodox" admit Acts of the Apostles is a forgery or that it was NOT composed by Luke in the 1st century and expose the fraud??

Church History 2. It would appear that Acts of the Apostles and its author were unknown until "Against Heresies" suddenly appeared in the Hands of a FRENCH MAN who did NOT know when Pilate was governor or when Cladius was Emperor or when Jesus was crucified or when Paul preached that Christ Suffered.

We must investigate "Against Heresies" attributed to the French Man called Irenaeus.

aa5874

The author of gMark claimed his Jesus was the Son of the Blessed when he was on trial before the Sanhedrin.

Mark 14 The Jesus of the gMark Myth Fable was the Son of God and was found guilty of death for BLASPHEMY.

In Jewish Laws claiming to be a God is Blasphemy.

Bernard Muller

That's what I said before. He may be, others may be.
Marcion made use of 10 letters, but others made use before him of Paul's letters, one at the time, such as the author of Colossians (who knew about Philemon), the author of Ephesians (who borrowed a lot from Colossians) and the author of 2 Thessalonians (who borrowed a lot from 1 Thessalonians). These later authors might have known about other Pauline epistles, more so the one of Ephesians. And later, the author(s) of the "Pastorals" made use of Paul and the Pauline epistle genre.

Cordially, Bernard