Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 03-07-2013, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Jake,
Clement of Alexandria quoted from Romans 15 & 16.
Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard,

The cumulative argument from silence is quite strong. Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Cyprian make no quotations from chapters 15 and 16 even in cases where it would have been useful to them.

When these chapters do appear, they are centered around the Alexandrian school (Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria). This late appearance and geographic isolation under any other discussion would be taken as prima facie evidence for redaction if the subject was anything but the Pauline Epistles. Chapters 15 and 16 were not known in the West for a long long time.

Jake

aa5874 · 03-07-2013, 06:48 PM

The Pauline letters were unknown by apologetic sources even up to the mid 2nd century yet there are other sources that seem to know all the Pauline letters to the Churches.

Justin Martyr claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets that were Read in the Churches--Nothing of the Pauline letters.

Octavius in the writing of Minucius Felix did NOT even once used the Pauline letters when he attempted to convert Caecillius to the Jesus cult.

In Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus every single Pauline letter to Churches were named and used.

However, "Against Heresies" is not credible at all and must be or is most likely a manipulated source--a blatant forgery.

Irenaeus could NOT have known about the character called Paul and could NOT have known that Paul preached Christ crucified since 37-41 CE and that he wrote letters to Churches when Irenaeus argued that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years old being 30 years at baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius.

"Against Heresies" was Manipulated in order that it would appear that Irenaeus knew of the Pauline letters to Churches when he did NOT.

There were NO Pauline letters to Churches up to c 180 CE or up to the time of Irenaeus..

In effect, Marcion could NOT have known of or mutilated the Pauline letters as claimed by Tertullian.

Examine 2 Corinthians

Quote:

31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

32In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

33And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.7.1

Quote:

Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,"...

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.18.2

Quote:

And again, writing to the Corinthians, he declares, "But we preach Christ Jesus crucified"..

How in the world could Irenaeus argue that Jesus was crucified under Claudius and be about 50 years old if he knew that Paul preached Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE when he had knowledge of gLuke 3.21 and the letters to the Corinthians??

All so-called 1st and 2nd century writings that mention Paul and Pauline letters are themselves fraudulent and manipulated.

The author of Against Heresies NEVER had knowledge of the Pauline letters to Churches and Had NO knowledge of the story that Paul preached Christ Crucified BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

"Against Heresies" is a massive forgery.

The Pauline letters were composed AFTER Irenaeus was DEAD or AFTER 180 CE..

mountainman · 03-07-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Mani was an Iranian prophet of the third century CE and thus predates Eusebius and many of the persons discussed on this site. Not much was known about Mani until 1969 when a Greek parchment codex (ca. 400 CE) was discovered in Upper Egypt, designated Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis. It contains an account of Mani's career along with information about Mani's religious teachings and fragments of his writings. It recounts Mani's introduction to the Jewish-Christian Elkesaite baptising sect. Wiki

Quote:

Mani appears to be the true representative of the Pauline spirit going forward. Mani's teachings are revealed to him through his spiritual companion and celestial twin (his syzygos).

OTOH Paul's teachings are supposedly revealed through to him his spiritual companion Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Just consider this brief excerpt from “On the Origin of His Body” The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon inv. Nr. 4780). It is from the beginning of the Mani letter to Edessa, and the similarities to Galatians chapter 1 are truly remarkable.

“The truth of the secrets that I speak—about the laying on of hands that is mine—not from people have I received it nor from fleshly creatures, not even from studies in the scriptures. But when my most blessed father, who called me into his grace, saw me, since he did not wish me and the rest who are in the world to perish, he felt compassion, so that he might extend well- being to those prepared to be chosen by him from the sects. Then, by his grace, he pulled me from the council of the many who do not recognize the truth and revealed to me his secrets and those of the undefiled father of all the cosmos. He disclosed to me how I was before the foundation of the world, ….”

He wrote again and said in the gospel of his most holy hope,

“I, Mani, a messenger (JJ4: Apostle!) of Jesus Christ through the will of god, the father of truth, from whom I was born, who lives and abides forever …. The truth of ages that he revealed I have seen, and that truth I have disclosed … this immortal gospel that I have written, including in it these eminent mysteries … These things that he revealed I have shown to those who live from the truest vision, which I have seen, and from the most glorious revelation revealed to me.”

This can be found in “The Gnostic Bible” by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.
It has been suggested that when the Marcionites departed, they were absorbed by Manichaeism. Mani sounds as if he were "channeling" the spirit of Paul.

For the heresiologists view, please see _S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan_.
(Thanks to Roger Pearse).

Thanks Jake for bringing Mani into your extended equation, and for explicitly differentiating within the manuscript tradition the sources which were authored and preserved by the heresiologists and those which were not.

I can understand that your approach includes the possibility that the Marcionites were absorbed into Manichaeanism. This would have only been possible after the rise of Mani in Sassanid Persia after c.240 CE, when Shapur took the throne (for 30 years) and favourably sponsored Mani.

This is quite some time after the Christian Bishop Marcion is supposed to have flourished (c.85 – c.160). Your approach (above) therefore appears to rely on the followers of Marcion preserving the writings of Marcion for the interim period from c.160 to 240 CE and only then being absorbed into the rising tide of Manichaenism.

Is this a correct summary of the claim being investigated?

If so, the only other possibility is that whoever authored "Paul" and Galatians chapter 1 had read the Gospel of Mani and other Manichaean literature (obviously after c.240 CE). Do you reject this possibility out of hand?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 03-07-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...OTOH Paul's teachings are supposedly revealed through to him his spiritual companion Jesus Christ.

Paul's knowledge of the Jesus story was derived directly from the written stories in the the so-called Gospels.

By the time the Pauline letters to Churches were composed the Memoirs of the Apostles were ALREADY known, composed and circulated in the Roman Empire.

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

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;

And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures...

Only in the Scriptures of the Jesus cult it is written that Jesus DIED for our Sins and Rose again on the Third day

Such Blasphemy is NOT found anywhere at all in Hebrew Scripture.

The Pauline writings must have been written or was most likely written AFTER the short gMark.

In the short gMark Jesus did NOT want the Populace to be converted but BOASTED privately that he wanted them to Remain in Sin. See Mark 4.11-12

The Jesus in the short gMark knew nothing about dying for the Sins of the whole world and did NOT commission anyone to preach about the resurrection.

James The Least · 03-07-2013, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[ I have read and studied what remains of Justin Martyr' writing extensively, There is more than enough remaining, and what does, covers such a breadth of Christian material, that if Justin had been aware of any 'Paul', or of any 'Paul's' Gospel' or of 'Paul's' reported extensive missionary works among the Gentiles, there would have been no way for Justin to have avoided mentioning or addressing the teachings and works of this famous 'Paul' when discussing the matters he writes on.

Indeed, in many of the doctrinal matters that Justin's writings cover, the total lack of any reference to Paul and Paul's famous teachings on those very matters virtually shouts that neither Justin nor his contemporary readers had any aquaintance at all with the 'Apostle' to the Gentiles named 'Paul'.

The evidence is that 'Paul' and all of the 'Pauline Epistles' were invented by Christian Church writers sometime after 150 CE
The evidence of Justin's work, as well as that of other contemporary writers, indicates that there never was any living 'Apostle Paul' in the 1st century, or known to anyone before 150 CE.

'Paul's ' theology is not that of Justin, and reflects the development of theological arguments and late developed church doctrinal positions, that were totally unknown to Justin and to the world of the early 1st century CE.

.

I want to point out that the presumed provenance of the epistle to the Romans is out of sync with the evidence.

Supposedly, we have the Apostle Paul ca. 58 CE writing to the Church in Rome, a church that is already familiar and in agreement with Pauline doctrine. As Van Manen noted, the presumed Christians who are the recepients of that letter must be Pauline Christinas who are fully aware of the nuances of Pauline doctrine. (Else the arguments "Paul" makes are indecipherable). Yet, we find as late as the middle of the second century the Roman church has scarcely any familiarity with Paul or his doctrines. Justin, his student Tatian, Papais and others had no information on Paul. What had happened to the illustious epistle and all the friends and supporters of Paul? Had they disappeared and left scarcely a trace in next generations? Had the epistle lain buried in the archives of the Roman church for nearly a century until it emerged again to the light of day --- in the possession of Marcion!?? Marcion brought a large monetary gift to Rome (as Paul was said to do to Jerusalem, and Simon Magus to St. Peter!).

There is something very wrong with the traditional dating of the Epistle to the Romans.

"In Paul's day there was no church there, according to Acts. But in our epistle there is already an established congregation before Paul visits. The text seems confused: Paul is pictured as the pioneer missionary to the gentiles, so he wants to exercise his ministry in Rome (verses 13-15). That would seem to mean he wants to found a church in Rome as he does elsewhere--but then to whom is he addressing? Are we to imagine him writing to a Roman church that does not exist? If there is one for him to write to, then it is too late to found the church, isn't it? It all makes more sense as the announcemnet of Marcion to preach among them a version of the gospel they may not have heard. We know he did, in fact, "audition" his gospel in Rome, hoping to be acclaimed bishop there."
(R.Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, page 256).

We find the historical context in the epistle to the Romans to be that of Marcion's time, not the mid-first century. Romans 1:8-17 reads perfectly as a portion of a letter from Marcion to the elders of the second century Roman church!

Let's see how well a Marcioite origin fits with chapter one of Romans. Very well indeed!

Marcion's Letter to the Church of Rome

Romans 1:8-17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 First, I [MARCION] thank my God ["my God, i.e. not the god of the Jews] through Jesus Christ [or Chrestos, you can't tell because of the Nomina Sacra] for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. [This world famous church could hardly have existed in the mid first century. But in the mid second century, yes.]

9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, 10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;

12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [The Roman church had not been preached the correct, i.e. Marcion's gospel]

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith."

Jake Jones IV

The big problem I have with the Marcion = Paul theory is that it doesn't address why the Roman/Pauline church would destroy the reputation of Marcion after accepting the epistle collection as scripture. Instead, they should have venerated Marcion and made him Pope. It seems like too great a disconnect.

jakejonesiv · 03-07-2013, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

The big problem I have with the Marcion = Paul theory is that it doesn't address why the Roman/Pauline church would destroy the reputation of Marcion after accepting the epistle collection as scripture. Instead, they should have venerated Marcion and made him Pope. It seems like too great a disconnect.

The figure of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical circles. The catholic church did not accept the Marcionite Paul "as is"; they changed him to make him (Paul) into a good little catholic. And of course, they never forgave Marcion for attempting to undercut their authority.

Jake

aa5874 · 03-07-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

The big problem I have with the Marcion = Paul theory is that it doesn't address why the Roman/Pauline church would destroy the reputation of Marcion after accepting the epistle collection as scripture. Instead, they should have venerated Marcion and made him Pope. It seems like too great a disconnect.

Marcion=Paul is completely unsubstantiated. Paul was a completely fabricated character. The very Church claimed he died under Nero but still claimed he was Aware of gLuke.

gLuke was most likely written AFTER c 93 CE or after Antiquities of the Jews and Nero died c 68 CE.

The Pauline writings were most likely composed AFTER Marcion was dead.

Origen in "Against Celsus" claimed Celsus wrote nothing about Paul.

Celsus wrote "True Discourse" c 160 CE.

Origen's Against Celsus

Quote:

..And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

jakejonesiv · 03-07-2013, 08:34 PM

:horsecrap:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

In Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus every single Pauline letter to Churches were named and used.

...

The author of Against Heresies NEVER had knowledge of the Pauline letters to Churches and Had NO knowledge of the story that Paul preached Christ Crucified

This is a steaming pile of contradictory horse crap. :horsecrap:

stephan huller · 03-07-2013, 08:38 PM

Quote:

it doesn't address why the Roman/Pauline church would destroy the reputation of Marcion after accepting the epistle collection as scripture

There are other parallel examples to draw from of this phenomenon. Take Lampe's example of the fate of Florinus the Valentinian. During the very same reign of Victor Florinus was tossed out of the highest ranks of the Church. This doesn't mean that Marcion was Paul. It merely demonstrates that there are examples of individuals who went from hero to zero like Marcion in the Roman Church.

Horatio Parker · 03-07-2013, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Several people in Mark recognize Jesus.

I do thank you for being the one bringing this matter to my attention Horatio, as I doubt aa would have been near so tactful and kind.

Guess I'll have to concede that one, as it had just slipped my mind for the moment.

I can only plead here....that there are factors of daily life that allow such mistakes to take place. ...such as;

At the time I was composing that post, SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED! was hot on my case, insistent that we MUST go grocery shopping IMMEDIATELY!

So there were several errors that went unoticed, and when we returned from shopping there was not enough time to do more than a bit of spelling corrections, as are noted at the bottom of the post.

No one is perfect all of the time, living life as a human gets in the way.
I believe most married men will understand.

I still don't see that Roman centurian standing there with his jaw hanging open in rapt amazment that he is looking at The Son of God.

Edited to add Now I see just where I got -led- into thinking of this Roman centurion as being the only Jew to recognise Jesuz as being the Son of God.

Here is aa in Post #223

Quote:

The AUTHOR of gMark wrote that it was the Centurion, a Roman Officer, the ONLY person, to recognise Jesus as the Son of God.

In reading and reacting to aa's statements I got snookered (look it up in the Urban Dictionary )

.

FWIW your interpretation is funnier. I can easily imagine John Cleese saying it...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.