Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You cited the papers for a reason, right? So if a person actually takes time to read them and then points out that the papers basically state that Paul didn't exist since Marcion wrote Paul's letters how is that blustering (and not merely projecting)? Maybe I overlooked a part in the papers which states that Marcion existed due to his name being mentioned by another author in the second, third, or fourth century?:huh:

Back to square one: You asserted these papers lacked understanding. Right here:

Quote:

The writings were "radical" only in their lack of understanding.

I am not going to play a silly game with you posing yourself as the high and mighty judge that issues forth edicts - papal bulls as it were - and we cower.

That statement is unsubstantiated blustering.

After said blustering, you start your list of demands that clearly sets us on the path of you as ceasar and we as cattle - and it is very clear where such a silly self-throning leads us. Demand/placate... demand/placate... edict... demand/placate.

And I simply am not going to grant you your wish to establish yourself as some kind of plenipotentiary.

Withdraw your statement about "lack of understanding" or substantiate it. I go no further in this discussion unless you follow some legitimate discourse.

You don't get free passes to say whatever you want without substantiation, and then demand everyone else do what you say.

So notwithstanding your most recent assertion you don't wish to act this way - what you need to do is actually stop doing it.

You made a statement I challenged. Withdraw it or substantiate it.

And by the way my first statement in this thread was "There was no Paul".

I submitted these papers (and these are hardly my unabridged library upon which that sentiment is based) to substantiate my belief.

It is so odd that you would then make the "discovery" that these papers doubt the existence of Paul. It makes one wonder what planet you have been attending school on.

So when posing yourself as this omnipotent being, it is hardly becoming to act this way and it does not invite one to take you very seriously.

So now let us return to your comment about "lack of understanding".

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

. . So when posing yourself as this omnipotent being, it is hardly becoming to act this way and it does not invite one to take you very seriously. .

Project much?

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . If Marcion had the earliest copies, he might have written them himself, or written them under "inspiration" from Paul's "spirit," which seems to have been an acceptable practice then. Are you following the arguement?

Yes, the argument is that Marcion wrote the letters attributed to Paul, however this opinion is merely speculative historical interpretation of texts without any evidence whatsoever provided by the sources cited by rlogan. Are you aware of any actual proof that backs up this absurd "radical" position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How do we know Marcion existed? His enemies spent a lot of time attacking him. We only know so much about him through their condemnation.

Many of Paul's enemies also spent a lot of time attacking him as well, however, that isn't accepted as proof of Paul's existence, is it?

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

"Was Paul married ?" asks also the question "can a priest be married ?", at least to the RCC. Here is an answer :
1 Timothy 3 NIV
Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [a], he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 In the same way, their wives [b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

[a] Traditionally bishop
[b] Or way, deaconesses

Note the shyness of the translation : an over-seer is in greek epi-scopos -> a bishop !

1 Corinthians 9 NIV
The Rights of an Apostle
5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?

Luke 4, 38-39 :
4:38 And he rose up from the synagogue, and entered into the house of Simon. And Simon’s wife’s mother was holden with a great fever; and they besought him for her. 4:39 And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she rose up and ministered unto them.

Here, Simon is Peter. He has a wife.

Also there is a verse in Hebrews which states something along the lines of "Let marriage be honoured in all circumstances." According Robins/Lane/Fox in the book entitled Pagans and Christians the following is indicated concerning Marcion and his followers:

Quote:

. . . During the second and third centuries, many heretical groups taught that marriage was Satanic and akin to fornication; some connected it with the work of an inferior Creator. Followers of Marcion spoke of the body as a "nest of guilt"; secret sayings were ascribed to Jesus in which he reviled childbirth and praised the adrogynous state of man at Creation. . .

If Marcion, in fact, wrote the Pauline letters then it's odd that this negative stance towards marriage isn't indicated in the texts.

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Project much?

Not an argument.

Your failure to establish with so much as even a single sentence regarding how the papers cited or authors "lack understanding" has been noted.

Toto · 05-02-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . If Marcion had the earliest copies, he might have written them himself, or written them under "inspiration" from Paul's "spirit," which seems to have been an acceptable practice then. Are you following the argument?

Yes, the argument is that Marcion wrote the letters attributed to Paul, however this opinion is merely speculative historical interpretation of texts without any evidence whatsoever provided by the sources cited by rlogan. Are you aware of any actual proof that backs up this absurd "radical" position?

Are you aware of any actual proof that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him? There is none. No contemporaneous historian mentions him, we have none of his original untouched writings. Most of what people think they know about him comes from Acts, which was written much later and clearly fictionalizes him.

So everything that people say about "Paul" is speculative historical interpretation of texts without any evidence whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How do we know Marcion existed? His enemies spent a lot of time attacking him. We only know so much about him through their condemnation.

Many of Paul's enemies also spent a lot of time attacking him as well, however, that isn't accepted as proof of Paul's existence, is it?

Name one of those enemies, who was a personal enemy of Paul and not an opponent of people who claimed to follow him. :huh:

Nevertheless, I do think that Paul existed, even if he only wrote a small fraction of his letters.

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you aware of any actual proof that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him? There is none. No contemporaneous historian mentions him, we have none of his original untouched writings.

We also don't have any of Marcion's untouched writings yet his writings are accepted as "authentic" while Paul's aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most of what people think they know about him comes from Acts, which was written much later and clearly fictionalizes him.

I'm sure you believe Acts fictionized Paul. . .as far as Acts being written much later we have the following papyrus writings of Acts;

Quote:

Letter to the Galatians

The Letters of Saint Paul
Greek text on papyrus c.AD 180-200 Egypt
CB BP II (P46) f.86r

The original letter of Paul to the several ‘churches of Galatia’ is thought to have been written between AD 48-55. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3:28).

Source: http://www.cbl.ie/getfile/b42e4278-0...ff2/paul9.aspx

Unless the particular letter of Galatians is the autograph then it is simply a copy of a much earlier letter of Galatians. Or do you still believe that Marcion was the actual author of the letter to the Galatians? :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So everything that people say about "Paul" is speculative historical interpretation of texts without any evidence whatsoever.

The papyrus letter to the galatians is not speculative, it is fact. If you have any facts that Marcion wrote this epistle it would be greatly appreciated.

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Project much?

Not an argument.

Your failure to establish with so much as even a single sentence regarding how the papers cited or authors "lack understanding" has been noted.

I repeat, the papers cited provided no evidence whatsoever that Marcion wrote the letters attributed to Paul besides sheer speculation, for example;

Quote:

Are the Letters of Paul Real Letters?

IN ORDER TO ANSWER this question we must first define what we mean by a letter. A letter is a medium for the mutual exchange of ideas between two persons, or in certain cases between the writer and a limited circle of readers; hence it is not intended for the public. . .

. . . The Epistle to the Galatians is considered almost universally to be the oldest surviving document of Christian origin, although we have no positive evidence for its existence before 180, and even then only the evidence of the most uncritical of the Church Fathers - namely, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian - [66] men who have pronounced almost all the New Testament writings to be of apostolic origin, including even the Fourth Gospel, the Pastoral, and the Catholic Epistles.

If we really have before us a document called into existence by the circumstances of the time, then it must be possible to explain it as a whole by reference to the conditions which are presupposed by the letter itself. Tradition, title, even the character of the document, all testify that it is a letter. It bears the appearance of having been extorted from the sender against his will, so that at the end the writer can say, " From henceforth let no man trouble me " (6:17). Although " brethren " are named as joint authors of the Epistle, it is Paul alone who speaks; his language is full of energy and passion ; he writes under the influence of strong emotion. We feel that there is something that compels him to write. He addresses a definite circle of readers, to whom be is not a complete stranger - nay, to whom he stands on a footing of close intimacy.

Externally we are confronted with only one difficulty: it is without the usual address of an ancient letter. Such an address we find elsewhere in the New Testament - e.g., in Acts 15:23 ; 23:26, and in James 1:1; the name of the sender is given in the nominative case; it is stated as briefly as possible and without the addition of any titles; then follows the name of the person or persons to whom the letter is sent, and last of all the word "greeting." In our Epistle, on the contrary, the actual address is grammatically separated from the greeting; the name of the sender receives all kinds of descriptive additions; even in the address itself we find indications of the [67] contents of the letter; for example, it contains by implication a reply to those who refuse to recognize the writer as an apostle, in the passage: "Paul, an apostle not of men, neither by a man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (1:1).

All this strikes us as singular, to begin with; but there remain other features which are not less singular. It appears that the letter is written not by Paul only, but by all the brethren with him. Yet, after a perusal of the letter, it will not readily suggest itself to the reader that others beside Paul are responsible for what is written in it; everywhere the singular number is used with the exception of 1:8, 9. The mention of other authors is to be explained as a fictitious addition, due to an imitation of 1 and 2 Cor, where Sosthenes and Timothy are named along with Paul, in order to enhance the authority of the documents and to introduce them with due ecclesiastical impressiveness.
. . .
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html

Toto · 05-02-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you aware of any actual proof that Paul wrote the letters attributed to him? There is none. No contemporaneous historian mentions him, we have none of his original untouched writings.

We also don't have any of Marcion's untouched writings yet his writings are accepted as "authentic" while Paul's aren't.

We have NO authentic untouched writings by Marcion. Some scholars have reconstructed them from attacks on Marcion by his enemies.

Quote:

I'm sure you believe Acts fictionized Paul. . .as far as Acts being written much later we have the following papyrus writings of Acts;

http://www.cbl.ie/getfile/b42e4278-0...ff2/paul9.aspx

What is this supposed to prove?

Quote:

Unless the particular letter of Galatians is the autograph then it is simply a copy of a much earlier letter of Galatians. Or do you still believe that Marcion was the actual author of the letter to the Galatians? :huh:

If it is an autograph, it was written in the late 2nd century, well after Paul and Marcion both died. If it is not the autograph, it is a copy of an earlier letter, but how much earlier? There is no hard evidence here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So everything that people say about "Paul" is speculative historical interpretation of texts without any evidence whatsoever.

The papyrus letter to the galatians is not speculative, it is fact. If you have any facts that Marcion wrote this epistle it would be greatly appreciated.

You are not making any sense, or you haven't examined what you are presenting. The papyrus letter to the Galatians is not proof of anything.

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 08:50 PM

A script dated half a century after Marcion introduced Pauline material -

As evidence it existed beforehand?

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

05-02-2009, 08:50 PM	#30
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	A script dated half a century after Marcion introduced Pauline material - As evidence it existed beforehand?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.