aa5874

During my investigation it has been found that NO Church writer that mentioned the writings of Tertullian has acknowledged that he wrote books Against Marcion.

The name Tertullian is missing from any list of writers who wrote Against Marcion

This is EXTREMELY significant.

And further, there are Apologetic sources that Fundamentally Contradict "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

The writer called Hippolytus in "Refutation of All Heresies" did write about the Doctrine of Marcion and that it was derived from the Doctrine of Empedocles which Marcion plagerised.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

The Refutation of All Heresies 7.

Once Marcion did NOT know of the Pauline writings then we have NO non-apologetic source for Paul at all.

And that is EXACTLY what we find in Justin Martyr, Aristides, Municius Felix, and Hippolytus.

There was really no knowledge of the Pauline writings at all in the 2nd century.

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a fraudulent document.

aa5874

So, please say what source you used for the In-Dwelling Christ and the Council of Nicea?

What source tell us about a character called Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Paul??

You don't seem to understand what is evidence and how to use evidence from antiquity.

ALL WRITTEN statements from antiquity can be used as evidence either to support one position or another.

I use the evidence from the Church to show that a CRIME against Humanity was committed when they wrote the History of the Church.

Even in court trials both sides, prosecution and defence, may present written or oral statements as evidence although they may NOT be truthful and go undetected.

All undetected false statements given as evidence in court trials do NOT prevent the juror from coming to a verdict BASED on the presented EVIDENCE.

mountainman

Who knows why the mockumentary called the "Historia Augusta" (History of the Caesars) was assembled and dedicated to Constantine? What is known however is that this manuscript clearly demonstrates precisely the same literary phenomenom of the invention of sources to disagree with earlier invented sources, supported by hundreds of lavish forgeries.

Very few of the specialists whom you refer to above themselves refer to the negative evidence against their own claim, and that negative evidence is the existence of the clearly identified forgery and "mockumentary" called the "Historia Augusta", direct from the 4th century, and dedicted to Bullneck.

It makes just as much sense, on the basis of the existence and nature of the forgery called the "HA", to provisionally doubt all the details. This is not just waving hands. It is using all the available evidence from that epoch. Forgery was rife. That such massive forgeries were dedicated to Constantine should make investigators pause in their assessment of "Historia Ecclesiastica".

Duvduv

I didn't say that Marcion didn't exist at all, although this is possible too. All I said was that the "facts" about him are based totally on the claims of the biased church propagandists.

Duvduv

How did Marcion end up with epistles out of the blue?
Did he run around from town to town or did he publish a website asking everyone who had an epistle from Paul to send it to him?
The whole line of argument is preposterous, especially since NOTHING exists of any writings of Marcion. So to build up a whole teaching of "facts" about what Marcion "had" in his epistles or gospels makes no sense.

Duvduv

However, I do argue that the NT writings did not just appear out of thin air, EVEN if they only appeared in their form in the 4th century. Similarly, the ideas of the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution did not just appear out of thin air. They were based on the writings here and there of English and French philosophers, and it was all amalgamated into the US constitutional system and ideology.

aa5874

The earliest Jesus story in gMark was fundamentally based on Hebrew Scripture because we see Word-for-Word copying of passages from the so-called words of the prophets.

Based on gMatthew, all that was done by Jesus was so that the words of the Prophets might be fulfilled.

outhouse

While I agree the author used the some of the OT, one cannot deny a few things. Oral tradition was so prevelent over written literature, I see the oral tradition groomed for content to appeal to the movement for a roman audience

aa5874

There is ZERO actual evidence that gMark is history so I cannot assume gMark was based on oral tradition.

In gMark, the author claimed his Jesus WALKED on sea water and transfigured and virtually every miracle of Jesus is implausible or absolute fiction.

gMark wrote a Myth Fable based on so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Greeks and Romans did accept Myth Fables for religous purposes.

After all the Greeks and Roman accepted ZEUS and Multiple Myth fables of Gods, and Goddesses.

outhouse

Yes writers during that period wrote mythically about religion. We see this in the OT as well.

We also see known historical truths underlying mythical narratives.


its a scholars job to pull as much historicity as possible out of this content. While I agree there are biased views and interpretations, we dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.



We know a few things abot this split away from judaism, One, its started as a reform movement within judaism by historical jesus. Second, Paul grabbed this movement and turnned into a hellinized version of judaism and kick started what would be a minor sect of judaism for a roman audience. Pail grabbed a split that was there to begin with based on a crumbling religion. The common hard working jews of the time were fed up with roman occupation and taxation but also with the roman infected corrupted jewish government. A new movement was going to happen one way or another.


Your right that the author is unknown to Gmark and that he never knew or witnessed historical jesus. this author would have also amounted to what jesus viewed as part of the problem jesus was trying to avoid. Its why we are left with such a skewed view of a dirt poor peasant teacher/healer who had a very small following at best. he fought against roman taxation by giving up possesions and lived by being a teacher and getting handouts to survive. Having no money and nothing to tax he was not feeding the roman empire, he preached to tax collectors to quit ripping off their fellow men and was put to death by romans for sedition/tax evasion.

again written for a roman audience we dontget much truth of what happened, but you may be downplaying how important and how well oral tradition played a part in the transmission of these stories.

im not playing up a historical jesus, I think the NT was written by jesus enemies and the view skewed terribly, but i do think there was a very poor traveling teacher/healer of judism who was baptized by John who preached of th ekingdom of god in a spiritual way who ticked of the romans who put him to death on a cross. beyond that nothing can be said with certainty.

I believe paul caught on to this movement and realized that he could take it into a new direction at will, and capitolized leaving us with a movement steered in a direction in what would be the enemies of jesus