Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 12-02-2011, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you by any chance think the words of Paul are inerrant or must be true?

My opinion on this is of no more value than anyone's.

Quote:

Do you understand that it was NOT the Church who have deduced that the Pauline writings were MANIPULATED?

I understand that certain people (who would never be permitted membership of a church constituted on New Testament principles, even if they wanted church membership) claim that the works attributed to Paul are unreliable. But what is not commonly realised that this makes no difference whatever to the church, that does not place any value on authorship as such— only on content. As already hinted at, Paul based his opus strictly on the Old Testament, appealing in almost every case to it, not to his own authority, and scholarly ex-Jewish Christians other than Paul must have come to exactly the same conclusions that Paul reached, but did not commit their thoughts to writing that has survived. What is different about Paul is that he was forced into writing, to people who were not 'house-trained' as Jewish Christians were, and his readers were required to take his letters as Scripture (and therefore to be physically copied).

If moderns were presented with the OT, Gospels and the early part of Acts, and no more, they would and indeed should arrive at the teaching content of the complete New Testament, bar Revelation. In brief, people make far too much of teacher Paul qua his teaching. As a man he was extraordinary, and too little is made of that.

aa5874 · 12-02-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

As already hinted at, Paul based his opus strictly on the Old Testament, appealing in almost every case to it, not to his own authority, and scholarly ex-Jewish Christians other than Paul must have come to exactly the same conclusions that Paul reached, but did not commit their thoughts to writing that has survived....

Your claim is completely erroneous. Paul used CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES and FALSE claims about revelations from a resurrected Jesus of the Last Supper to develop his OWN doctrine.

1. In 1 Cor. 15.3 Paul claimed that Jesus DIED for OUR SINS according to the Scriptures.

Only CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES Made such a claim. See John 3.

In Hebrew Scripture, it was BULLS and GOATS that were Sacrificed for the Sins of Jews ONLY. Hebrew Scripture does NOT state that Jesus died for SINS at all.

Examine Leviticus 16

Quote:

5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house....

Nowhere in Hebrew Scripture will you find the BLASPHEMY that Jesus died for the Sins of Jews and all mankind.

Also, in 1 Cor.11.23 Paul claimed he RECEIVED details about the LAST SUPPER from a resurrected Jesus.

The claim by Paul is an OUTRIGHT LIE. It could NOT have happened as he described. The Pauline writer MUST have gotten the details of the LAST SUPPER from a HUMAN SOURCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

....If moderns were presented with the OT, Gospels and the early part of Acts, and no more, they would and indeed should arrive at the teaching content of the complete New Testament, bar Revelation. In brief, people make far too much of teacher Paul qua his teaching. As a man he was extraordinary, and too little is made of that.

Well, you have just CONTRADICTED yourself. How could Paul be extraordinary when you just stated that people make far too much of teacher Paul?

The fact is that the Pauline writer was a LIAR and this is quite extraordinary. Why was a KNOWN LIAR Canonised?

If Jesus did exist, he could only be human.

If Jesus did meet PRIVATELY with his disciples at the LAST SUPPER then Paul could NOT have known what TRANSPIRED.

A dead man could NOT have told Paul his Exact Words at the LAST SUPPER.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 -

Quote:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me....

The Pauline writer was an EXTRAORDINARY LIAR.

Solo · 12-02-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

There's no need to get so earnest, surely. I could point you to a list of volumes, mostly now regrettably out of print, written by very sane people indeed, renowned scholars to a man, who studied, analysed and indeed praised the words of Paul, and treated them as those of the Logos himself. But I regret that I do not have that many days spare to complete that task.

And surely you also believe no-one here has seen this kind of silly dodge before.

Jiri

jakejonesiv · 12-02-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yet, what was the mystery to call Galatians by that name, since Galatia was a whole region even if it was the backwoods? It's like writing Epistle to the Bostonians, Epistle to the Angelinos, and then one epistles to the Texans......Maybe it was meant to be Epistle to the Pontusians or Iconians.

Marcion of Pontus brought with him a collection of ten Pauline epistles. According to Tert. AM 4.3.1, Marcion "discovered by lucky chance" (nancisci) the epistle to the Galatians. Galatians was unknown before Marcion. It became his cover letter to the Apostilikon.

All that is required is the ability to distinguish between the concepts of the real author and the implied author, and the real audience and the implied audience.

Jake

aa5874 · 12-02-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yet, what was the mystery to call Galatians by that name, since Galatia was a whole region even if it was the backwoods? It's like writing Epistle to the Bostonians, Epistle to the Angelinos, and then one epistles to the Texans......Maybe it was meant to be Epistle to the Pontusians or Iconians.

Marcion of Pontus brought with him a collection of ten Pauline epistles. According to Tert. AM 4.3.1, Marcion "discovered by lucky chance" (nancisci) the epistle to the Galatians. Galatians was unknown before Marcion. It became his cover letter to the Apostilikon.

All that is required is the ability to distinguish between the concepts of the real author and the implied author, and the real audience and the implied audience.

Jake

It makes no sense at all for Marcion to have a letter that was written to the Church of the Galatians DEALING with ISSUES 100 years earlier and also detailing the Movements of Paul

What does MARCION achieve with Galatians?

Galatians 1 and 2 deals with Paul's PERSECUTION of Christians, the conversion of Paul, his travels to Arabia, Damascus, Jerusalem and other parts of the Roman Empire, his confrontation with the Apostles, and his evangelism of the uncircumcision.

Galatians 1 and 2 is TOTALLY irrelevant to the 2nd century and the doctrine of Marcion.

In Galatians 4.4, it is claimed Jesus was God's Son MADE of a WOMAN.

This claim is CONTRARY to the teachings of MARCION.

Marcion's Son of God had ZERO BIRTH and ZERO flesh.

The claim by Tertullian is NOT credible.

Hippolytus CONTRADICTS Tertullian and stated that Marcion used the writings of Empedocles, NOT Paul.

Empedocles PREACHED the doctrine of DUALISM which is the same as Marcion.

Justin Martyr CONTRADICTS Tertullian and claimed Marcion preached ANOTHER GOD and another Son which was NOT according to the prophets or Hebrew Scripture.

Based on Justin and Hippolytus, Marcion does NOT need the 100 year old GALATIANS WHICH CLAIMED Jesus was God's Son Born of a woman.

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

According to Tert. AM 4.3.1, Marcion "discovered by lucky chance" (nancisci) the epistle to the Galatians. Galatians was unknown before Marcion.

Thanks Jake. I hadn't notice that.

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 09:00 PM

I see it was Detering who drew your attention to this:

Quote:

Here it only says, namely with a view to the Epistle to the Galatians, that Marcion has "found" the Epistle to the Galatians (nancisci = to discover by lucky chance): "Sedenim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas" ("But now as Marcion has discovered Paul's Epistle to the Galatians...") (Tert. AM 4.3.1).

Here is the whole passage:

Quote:

It is another matter if in Marcion's opinion the Christian religion, with its sacred content, begins with the discipleship of Luke. However, as it was on its course even before that, it certainly possessed an authoritative structure by means of which it reached even to Luke: and so with the support of its evidence Luke also can find acceptance. But Marcion has got hold of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, in which he (= Paul) rebukes even the apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,a and accuses also certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ: and on this ground Marcion strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the apostles' own and are published under their names, or even the names of apostolic men, with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others. And yet, even if there is censure of Peter and John and James, who were esteemed as pillars,b the reason is evident. It was that they appeared to be altering their manner of life through respect of persons. Yet since Paul himself made himself all things to all men so that he might gain them all, Peter too may well have had this in mind in acting in some respect differently from his manner of teaching. And besides, if false apostles also had crept in, their character too is indicated: they were insisting on circumcision, and the Jewish calendar. So it was not for their preaching but for their forms of activity that they were marked down as wrong by Paul, though he would no less have marked them wrong if they had been in any error on the subject of God the Creator, or of his Christ. Therefore we have to distinguish between the two cases. If Marcion's complaint is that the apostles are held suspect of dissimulation or pretence, even to the debasing of the gospel, he is now accusing Christ, by thus accusing those whom Christ has chosen. If however the gospel which the apostles compared with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' document which has suffered from adulterators—that document which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely destroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one. Or if that is to be the true one, if that is the apostles', which Marcion alone possesses, then how is it that that which is not of the apostles, but is ascribed to Luke, is in agreement with ours? Or if that which Marcion has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified in its title.

This is a most fascinating passage. I have mostly ignored it because I was concentrating on what appears in Book 5. Notice that the author leaves open the possibility that the Marcionite gospel is not Luke (or is prepared from an objection from the Marcionites). It might be worth taking a second look at all this information starting with Detering's rendering of nanisci.

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 09:01 PM

Verb
present active nancīscor, present infinitive nancīscī, perfect active nactus sum. (deponent)
I meet with, stumble on, encounter, acquire, get, reach, find something.
I contract, catch.
(by extension) I possess by birth, have by nature.

stephan huller · 12-02-2011, 09:13 PM

Is Detering right with his interpretation? Does Tertullian mean that Marcion was the first to discover Galatians or - as I suspect - that he just came upon Galatians and it influenced him. Here's what I have noticed throughout my study of the Patristic sources:

no one ever accuses Marcion of making any deletions to the first two chapters of Galatians which is strange given it abounds with an abundance of things he would have found unacceptable (especially in the early form of the epistle known to Irenaeus and Tertullian where Paul declares that he submitted to the authority of the Jerusalem Church).

I don't think this epistle existed in the form we know it today. Epiphanius and Origen (Jerome) start at the end of chapter 2/beginning of chapter 3 introducing anything from the Marcionite text. Clement only starts citing from the same place. It's a fake.

aa5874 · 12-02-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Is Detering right with his interpretation? Does Tertullian mean that Marcion was the first to discover Galatians or - as I suspect - that he just came upon Galatians and it influenced him. Here's what I have noticed throughout my study of the Patristic sources:

no one ever accuses Marcion of making any deletions to the first two chapters of Galatians which is strange given it abounds with an abundance of things he would have found unacceptable (especially in the early form of the epistle known to Irenaeus and Tertullian where Paul declares that he submitted to the authority of the Jerusalem Church).

I don't think this epistle existed in the form we know it today. Epiphanius and Origen (Jerome) start at the end of chapter 2/beginning of chapter 3 introducing anything from the Marcionite text. Clement only starts citing from the same place. It's a fake.

What does Marcion need in Galatians 1 and 2 supposedly written 100 years EARLIER and the ORIGINAL LETTER should be in the HANDS of the Galatian Church?

Galatians 1 and 2 is about the Conversion of Paul, his persecution of Christians, and his travels to Arabia, Damascus , Jerusalem and other places, and his arguments with the Pillars of the Church

Did Marcion TRAVEL ALL over the ROMAN EMPIRE for thousands of Miles and STEAL ALL THE ORIGINAL EPISTLES from each Church and then CIRCULATED them publicly with interpolations?

The Tertullian "Against Marcion" is total ridiculous fiction or as Tertullian himself stated we must have the one that is FULL of MISTAKES.

"Against Marcion" 1

Quote:

....My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate.

He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it.

This present text, therefore, of my work— which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third— renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about....

"Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is FULL of MISTAKES.

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

12-02-2011, 09:01 PM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Verb present active nancīscor, present infinitive nancīscī, perfect active nactus sum. (deponent) I meet with, stumble on, encounter, acquire, get, reach, find something. I contract, catch. (by extension) I possess by birth, have by nature.

12-02-2011, 09:13 PM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Is Detering right with his interpretation? Does Tertullian mean that Marcion was the first to discover Galatians or - as I suspect - that he just came upon Galatians and it influenced him. Here's what I have noticed throughout my study of the Patristic sources: no one ever accuses Marcion of making any deletions to the first two chapters of Galatians which is strange given it abounds with an abundance of things he would have found unacceptable (especially in the early form of the epistle known to Irenaeus and Tertullian where Paul declares that he submitted to the authority of the Jerusalem Church). I don't think this epistle existed in the form we know it today. Epiphanius and Origen (Jerome) start at the end of chapter 2/beginning of chapter 3 introducing anything from the Marcionite text. Clement only starts citing from the same place. It's a fake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.