Ben C Smith

So how can Paul be unknown even up to 150, yet Marcion knew of Paul before 150? What did you mean when you said that Paul was unknown up to 150? What do you now mean when you say that your claim does not entail Marcion lacking the epistles of Paul? :huh:

Ben.

patcleaver

The Christian document with the earliest alleged date that claims that followers of Jesus of Nazareth were commonly called Christians is Justin Martyr's First Apology from c. 160 CE, and that document says that several other groups including Samaritans were also called Christians.

We have no reason to believe that followers of Jesus of Nazareth were commonly called Christians before that time.

Samaria was a nation. There were probably far more Samaritans that were called Christians, than followers of Jesus of Nazareth until at least the mid to late 4th century.

Christening was a common element of all kinds of religious ceremonies in the Roman Empire, and there were dozens if not hundreds of pagan groups most of which probably had members or leaders or a savior that was Christened, and the members of any one of which could call themselves Christians.

Any reference to Christians before the 4th century, that does have other indications that it is a reference to the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, can not honestly be presumed to refer to followers of Jesus of Nazareth.

For example, there is no good evidence that the Jesus Christ referred to by Paul had anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

patcleaver

The Attis believers did not mind that he died from cutting off his own balls.

The Crucifixion is just one of the reasons that the vast majority of people, who knew the Jesus of Nazareth story, thought it was fiction.

Your theory that nobody thought that the crazy story about Jesus was fiction has no merit at all.

If they had thought it was true, then they would have been Christians.

All the Moslems know about the Jesus story with Jesus being God and the trinity and crucifixion and they think the crucifixion and trinity and Jesus being God are fiction.

angelo

[QUOTE=patcleaver;5151285] Yeek. What a horrible thought. Makes me cringe at the very thought. Why is it that the vast majority of religions have such bloodthirsty gods in them? The bloodier they are, the more people flock to them. Christianity, Islam are perfect examples.

schilling.klaus

The canonical epistles of Paul are fraudulent forgeries not before mid to late second century, period.
Paul could be fiction or a hermetic mystagogue,
in any case the Paulinic epistles can't be used to confirm any Eusebian statement about early Christianity.

Klaus Schilling

aa5874

How can you claim that Marcion knew Paul, when it cannot be determined if "Paul" was real or when he actually lived? It cannot even be determined with any degree of certainty if the authors of the "memoirs of the apostles", as called by Justin Martyr, were known by name and when the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were added to these "memoirs".

The history of "Paul" as written in Acts appears to be fictitious, and more than one person used the name "Paul" in the epistles, how can you be sure that Marcion knew such fiction?

Ben C Smith

I will let this question stand on IIDB as a permanent testimony to your willful ignorance of the ancient texts. It is one thing to question the (scads of) evidence that Marcion held Paul to be the one true apostle, quite another to make solemn pronouncements without even apparently being aware of such evidence. You, sir, are clueless.

Ben.

aa5874

This is unbelievable. I ask you a question and you deduce that I am clueless. That is illogical and unsubstantiated nonsense.

spamandham

It isn't clear to me whether you two are referring to Marcion knowing Paul personally, knowing of Paul, or knowing Paul in the same sense Mark Twain knew Huck Finn. Clarification?

dog-on

I think that Ben is referring to Marcion's knowledge of some form of the epistles that WE know as Paul's.