outhouse

if you knew his work, you would understand his three pilars


and I have gone over this here before, with you.

James The Least

That's one of the biggest problems in this whole field, isn't it? Should we assume Marcion wrote them himself? Some do, but then we're left with why the Catholics accepted them but then branded Marcion an arch-heretic. Shouldn't the guy who "discovered" these letters be elevated to Pontus Maximus, or at least a high bishop, immediately? Instead, the Catholics put their brand on the letters and call Marcion an anti-Christ. We are missing huge pieces of this puzzle, notably Marcion's own words, and I'm afraid it's too late to call in Holmes and get the case solved.

Toto

No, you have made vague, poorly worded off hand comments, without citations.

Grog

Didn't he sail around in his boat collecting letters that had been faithfully preserved due to their great insights and valuable advice? I thought this was well understood. Letter to the Galatians? Well, when Marcion happened to be passing by Galatia, he dropped by the local Christian community center and found in their archives the carefully preserved and venerated letter from the great Apostle Paul. This all makes perfect sense. I think they even made a movie about it.

aa5874

Why has Scholarship PRESUMED that the Pauline writings were composed early before c 70 CE when the Pauline writers NEVER made such a statement in any of the letters??

When the Pauline letters themselves are examined there are NO historical markers in them to date the letters.

This is found in Galatians 1.

Please, can someone say when these happen by reading the Pauline letters ALONE???

What year did Paul go to Arabia and how long did he stay there???

When was First time that the Pauline writer went to Damascus??? What year???

The Pauline writings have NO chronological history and NO known date without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline writings were AFTER the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

outhouse

even wiki mentions the 3 pilars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Three pillars of the theoryNew Testament scholar Robert Price, who argues it is quite likely there never was an historical Jesus, writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars:

There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.
The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. He writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.[9]

Toto

And your problem with this is ???

aa5874

We may be missing evidence but there is MORE than enough evidence to re-construct the FRAUD of the Roman Church.
We have Ephraim's Proses "Against Marcion", Hippolytus "Against All Heresies", Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and the DATED Pauline writings P 46 with HUGE EVIDENCE against Tertullian's Against Marcion".

Scholarship appears to have gone asleep and do NOT want to deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity but are merely repeating FLAWED opinion.

There was NO Jesus Christ and no Apostles called Peter and James in the 1st century so what why would Paul preach about Jesus and that he was raised from the dead????

The DATED Pauline writings are from the mid 2nd-3rd century so there is NO need to accept IMAGINARY evidence.

The Puzzle has been solved long ago.

It was expected that there would NO writings about Jesus in the 1st century if he did NOT exist and that is PRECISELY what the DATED EVIDENCE corroborates.

outhouse

there wrong


paul gives plenty of evidence for a man who was later made mythological.


the parallels to other religions are quite frankly common as the authors were competing against said other created deities as well as mortal men called "son of god" other then that its all imagination to make ties.

and who cares if some wrote about a real man instead of a myth, there was more then one opinion and view's with cross cultural mythology.


another problem we have with mr price is he doesnt have many other scholars who will flat state "ya he nailed it" actually none have come foward with anything close. Those in the know have strong cases against him and so far he will remain a lone opinion

spin

As you don't actually deal with those pillars below, you're just making noise.

This is not a response to Price's statement, "The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus." You have some other antagonist in your head.

This with its efforts at minimizing merely supports Price's statement "The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. He writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels."

And we finish with the usual shallow backhanded appeal to authority.

When you blurt out these bold poorly written poorly thought-out assertions such as "there wrong" (sic), you just invite ridicule.