Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-22-2010, 10:52 PM

When one examines the NT Canon and Church writings it becomes very evident that the Pauline writings are out of place, outside of their time zone. The Pauline writings as found , like Acts of the Apostles, were written to present a false history of Jesus believers.

The Church writers put forward information that there was one single Pauline writer, but that does not seem to be the case, there were multiple writers posing as "Paul".

Now, there are some who claim that the Pauline writings to the Church were the earliest writings in the Canon but upon close examination they may very well be the last.

It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Pauline revelations from Jesus. It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not converts of any Pauline teachings.

This is the Pauline writer supposedly long before the writings of the Synoptics.

1Co 15:3 -

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...

1Co 15:17 -

Quote:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Ga 5:2 -

Quote:

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing

Ga 3:13 -

Quote:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree..

But, when the authors of the Synoptics wrote their Jesus stories the reasons for the death and resurrection supplied by the Pauline writer are completely missing.

The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples about the significance of his death and resurrection. The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples that the Laws of God including circumcision would be abolished due to his death and resurrection.

This is the supposed Synoptic Jesus in gMark.

Mark 8.31

Quote:

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9.31-32

Quote:

31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him....

Mark 10.32-34

Quote:

........And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,

33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

On three separate occasions the Synoptics Jesus does not tell the disciples that he came to abolish the Laws of God incuding circumcision and that without his death and resurrection mankind would remain in sin.

The authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Pauline Jesus' gospel of uncircumcision, their Jesus came to preach the gospel the kingdom of God and heaven.

Mr 1:14-15 -

Quote:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

And the Synoptic Jesus will EXPLAIN the mystery of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God only to the disciples.

Mr 4:11 -

Quote:

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables..

The parables about the mystery of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God by the Synoptic Jesus are not from the Pauline Jesus. There are no parables from the Pauline Jesus in the Pauline writings.

Now, if the Pauline writer was well known all over the Roman Empire and his teachings, churches and Pauline Jesus were well established why did the authors of gMatthew and gLuke use material for the Markan Jesus found in the anonymous writing called gMark and did not use [b]one single phrase from the super-evangelist known throughout the Empire as Paul?

Because there were no Pauline writings available for gMatthew or gLuke to copy. The authors of gMatthew and gLuke wrote about the Gospel of the kingdom of God, they were not aware of the gospel of circumcision and uncircumcision by the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

dog-on · 02-23-2010, 12:28 AM

Maybe, but I think that the Pauline writings were originally Marcionite.

Under this scenario, many issues simply disappear.

aa5874 · 02-23-2010, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Maybe, but I think that the Pauline writings were originally Marcionite.

Under this scenario, many issues simply disappear.

Not at all. Your scenario have made the issues far worse.

There is a Church writer that have contradicted Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

According to Hippolytus Marcion did NOT use any Pauline writings at all.

Marcion plagerised Empedocles.

This is found in a writing attributed to Hippolytus "Refutation of All Heresies" VII. 29

Quote:

....These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles.

And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy.

And look again at "Refutation of all Heresies VII. 17

Quote:

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.

And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.

This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions—namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship...

See http://www.newadvent.org

So, we have internal information that competely contradicts Tertullian "Against Marcion".

Hippolytus is not finished yet. He has more. He will destroy Tertuulian.

"Refutation of All Heresies" VII.18

Quote:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.

According to Hyppolytus, supposedly writing around the time of Tertullian, the early 3rd century, Marcion was a disciple of the doctrine of Empedocles and his entire heresy was from Empedocles.

dog-on · 02-23-2010, 08:55 AM

Perhaps, but this doesn't change the fact that many issues disappear if Paul was originally Marcionite and that Marcionism was actually merged, though denigrated in it's pure form, into the orthodoxy.

aa5874 · 02-23-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps, but this doesn't change the fact that many issues disappear if Paul was originally Marcionite and that Marcionism was actually merged, though denigrated in it's pure form, into the orthodoxy.

What orthodoxy? Which Paul was originally Marcionite? Which Church writer can tell exactly what "Paul" wrote?

When was Marcionism merged into orthodoxy?

You have not presented any facts only "ifs".

The admission by Hippolytus that Marcion used the doctrine of Empedocles and not the Pauline Epistles tends to make Tertullian's veracity with respect to Marcion disappear.

This is another Church writer who did not know that Marcion himself altered any Gospel.

This is Origen in "Against Celsus"

Quote:

27
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian..

So, again, another third century writer Origen tends to make the veracity of Tertullian disappear.

You need to find a credible source that can show that one of the Pauls was a Marcionite since we can always say "what if".

dog-on · 02-24-2010, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Perhaps, but this doesn't change the fact that many issues disappear if Paul was originally Marcionite and that Marcionism was actually merged, though denigrated in it's pure form, into the orthodoxy.

What orthodoxy?

The one that became the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Which Paul was originally Marcionite?

The one that wrote Galatians.

Quote:

Which Church writer can tell exactly what "Paul" wrote?

None that I know of, but maybe Ireneaus.

Quote:

When was Marcionism merged into orthodoxy?

Mid to late second century, though the 'pure' form lasted for a few centuries after that time.

Quote:

You have not presented any facts only "ifs".

Such is the nature of the beast.

Quote:

The admission by Hippolytus that Marcion used the doctrine of Empedocles and not the Pauline Epistles tends to make Tertullian's veracity with respect to Marcion disappear.

I suppose that doctrine can mean belief and does not have to mean document.

Quote:

This is another Church writer who did not know that Marcion himself altered any Gospel.

This is Origen in "Against Celsus"

Quote:

27
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian..

If you wanted to integrate an existing canon into your own, while denigrating the originator, how would you do it?

Quote:

So, again, another third century writer Origen tends to make the veracity of Tertullian disappear.

I never said that I believed Tertullian. Of course, Tertullian may have only been working with what he thought was true at that time.

Quote:

You need to find a credible source that can show that one of the Pauls was a Marcionite since we can always say "what if".

Do you have a time machine handy?

rob117 · 02-24-2010, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When one examines the NT Canon and Church writings it becomes very evident that the Pauline writings are out of place, outside of their time zone. The Pauline writings as found , like Acts of the Apostles, were written to present a false history of Jesus believers.

The Church writers put forward information that there was one single Pauline writer, but that does not seem to be the case, there were multiple writers posing as "Paul".

Now, there are some who claim that the Pauline writings to the Church were the earliest writings in the Canon but upon close examination they may very well be the last.

It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Pauline revelations from Jesus. It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not converts of any Pauline teachings.

This is the Pauline writer supposedly long before the writings of the Synoptics.

1Co 15:3 -

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...

1Co 15:17 -

Ga 5:2 -

Ga 3:13 -

But, when the authors of the Synoptics wrote their Jesus stories the reasons for the death and resurrection supplied by the Pauline writer are completely missing.

The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples about the significance of his death and resurrection. The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples that the Laws of God including circumcision would be abolished due to his death and resurrection.

This is the supposed Synoptic Jesus in gMark.

Mark 8.31

Mark 9.31-32

Mark 10.32-34

On three separate occasions the Synoptics Jesus does not tell the disciples that he came to abolish the Laws of God incuding circumcision and that without his death and resurrection mankind would remain in sin.

The authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Pauline Jesus' gospel of uncircumcision, their Jesus came to preach the gospel the kingdom of God and heaven.

Mr 1:14-15 -

And the Synoptic Jesus will EXPLAIN the mystery of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God only to the disciples.

Mr 4:11 -

Quote:

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables..

The parables about the mystery of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God by the Synoptic Jesus are not from the Pauline Jesus. There are no parables from the Pauline Jesus in the Pauline writings.

Now, if the Pauline writer was well known all over the Roman Empire and his teachings, churches and Pauline Jesus were well established why did the authors of gMatthew and gLuke use material for the Markan Jesus found in the anonymous writing called gMark and did not use [b]one single phrase from the super-evangelist known throughout the Empire as Paul?

Because there were no Pauline writings available for gMatthew or gLuke to copy. The authors of gMatthew and gLuke wrote about the Gospel of the kingdom of God, they were not aware of the gospel of circumcision and uncircumcision by the Pauline Jesus.

The Pauline writings are anachronistic.

Summary: 2+2=5

angelo · 02-24-2010, 03:58 AM

Out of the 13-14 letters Paul wrote, only 7 are considered genuine by most biblical scholars. Not forgetting that if true about his experience on the road to Damascus, he suffered some kind of a mental disability.

avi · 02-24-2010, 05:13 AM

Paul's correspondence with Seneca as also seen here and as supposedly attested to by Jerome in de Viris Illustribus.

I especially found fascinating this comment from Seneca to Paul, in letter number 13:

Quote:

Much in every part of your works is enclosed in allegory and enigma,...

Were these guys lovers? Was it customary, in those days to write things like the following?

Quote:

Originally Posted by letter number 8 from Paul to Seneca

...For since he {i.e. Nero} is a worshipper of the gods of the nations, I do not see why you thought you would wish him to know this matter, unless I am to think that you did it out of excessive attachment to me. I beg you not to do so in future; For you must be careful not to offend the empress in your love for me: yet her anger will not hurt us if it lasts, nor do good if it does not [this is nonsense]. As a queen, she will not be angry: as a woman, she will be offended. ...

Why would a married woman, the queen, the emperor's wife, be offended upon learning of Seneca's "love" for Paul? Was Paul so important at the time of Nero? How did a Jewish tax collector gain admission to Nero's inner circle?

Is this all third-fourth century forgery with idle gossip designed to lend an appearance of reality, to distract the scent of "interpolation"? If so, was Jerome a witting, or unwitting participant in the fraud?

avi

hatsoff · 02-24-2010, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When one examines the NT Canon and Church writings it becomes very evident that the Pauline writings are out of place, outside of their time zone. The Pauline writings as found , like Acts of the Apostles, were written to present a false history of Jesus believers.

On the contrary, they don't present much history at all, false or otherwise. Most of the Pauline letters are occasional, and all of them give advice to Christian communities regarding how they ought to deal with their problems.

Quote:

The Church writers put forward information that there was one single Pauline writer, but that does not seem to be the case, there were multiple writers posing as "Paul".

Where did you get that idea? In fact, many of the Pauline epistles are openly and internally credited to more than just Paul (e.g. 2Co, 1Th, Pp). But you claim that there were additional writers "posing" as Paul. This is certainly true for apocryphal literature (e.g. 3 Corinthians, Laodiceans), and it may be true for the disputed Pauline letters. But why do you think it is true for the seven accepted Pauline letters?

Quote:

It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not aware of the Pauline revelations from Jesus. It can be easily shown that the authors of the Synoptics were not converts of any Pauline teachings.

Now hold on just a second. I think we can agree the Synoptics probably don't have a literary dependence on Paul, and the case for a theological influence is admittedly tenuous, but what makes you think the authors of the Synoptics had know knowledge of Paul's revelations, or his correspondence? Is it really so strange that they may have simply chosen to omit that material, or to let it color their re-tellings of Jesus' life?

Quote:

This is the Pauline writer supposedly long before the writings of the Synoptics.

1Co 15:3 -

1Co 15:17 -

Ga 5:2 -

Ga 3:13 -

But, when the authors of the Synoptics wrote their Jesus stories the reasons for the death and resurrection supplied by the Pauline writer are completely missing.

The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples about the significance of his death and resurrection.

Not at all. Paul agrees with the Synoptics that Jesus had to rise again according to the Scriptures. For example, in Mt 26:56 we have Jesus affirming of his arrest and forthcoming death and Resurrection that "all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled" (ESV). In the Markan parallel Jesus tells them to "let the Scriptures be fulfilled" (Mk 14:49), and in Luke we have the same sentiment, e.g. Lk 22:37 in which Jesus declares, "For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me."

Quote:

The Jesus of the Synoptics did not teach his disciples that the Laws of God including circumcision would be abolished due to his death and resurrection.

This is true for Mt and Mk, but not for Luke, who has Jesus declare, "behold, everything is clean for you" (11:41). In his second volume, Acts, this teaching is clarified further through Peter's vision (10:9-16, 11:1-18).

Quote:

This is the supposed Synoptic Jesus in gMark.

Mark 8.31

Mark 9.31-32

Mark 10.32-34

On three separate occasions the Synoptics Jesus does not tell the disciples that he came to abolish the Laws of God incuding circumcision and that without his death and resurrection mankind would remain in sin.

I do not see the relevance of this. He doesn't say a lot of things in those three passages. But so what?

Mt 5:17 is the only passage I know where Jesus explicitly declares that he has not come to abolish the law, and I agree this is in conflict with Paul's teachings. But we cannot infer from this observation that Matthew or any other Synoptic author lacked knowledge of or access to Paul's correspondence.

I've got to go, and so I will cut my critique of your argument short. But I think it's clear that your inferences require further justification than just an argument from silence. For example, Ignatius shows no dependence on Hebrews, to which indeed his anti-Jewish rhetoric is very much opposed. Shall we then assume Ignatius lacked knowledge of Hebrews? By no means!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2010, 12:28 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Maybe, but I think that the Pauline writings were originally Marcionite. Under this scenario, many issues simply disappear.

02-23-2010, 08:55 AM	#4
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Perhaps, but this doesn't change the fact that many issues disappear if Paul was originally Marcionite and that Marcionism was actually merged, though denigrated in it's pure form, into the orthodoxy.

02-24-2010, 03:58 AM	#8
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Out of the 13-14 letters Paul wrote, only 7 are considered genuine by most biblical scholars. Not forgetting that if true about his experience on the road to Damascus, he suffered some kind of a mental disability.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.