outhouse

so does price


then his statement is circular, and carries no merit towards pure mythology.


thats not a pilar, its a guess at best


paul speeks of a man and gives him divine attributes, added mythology, is not pure mythology and price cannot back his assertation of pure mythology due to the nature of theological writing often using historical cores. in this case, its more probable that a man was behind the myth then a myth created about a poverty stricken tekton fighting roman taxation through peace instead of the typical zealots in Galilee

spin

Just another of those I'm clueless responses. Have you read Price's books? If so, where are your substantive criticisms?? If not, you have nothing to say.

I don't care about your unfounded opinions.

This seems just to be based on ignorance of what Price has stated in his works.

outhouse, it would be good if you learnt to shut up until you know what you are trying to talk about. As is, you are unhelpful and prevent yourself from learning about the topic you are shooting off about.

rlogan

I'm pretty amazed that people could believe these are actually letters instead of liturgical devices. They are so obvious on the face of them. The Dutch Radicals gave a pretty good laundry list of the stupid contradictions you run into when trying to pass these off as genuine letters.

The Catholics co-opting the letters of "paul" and re-writing them to their own ends is nothing new. You have lots of doublets in the Hebrew Bible - two completely different sets of ten commandments, two creation stories, etc. and the reason is prettty obviously merging two different traditions under one redaction. Ultimately that is what the New Testament represents: a merging of the Proto-Catholic and Marcionite camps. When you can't destroy them you co-opt and assimilate.

Marcion had far too much personal and collective congregational wealth and power to simply reject his bible. He nearly bought the allegiance of Rome with a donation, but they decided to co-opt instead of agreeing completely on his theology.

So they accused him of "corrupting" the letters and boy, Thank God we have copies of the originals. We've been keeping these for decades secretly just in case someone tried to corrupt them. It never occurred to us to publish them in the first place. But we've corrected that oversight now...

outhouse

back at ya LOL



you will have me at a advantage while burrowing in mythers garbage, I have been smelling clean air for quite some time and not turning back to the methods you promote under the illusion of historicity. Ive read the myther garbage before and followed closely to everything written to date. I was dissapointed with the lack luster work involved in chasing things that didnt add up and made little sense.

Adam

I would love to see your detailed critique after your recognition of
"the lack luster work involved in chasing things [in mythicism]that didnt add up and made little sense. "

As it is, I am as little impressed with your criticism of mythicism (even though I'm on your side) as I am with your exposition of Oral Tradition (your position with which I disagree). We need evidence, not bluster. Not that making a good case will preserve you from spin any better than making your poor case (thus far).

spin

Irony never ceases.

James The Least

I don't think they are letters. I think you are right, they are sermons, liturgy, given the gloss of "letters" ... the same way Plato's essays are given the gloss of dialogues. We refer to them as "letters" because of convention.

outhouse

Adam, the bible takes care of most of this for me.

its all about the error's Adam. What, who, where and why.


there are those that claim 100% mythology even though we have cross cultural theology and clear hellenistic examples of mortal men being called "son of god"


spin is pretty sharp


I focus on cultural anthropology, not theology or just scripture. If you dont know the enviroment you cant figure out "why" let alone where and when and most importantly "who"

aa5874

Again, "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraim the Syrian, 'Refutation Against all Heresies" by Hippolytus and "First Apology" by Justin Martyr CONTRADICT Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

The DATED Pauline letters CONTRADICT Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

No source of antiquity attributed Five books "Against Marcion" to Tertullian hundreds of years after Tertullian supposedly wrote them.

Even Eusebius and Jerome supposedly writing up to 100-150 years after Tertullian and mentioned the works of Tertullian did NOT claim he wrote any books "Against Marcion".

The Five books called "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian Literally came from Nowhere at an Unknown time.

Come on, do a PROVENANCE check for "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

The continuous PRESUMPTION that Marcion had the Pauline letters or knew of them is PROPAGANDA by the Roman Church or its agents.

Marcion did NOT use the Pauline letters he used Empedocles--Hippolytus.

Marcion preached ANOTHER God and another Son--Justin Martyr.

Marcion did NOT accept that the Lord was the Creator--Ephraim.

Marcion did NOT need the Pauline letters to preach another God and another Son.

There is NO credible corroborative source for 'Against Marcion' attributed to Tertullian.

Duvduv

But at least even old writers admitted the letters were tampered with. Problem is how secular academics make a canon out of the claims of the ancient texts of heresiologists.
Yet even the text attributed to Justin Martyr doesn't mention a word about any texts used by Marcion. C.P. Sense makes a strong argument about this in his book about Luke 100 years ago.