aa5874

Again, Justin is a primary witness of Marcion. If Marcion wrote NOTHING when Justin was alive or after he composed his works then it is NOT expected that Justin would have said anything of Marcion's writings.

It is unlikely that Justin invented Marcion but still forgot to invent Paul, the Pauline letters, gLuke and the other Gospels.

Apologetic sources that provide bogus information about the NT Canon also claim Marcion was aware of gLuke and the Pauline writings.

It is completely illogical that Justin or Apologetic sources invented Marcion just as it is illogical that Jesus was known to be a man and did NOTHING but still Paul preached that Jesus was Lord and raised from the dead 'all over' the Roman Empire.

It is most absurd that the Jews and Romans had records that Jesus was a DEAD Man and Executed by the Romans but accepted the most ridiculous claim by Paul that Jesus died but SIMULTANEOUSLY seen Alive on the third day.

Duvduv

The fact is that you have no original manuscripts attributed to Justin and no external references to him existing in the 2nd century either. In any case, the claim is that he lived at the same time and place as Marcion yet never cites a single source of texts that he knew to be "heretical" in the hands of Marcion.

All the historicization of Marcion is simply based on the statements attributed to heresiologists. No external evidence at all. And how could you take seriously that such a "Marcion" had access to any Pauline epistles when "Justin" never even cites or quotes even a single important "heretical" text in the hands of Marcion, and there is not a single shred of evidence for it?

The bogeyman only developed later as the guy Marcion served as a punching bag to reinforce the regime's "non-heretical" religion.

ApostateAbe

Marcion was a strawman then. Marcion was made up as an imaginary devil and it caught on among heresiologists.

aa5874

You MUST read the ancient writings to understand them. You seem to think that all writings were manipulated but you are DEAD WRONG.

If all the ancient writings were manipulated then we would NOT have "Against the Galileans" attributed to the Emperor Julian.

Who wrote "Against the Galileans"?? Eusebius or Irenaeus???

Against the Galileans You have NO idea that NOT all sources or all books or every part of every book was manipulated.

Please read the ancient writings and you will easily be able to detect those sources that were NOT manipulated.

Was this the original or manipulated Nicene Creed composed by the Church??

...the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness....... it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

ApostateAbe

Duvduv, aa5847 is looking to be more grounded in reality than you are, and I would take that to be an embarrassing point if I were you, but you can be encouraged by the point that you are not quite as hyperskeptical as mountainman, who would claim that even those 2nd and 3rd century heresiologists were no more than characters of forged writings.

aa5874

It is most laughable when ApostateAbe fabricates his own Gospel by Guessing and attempts to give others advice.

As soon as ApostateAbe admitted the biography of his Jesus was based on Guessing and Discredited sources then he is Grounded in speculation, fiction and Mythology.

Duvduv

The essay only survives in quotes in Cyril of Alexandria and sounds like a back handed attempt at legitimizing a grassroots religion even in the words of such an enemy as a didactic or rhetorical device. No reason to get excited about it.

Duvduv

Further to the matter of Against the Galileans, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

Paul, Matthew, Mark, John and Luke are introduced out of nowhere without any background information, thus assuming the reader already knows exactly who he is supposed to be in a polemic about Judaism, showing a good knowledge of the Torah, which would be rather unusual except for a churchman, and once again, assuming the reader is highly familiar with the subject matter, including the assumption that the New Testament is already well known. He doesn't even question where these texts came from originally, or even the authorship.

Looks like he is engaging in a literary refutation of ideas opposing the official religion in the form of a treatise by an opponent, to then be refuted.

aa5874

Well, why are you excited about the Talmud?? Certain claims in the Talmud are not found in any other sources of antiquity and you have NO way of knowing what should be in the very same Talmud.

The Talmud may have been manipulated by Jews and the Church WITHOUT your knowledge.

Duvduv

If you want to have a separate thread about the Talmud, go right ahead. Here we are talking about a content analysis of what is called Against the Galileans. If you want to make any contribution to an analysis of this document presented by Cyril, please do. Perhaps you can restate your point about its validity based on the content analysis.