aa5874

The Pauline writings do NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus crucified in the Sub-Lunar so you are really wasting time.

You MUST FIRST understand what a Canon represents.

It is horribly absurd and illogical that the Canonised Pauline writings was placed in the Canon although it was known to be Heretical and written by a well known Heretic.

Maybe you need to understand what a Canon of the Church represents. The Pauline writings are Canonised and do NOT contain the Heresy that Jesus was NOT God Incarnate.

First of all, you must try and recall what I said and do NOT confuse me with mountaiman.

Now, please explain why a supposed Presbyter of the Church, the writer of "Against Heresies" would claim Jesus was crucified about the age of 50 years, that John the disciple of Jesus and the other disciples preached the very same thing when the very same writer Irenaeus the Presbyter of the Church was supposedly AWARE of Paul and that he preached Christ crucified?

Why is the claim that Jesus was crucified at about the age of 50 years in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus NOT Canonized with such a mess of contradictions???

What is the name of the Christian?

There was no such thing as Pauline writings, No Pauline Churches, No Pauline Converts, and No Pauline Jesus because we now know that there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to 110 CE.

Do you not understand an Apologetic source have DENIED that Marcion used the Pauline writings? See "Refutation of All Heresies" by Hippolytus of Rome.


Well, please show me where it is stated in the Canon that Paul was an HERETIC?

Why was the claim that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old by Irenaeus NOT Canonised although "Against Heresies" is such a mess of contradictions?

You seem to have very little idea what a Canon of the Church represents.

You won't find HERESY that was PUBLICLY condemned by the Church in the Canonised Pauline writings.

PhilosopherJay

Hi jgreen,

Yes, this is a good example how people still try to flesh out the apostles. Judas was the apostle that betrayed Jesus. Thus we an answer to the question "What is Judas?" He is an apostle and he is a betrayer. Thus we can attach any adjectives that we associate with apostle with him, "loyal," trustworthy," "selfless" and we can associate any adjective we associate with "betrayer," such as "disloyal," "untrustworthy" and "selfish."
What we never get is an answer to the question "Who was Judas?" To know this would involve having to answer questions like "Where was he born?" Who were his parents? "What position did his parents have in society?" What was his relationship to his parents? What education did he have? What did he wish to be as a child? Did he show quickness of wit or dullness? Was he married? Was he gay? What were his politics? When did he become an apostle? Was he a good apostle before the betrayal? What did he want to happen with Jesus and the movement?
The gospel text does not tell us this. The gospel text does not care about this. What they care about is that Jesus was betrayed by a disciple. The name does not refer to any person, so it could have been Thomas, Dickus or Harry. The name is not meant to be anyone except the name of the Apostle who betrayed Jesus.
A stick figure may be a symbol of a man and not a reference to an actual person. Judas is just a stick figure. This is Judas and everything we know or can ever know about him because it is all that the text really tells us.


An apostle named Judas Who Betrayed Jesus

Of course we can present this information in countless ways.
Who was Judas? He was the apostle who betrayed Jesus.
Who betrayed Jesus? The apostle named Judas.
Which apostle betrayed Jesus? Judas

We can rephrase the text as much as we like, but the text never tells us anything more. It doesn't have anything more to say on the matter. The text does not care who Judas was. It only cares to tell us who Jesus was.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

jgreen44

The Pauline writings never indicate that Jesus was crucified on earth.

It would be absurd...if the Catholics had not tampered with the original Pauline epistles.

Amsterdam theologian, A. D. Loman, in his, "Quaestiones Paulinae", had come to the result that the existence of Pauline Epistles before the middle of the second century could not be proven. This excited Leiden scholar Willem Christiaan van Manen's (1842-1905), interest in the first unquestionable witness of the Pauline Epistles, the arch-heretic Marcion, who was excommunicated in Rome in 144 C.E., accused by the Fathers of the Church of tampering not only with the Gospel of Luke, but also with the Pauline Epistles in the interest of his dualistic-gnostic theology. With the help of the Epistle to the Galatians Van Manen wanted to look into this reproach ventilated by the Fathers of the Church and repeated by the theologians ever since. Could the accusations leveled by the Fathers of the Church be verified? Or was it rather the Marcionites who were right in returning the reproach, accusing the Catholics themselves of falsifying the Pauline Epistles?

The result gained by Van Manen in his study was startling: contrary to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church and contrary to the consensus of theologians still today, he upheld the greater originality of the Marcionite recension of the Epistle to the Galatians. After a careful review of the textual findings, it became evident to Van Manen that neither Marcion nor the Marcionites had shortened the Epistle, but that Catholic editors had added or changed passages in the text. Marcion's edition of the Epistle was in any case older and more original than the canonical version. What lies here before us is a Catholic revision of the Marcionite text.

At the outset of his investigation Van Manen warned that nothing less than the larger question of the authenticity of the Principal Epistles was at issue. The result of the investigation could not but have consequences for the problem of the authenticity of the Corpus as a whole. If Marcion was not only the first witness for the existence of Pauline Epistles, but, moreover, was simultaneously in possession of the oldest and original text of the Epistles, this could easily be regarded as a further argument for Loman's supposition that the Pauline Epistles were altogether falsifications coming from Marcionite circles, which became a possession of the Catholic Church at a later date after being suitably tailored. Once one arrived at this conclusion, the way was opened for further questions and speculations in the same direction. One might consider, with some radical critics, whether the relationship "From Paul to Marcion" should not be reversed. In that case, Marcion would not be a pupil of Paul, but the figure of "Paul" would in reality be a creation of Marcionism, by means of which the Marcionites retrojected their theology into the apostolic past, in order to provide themselves with a pedigree and a precedent for their doctrines in the theological conflicts of the second century."

Hermann Detering, The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

Presumably because the canon was not yet determined and Irenaeus was referring to info about Jesus that did not contradict the canon because the canon did not yet exist.

But if that is not the answer then please explain to me why a Catholic forger would say something so wacky about Jesus long after the four gospels had been settled as the only gospels.

I don't see how knowledge of Paul would prevent Irenaeus from claiming that Jesus was around 50 when he died.
Because the claim is in none of the four gospels that were canonised.

I guess Tertullian did not say that Marcion wrote, specifically, a "gospel". Are you saying that the Gospel of Marcion that has been pieced together from the comments of his various detractors is just a modern fantasy? Was Marcion another myth?

Works for me.

Used them? I thought Marcion introduced them to the world.


Well, obviously I couldn't show you that. The Pauline writings were sanitized for the Canon.

jgreen44

That's how it works when you're using the Old Testament for plot elements to write a story.

"All critics recognize the seed of the last supper story in Psalm 41:9, “Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.” Frank Kermode has traced (pp. 84-85) the logical process whereby the original, entirely and abstractly theological claim that Jesus had been “delivered up” (paredoqh, Romans 4:25) has been narratized. From God having “handed over” his son for our sins grew the idea that a human agent had “betrayed” him (same Greek word). For this purpose, in line with anti-Jewish polemic, a betrayer named Judas was created. His epithet “Iscariot” seems to denote either Ish-karya (Aramaic for “the false one)” or a pun on Issachar, “hireling” (Miller, p. 65), thus one paid to hand Jesus over to the authorities. Much of the Last Supper story is taken up with this matter because of the mention of the betrayer eating with his victim in Psalm 41."

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

Looking at the issue of Judas' act of betrayal, the above explanation is blazingly obvious. This is because the Sanhedrin did not need a betrayer. Although no one outside of the New Testament ever heard of him, Jesus was not a fugitive hiding in the woods or under a secret identity.The Sanhedrin or the Romans could have arrested Jesus any old time they wanted to. Judas is nothing but a prop in a novel.

aa5874

There are no writings of antiquity which indicate Marcion first wrote the Pauline Epistles.

jgreen44

Is there a aa5874 FAQ that explains exactly what you believe? Specifically, in your estimation. when and what is the first legitimate manifestation of Christianity? And how do people like Marcion and Basilides fit into your theory? Because from what I can gather from your writings, they seem to be nothing more than boogeymen made up by the Church centuries after they were supposed to have lived.

aa5874

In the future please say what you believe and allow to me to state my position because you obviously don't know what you are talking about with respect to my position.

I have NOT claimed Marcion and Basilides were boogeymen or made up by the Church.

How come you are so wrong????

Now, was Paul a boogeyman of the Church? Who first wrote the Gospel? Marcion or Paul?

J-D

Please do. Go ahead. What is your position?

maryhelena

“Judas is nothing but a prop in a novel”. Indeed. Keep in mind though that novels often retell or use historical details in their literary storyline. Where would Hollywood be without all its movies based upon some war or other. Realism in novels, or on the big screen, needs an anchor in historical events.

And the gospel story of Judas who betrayed JC for 30 pieces of silver?

Josephus reports that Herod the Great gave Marc Antony a “great deal of money” in order to have Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, slain. (37 b.c.)

Cassius Dio reports that Antigonus was tied to a stake/cross and scourged.

Slavonic Josephus, in its wonder-doer story, has the “teachers of the Law” giving Pilate the 30 talents to get JC crucified.

The gospels do an update - and have the Judas storyline.
So, while the gospel Judas story is just that, a story, it could well be reliant upon a historical account, via Josephus, of a historical figure, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, whose death came about through money changing hands.

GakuseiDon

Maryhelena, have you read Robert Graves' fictional "King Jesus"? The novel posits Jesus as the grandson of Antigonus, with Mary the daughter of Herod the Great. Graves apparently researched the background and claimed he could defend some of the premises of the novel. I haven't read it myself, though his two "Claudius" books are among my favorites. I was wondering what you thought of it.