Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schilling.klaus · 02-08-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

that's because Mark's gospel is full of Antimarcionite interpolations,...

Why no nativity, then?

The lack of a nativity did not violate basic Catholic doctrine, thus it could be tolerated by the churchfathers. The essential thing in Mark-ion's gospel which the churchfathers could not tolerate is the differentiation of Creator and Jesus' Father.

Klaus Schilling

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Why no nativity, then?

The lack of a nativity did not violate basic Catholic doctrine, thus it could be tolerated by the churchfathers. The essential thing in Mark-ion's gospel which the churchfathers could not tolerate is the differentiation of Creator and Jesus' Father.

None of that really explains why such an obvious contradiction of Marcionite belief would not be interpolated into the story.

schilling.klaus · 02-08-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quick questions: How do we know how Marcion read Mark?

Marcion didn't read Mark's gospel at all, as Mark's gospel is a
postmarcionite forgery.

Klaus Schilling

schilling.klaus · 02-08-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

None of that really explains why such an obvious contradiction of Marcionite belief would not be interpolated into the story.

That's irrelevant. The forger of Mark's gospel did not contradict Marcion for the sake of contradiction, but for dogmatic-propagandistic purposes adapted to the intented audience.
The nativity stuff was deemed unsuited for that audience.

Those who still stick to the superstition of first century canonical gospels and authentic epistles of "Paul" are not qualified to talk about Marcion and the Gospels.

Klaus Schilling

JoeWallack · 02-10-2008, 06:51 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Trallians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Romans c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

10) First Clement c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

10) Epistle of Barnabas c. 100

Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

Seems Aware of some Sayings of Jesus that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus but does not generally Attribute them to Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Evil and Wicked Early Christian Writing, the Forged The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians, that ECW dates c. 90

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...sians-asv.html

Quote:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians

...

1:9making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him 1:10unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say, 1:11in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; 1:12to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: 1:13in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 1:14which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

3:1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,-- 3:2if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given me to you-ward; 3:3how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, 3:4whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; 3:5which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 3:6to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 3:7whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power.
...

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

...

Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 6:15and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

...

And on my behalf, that utterance may be given unto me in opening my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,

...

Signed, Ephesteins Mother

JW:
Here it's clear that the Author shows no evidence of knowledge of the Canonical Gospels. All information comes Directly or indirectly from Paul or the Jewish Bible. Specifically, "Gospel" for this author means an oral message. The message is Explicitly anti-historical witness as it claims knowledge through Revelation and that Jesus' Generation lacked this Revelation. As a side note, "rulers of this world" is Explicitly defined above and who better to explain Paul than Paul's successors. Point Doherty! Summary:

1) Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

2) Not Aware of any Sayings of Jesus.

3) Aware of the supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative.

6) Strong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical attitude.

We get even closer here to Paul in that at this time we see no evidence of a well developed Christian hierarchy.

Through this time, c. 90, if there was little or no established Christian Hierarchy, the Motivation for "Mark" with it's primary theme of anti-Hierarchy, may not have existed. The orthodox Hierarchy looks to be an early 2nd century Assertian and this may have been What "Mark" was reacting to. If Clement was the first Christian leader to Assert Authority based on his Roman position and "Mark" was written in Rome...

We may be creating an Intersection here for the creation of "Mark". Papias testifies that c. 125 he is not aware of any written Gospel Narrative and this is Confirmed by Eusebius who Reviews all available Church writings looking for the earliest evidence for the Canonical Gospels. Clement c. 110 shows the first evidence of an increasing Church hierarchy. Thus, the Motivation for "Mark" to write an anti-hierarchal Gospel exists starting c. 110. The earliest reference to use of a Canonical Gospel is Marcion c. 135. This suggests a dating range for "Mark" of 110 - 135.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

schilling.klaus · 02-10-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

]
Clement c. 110

that's absurd, the epistle of Clement is a much later forgery,
as already proved by G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga 100 years ago.

Klaus Schilling

JoeWallack · 02-13-2008, 06:57 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

To All The Gods I've Loved Before

9) Ignatius - Ephesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Magnesians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Trallians c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Not aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

9) Ignatius - Romans c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of "the Cross" and suffering of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

Refers to belief in "Birth" as important article of Faith.

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

10) First Clement c. 110

Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude

Aware of a few specific Sayings that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

11) Epistle of Barnabas c. 100

Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

Seems Aware of some Sayings of Jesus that are close to Sayings of Gospel Jesus but does not generally Attribute them to Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

12) The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians c. 90

Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

Not Aware of any Sayings of Jesus.

Aware of supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative

Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Now on to the next Evil and Wicked Early Christian Writing, the Forged 2 Thessalonians. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, that ECW dates c. 90

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...nians-asv.html

2 Thessalonians. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians

Quote:

...

2:1Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; 2:2to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; 2:3let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 2:4he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. 2:5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 2:6And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. 2:7For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way. 2:8And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming; 2:9even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2:10and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2:11And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: 2:12that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2:13But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2:15So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours. 2:16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 2:17comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
...

JW:
Again it's clear that the Author shows no evidence of knowledge of the Canonical Gospels. All information comes Directly or indirectly from Paul or the Jewish Bible. Specifically, "Gospel" for this author means an oral message. The message is Explicitly anti-historical witness as it claims knowledge through Revelation. What's interesting here though is the Development of Hierarchy. The Admonition is to imitate the writer(s). Do what they (supposedly) do. The next step is admonish to do what they say:

1) Lacks Strong Hierarchal Catholic attitude of following Fathers.

2) Not Aware of any Sayings of Jesus.

3) No mention of the supposed suffering and sacrifice of Jesus.

4) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) No Evidence of an Infancy Narrative.

6) Strong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical attitude.

Again, we get even closer here to Paul in that at this time we see no evidence of a well developed Christian hierarchy.

Through this time, c. 90, if there was little or no established Christian Hierarchy, the Motivation for "Mark" with it's primary theme of anti-Hierarchy, may not have existed. The orthodox Hierarchy looks to be an early 2nd century Assertian and this may have been What "Mark" was reacting to. If Clement was the first Christian leader to Assert Authority based on his Roman position and "Mark" was written in Rome...

We may be creating an Intersection here for the creation of "Mark". Papias testifies that c. 125 he is not aware of any written Gospel Narrative and this is Confirmed by Eusebius who Reviews all available Church writings looking for the earliest evidence for the Canonical Gospels. Clement c. 110 shows the first evidence of an increasing Church hierarchy. Thus, the Motivation for "Mark" to write an anti-hierarchal Gospel exists starting c. 110. The earliest reference to use of a Canonical Gospel is Marcion c. 135. This suggests a dating range for "Mark" of 110 - 135.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

Roland · 02-17-2008, 10:29 AM

Joe, please keep on with this if you can. It is really fascinating stuff. :notworthy:

eheffa · 02-25-2008, 01:54 PM

Hi Joe,

How does one get the circa 90CE date on what is deemed to be a Pauline style forgery?

(I'm asking out of ignorance not to challenge you BTW)

-evan

schilling.klaus · 02-25-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Hi Joe,

How does one get the circa 90CE date on what is deemed to be a Pauline style forgery?

the 90CE dating is a fraud of liberal and secular mainliners.
none of these epistles predate mid second century.

Klaus Schilling

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

02-17-2008, 10:29 AM	#88
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Joe, please keep on with this if you can. It is really fascinating stuff. :notworthy:

02-25-2008, 01:54 PM	#89
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	Hi Joe, How does one get the circa 90CE date on what is deemed to be a Pauline style forgery? (I'm asking out of ignorance not to challenge you BTW) -evan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.