maryhelena

Abuse?? :angry:

The question of whether or not the Marcionites were associated with Marcus Julius Agrippa is a valid question. How on earth you read abuse into this I can't imagine!

Stephan, you don't own any monopoly on debate over Marcus Julius Agrippa.

I happen to think that Marcus Julius Agrippa played an important part in early christian history. Not much you can do about that - or prevent me from referencing this historical figure.

:banghead:

I don't take kindly with being threatened with being reported.....bullying is out of place on this forum. So, please stop it!

stephan huller

Pythagoras becomes Πυθαγορείων (no known variant Πυθαγορίων), Orpheus becomes Ορφείων but there are variants Ορφίων http://books.google.com/books?id=3Gg...ed=0CDkQ6AEwAg), Plato becomes Πλάτείων but there are apparently variations Πλάτίων http://books.google.com/books?id=COl...%CE%BD&f=false, Aristotle is always Ἀριστοτέλειών and never Ἀριστοτέλιών, Herakles is always ἡρακλείων

stephan huller

I should mention one other parallel to my idea here. In Jewish culture the Babylonian Talmud is always identified merely as Babli - i.e. 'the Babylonian.' I wonder if 'Marcion' was similarly conceived or misunderstood as a person. Babli however could be a personal appellation - the Gaon Salomos ben Jehuda (10th century) was also so-called.

stephan huller

Actually doesn't the calling the Marcionite set 'Apostolikon' parallel what I am suggesting here? So Clement writes:

Indeed since the Marcionites believed Paul wrote both the gospel and the epistles so it would only stand to reason that the collection as a whole was so called. Although against this stands Irenaeus:

stephan huller

Actually I was just looking at the statement as a whole in Clement and I wonder whether he used 'apostolikon' in the way we think it was applied. Let's look at the section as a whole:

I don't know what Clement is referring to here unless it is Matthew 5:44 - 46 but it could be something else too:

jakejonesiv

Here is what I have found perplexing. When I write anything close to your statement above, --or even mentioned Marcion, Paul, Irenaeus, or Tertulian-- it is met with a stream of screaming invective from multiple sources.

But not on this thread. NOT a coincidence.

aa5874

This is the Precise problem. jakejonesiv presented over 25 Apologetic writers who wrote Nothing about Paul [b]up to 190 CE[/U] yet seem to accept the contradicted sources of Irenaeus and Tertullian as facts.

It is simply not logical at all to accept sources like Irenaeus and Tertullian that are overwhelmingly contradicted by writers of the very Church.

Ephrem the Syrian supposedly wrote Against Marcion After Irenaeus and Tertullian yet his writings Against Marcion hardly agrees with Irenaeus and Tertullian but they corroborated Justin Martyr.

Justin's First Apology Now 200 YEARS later, Ephraim would write the same thing as Justin.

Ephrem's Against Marcion III Ephrem wrote Three Proses "Against Marcion" WITHOUT a single reference to the Five books Against Marcion by Tertullian or the Five books "Against Heresies by Irenaeus.

Justin wrote TWO THINGS about Marcion but is corroborated 100 % by Ephrem.

Marcion did NOT mutilate the Pauline letters. Marcion was long Dead when the Pauline letters were fabricated.

jakejonesiv

It is your opinion if you disagree with the dates in that list, and it is your opinion if you believe the sources are inauthentic.

Make your own case, but quit giving false impressions about what I wrote.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Name one ancient source that states that Marcion was dead when the Pauline letters were fabricated?

When did the Pauline Epistles first appear? Give me a reference.

stephan huller

jake,

I'm wondering what you suspect the reason is