Sheshbazzar

About 'bald faced liars'. It actually only takes one, and thousands that are ready and willing to believe.

Duvduv

IF in fact neither the canonical gospels nor the epistles were actually written down in the 2nd century, then we have to ask what kind of "Christian" religion(s) were followed in the second century and into the third century. Presumably they were local fellowships following oral teachings of various kinds: Logos, Gnostic, Judaic, Marcionite, Enochian, Valentinian, etc. Yet they were all different enough from each other to have asked them all why they were so different and yet all claimed to know the precise truth about their Jesus Christ figure.

Toto

Hello Duvduv - welcome to the forum.

Please keep any discussion of C14 dating out of this thread. It is one of mountainman's hobby horses, which he has pursued in several other threads, without convincing anyone else that he has a point.

aa5874

Well, these are some of the information supplied by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusewbius that are generally rejected.

It is rejected by majority Scholars:

1. That gMathhew was actually written by a disciple called Matthew.

2. That gMatthew was written before the Fall of the Temple.

3. That gMatthew was written before gMark.

4. That gMark was written by a character called Mark a disciple of Peter.

5. That gMark was written After gMatthew.

6. That gMark was written before the Fall of the Temple.

7. That gMark was derived from the Apostle Peter

8. That gLuke was written before the Fall of the Temple.

9. That gJohn was written by a disciple called John.

10. That all the Pauline Epistles were written by PAUL.

11. That Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

12. That Acts of the Apostles was written before the Fall of the Temple.

13. That the Epistles of Peter were written before the Fall of the Temple.

14. That the Epistle of James was written before the Fall of the Temple.

Scholars have NOT accepted everything that Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius wrote.

Sheshbazzar

First of all Duvduv, I wish to extend to you my personal welcome. I hope you will find our various discussions interesting, stimulating, and informative.
Actually I do not assume anything based upon the content of Tertullian, or any other 'Patriarchal' writer. I do not consider any of these writings to be at all trustworthy, or untampered with by latter hands.
Yet there has to be some reasonable and logical sequence by which the christian religion developed, and as far as I am able to determine Marcion is the first one that can be identified as creating that ruckus that brought on the 'heresy' charges and a subsequent need by christian 'authorities' for finally 'pinning down' of what would be allowed to be presented as being the one and only 'True' christian faith.
That is, Marcion's version was the first, and was what first stimulated a requirement for (somewhat) standardized NT texts rather than the formerly simple oral repetitions of legendary christian motifs and stories.
If you will re-read what I presented, you may see that I did not even suggest that this orthodox response was accomplished in 'a mere 30-40 years.'
I clearly stated that "It took them well over a century ..." and actually I would say that it was not until the 4th century that a well established Orthodoxy was able to assert an almost total dominance over textual traditions. Both of the actual NT texts -and- what was allowed to represent The Writings of the Patristic Fathers.
In other words Duvduv, I am claiming that the latter well established, well organized and powerful Orthodox Catholic Church quite thoroughly
'cooked the books', leaving not one trustworthy ancient christian document in its wake.

Duvduv

I have been reading the writings of an old scholar of 100 years ago, C. P. Sense. It makes "sense" that there were NOT two sets of epistles, or that Marcion believed that the God of the Torah was not the same as the God of Jesus. Above all else, it is highly fishy to think that someone in the SECOND century would have written a book about heretics, even about Marcion. The proof is that according to the proto-Orthodox their own sect did not reject the pauline epistles proposed out of nowhere by Marcion or the idea of a gospel. If he were such a heretic, then certainly Justin should have said SOMETHING about his epistles and gospel in his Apology.
And of course Irenaeus et al didn't bother to explain how different the author of Galatians is from the author of other epistles. As I mentioned, the special feature of the epistles was that "Paul" taught the idea of the INDWELLING of the Christ being in believers and vice versa. But Galatians explicitly taught that Paul's revelation was an exclusive one, and the only true revelation, an exclusiveness that is NOT stated in Romans or Corinthians or anywhere else. Anyway, Irenaeus and Tertullian didn't care about any of that.

Sheshbazzar

You observe that something smells fishy about the claims of the christian ICHTHYS FISH religion.

You are in good company here.
Not many will argue the essence. it is only the details that are argued.
But dead carp, dead tuna, or dead shark, all will stink the same.

Duvduv

I like the implications of fishiness.... ;-)
I should note that the very idea of someone having to be of the Davidic dynasty to be the messiah is specifically a rabbinic tradition. By contrast in the DSS we find other options, including an Aaronic messiah etc. The epistles rarely (I emphasize the word rarely) refer to anything about a Davidic messianic tradition, whereas the gospels are affiliated to the rabbinic interpretation.

On top of all that, our friend Justin almost always uses biblical verses to *prove* the messianic status of the Jesus figure RATHER THAN TESTIMONIES OF people who lived a century earlier, and specifically in the Davidic tradition, while at the same time trying to prove to the reader that the ritual laws of the same Jewish Bible are null and void, which *seems* to follow the Paulistic notion.

I say *seem* because people like Pam Eisenbaum argue that all "Paul" was teaching was that gentiles could attain reconciliation with God through the Christ WITHOUT conversion to Judaism, AND that the Jews themselves could not be reconciled by the Law ALONE -- not that they were no longer bound by the Law.

Of course the question would be asked as to HOW Jews could have been reconciled to God BEFORE the advent of a Christ through scriptural revelation.......I think Philippians suggests that the whole Christ thing was a *mystery* in terms of what existed previously.

In any case we see two different branches of messianism in the gospels versus the epistles, though the gospels themselves seem to represent different traditions and epistles as well. But these could not have crystalized in a period of only 30-40 years. If they emerged from Platonic/Philonic/Gnostic ideas, then those ideas must have existed in the first and second centuries as the source for "Christian" beliefs later, though in very different ways.

The biggest question then is HOW did this happen? And if the whole Jesus thing originated with the person and teachings of Yeshu Pandera on 60 BCE among Jews, how did gentiles get involved and how did Jews disappear from these sects, and WHEN?

Toto

Can you provide a more complete citation? Who is this person, what books did he write, in what country?

This is the timeline that seems reasonable. What is illogical about it?

- there are a variety of people who call themselves Christian around the beginning of the second century. Christians joined together in house churches to sing hymns and share a sacred meal before they were clear on why they did these things, or on any points of theology.

- Marcion publishes his Apostolikon, containing a proto-gospel and Paul's epistles.

- the proto-orthodox church reacts by claiming that Marcion removed significant parts of Paul's epistles, and publishes its own (expanded) version, and an expanded version of the gospels and Acts, in order to establish that there was a line of succession from a historical Jesus through his disciples to the church that they represented.

That's a very broad outline that omits a lot of detail, but I'm not sure why you think it is so improbable.

aa5874

Why do you think it is probable?

You seem to have also done what Duvduv has observed in the OP.

It can be shown rather easily that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is most likely Fiction.