stephan huller

What is interesting about the material also is that I have long argued that the Marcionite (and Christian) interest in 'the redemption - i.e. a rite which may have involved baptism - was related to Genesis 28:21. As I have noted many times before Philo tells us twice that when Jacob swears at Bethel to make "the Lord my God" he is fact switches allegiance from the punishing Lord to the merciful God (= Chrestos). This 'switch' is carried out by means of the Logos who apparently 'lived' at Shechem (Beth El) or at least could 'appear' there at will from heaven - something we see from other sources.

The Targums for instance have 'word of God' in the place of 'Lord' here. The Samaritans and other Jewish sources understand Melchizedek (that hypostasis of the gnostics) to have 'lived' here also. But most important of all, Clement of Alexandria co-opts the Philonic idea of 'being adopted' by one power from the other as a specifically Christian rite:

When we make the connection between the Philonic-Alexandrian Christian understanding of Genesis 28.21 as an adoption, the fact that the Dositheans had their central cultus at the site of this 'Beth El' and finally the clear sense that the gospel - or at least a specific heretical gospel - likely began with Jesus coming down the heavenly ladder and 'appeared' (Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4) at the Dosithean 'Beth El-Louzah' in front of the Samaritan woman, there seems to be the basis for an understanding Christianity continued or adapted pre-existing Dosithean baptism rites for adoption of its catechumen to the Christian Logos Jesus.

Yes there are a few 'jumps' in the argument which need to be developed further. But I think the basic assumption that Jesus's appeal to the Samaritan woman is much more significant to the theology of early Christianity than is generally assumed. I think it must have been written in a period where worship on the Samaritan mountain and Jerusalem - but not the Dosithean site of Shechem - was coming to an end. Does that mean it couldn't have been written before the bar Kochba revolt? We know almost nothing about the period. But at this moment at least it seems to better fit what we know of the late first century, especially with respect to the twilight of temple Judaism.

aa5874

You need to address the OP. Please, we are dealing with the dating of Paul not the Samaritans.

We all know that Christianity developed before the Pauline letters.

stephan huller

But there is an early claim that Paul wrote the first gospel one which incorporated elements of John (from our inherited POV). That in turn can help us nail down a date (the Catholic position is clear = Acts). But no one around here seems to accept that date or that evidence. this is my attempt to determine what the heresies believed

Bingo the Clown-O

Stephan,

Have you considered the possibility that Bethel was actually a god and not a place?

Have you considered the possibility that the Samaritan woman in John 2 was originally portrayed as Jesus’ wife?

Wait! :talktothehand:

Don’t answer!

We’re getting too far off topic!

Maybe this would be a great place for the moderators to split this thread off so that you could discuss your stuff there. :bulb:

aa5874

In attempting to date the Pauline letters one must investigate any writings that mention Paul and the Pauline letters.

I have already shown that the first non-Canonical source to mention Paul, the anonymous letter attributed to Clement, was unknown by Church writers up to 400 CE or the time of Augustine of Hippo who was considered one of the Great Writers of the Church.

In fact, after Eusebius implied the Clement letter was composed c 92-101 CE, it was contradicted by Four Apologetic writers--Optatus, Rufinus, the author of the Chronograph of 354 and Augustine of Hippo. Clement was bishop c 68-79 CE

It is clear the Clement letter is a forgery of the 5th century or later.

The first writer to mention Pauline letters to Seven Churches and the Pastorals except Philemon is found in writings called Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus.

"Against Heresies" is virtually worthless as an historical or credible source for Paul and the Pauline writings.

As soon as it was argued in Against Heresies 2.22 that Jesus was baptized at about 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified at about 50 years of age c 49 CE it became most obvious that "Against Heresies" was heavily corrupted and was the product of a massive forgery.

The original author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters where it is claimed Paul preached Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE.

Up to c 180 CE, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were unknown or after Marcion was dead.

The other source to mention Paul are the Paul/Seneca letters. It appears from the letters that Seneca who lived in the time of Nero knew of Paul.

Without wasting more time even Scholars have deduced that the Paul/Seneca are forgeries.

Pauline letters before c 70 CE are virtually 100% Fake.

No argument for early Pauline letters can be now be maintained.

Early Pauline letters, before c 70 CE, is now completely dead and unsupported based on the abundance of evidence.

Duvduv

AA, you still then have to account for mention of the Christ in Acts AND in relation to the martyr Stephen, not to mention the speeches in relation to Jesus. If you want to suggest that Acts merges a "spirit of God" movement with the unrelated Jesus movement, let's discuss that.

aa5874

Right now, my obligation is to show that there is an abundance of evidence of antiquity that contradict the presumption that the Pauline letters were early.

My obligation is to show that any argument that the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE is the weakest of weak arguments and weaker.

In Acts of the Apostles a character called Saul/Paul is mentioned and there is NO indication that he wrote letters to Seven Churches and letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

This lack of reference is exteremely significant because it is claimed by the Church writers that the author of Acts was a close companion of Saul/Paul.

The story of Saul/Paul ends at around c 62 CE in Acts but it would appear that Acts of the Apostles itself was composed at least 120 years later, that is later than 180 CE.

Essentially, the author of Acts writing at least after c 180 CE had no knowledge of the activities of Paul.

Please remember that the author of Against Heresies 2.22 claimed Jesus was crucified about 50 years of age after being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius as stated in gLuke.

Irenaeus argues essentially that Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE.

In Acts of the Apostles Saul/Paul preached Christ Crucified before 43 CE

In Acts of the Apostles Saul/Paul preached Christ Crucified Before the Death of Herod Agrippa c 44 CE.

Examine Acts 12.23--the death of Herod Agrippa is recorded.

Examine Acts 11--there were Christians in Antioch at least one year before the death of Herod Agrippa directly as a result of the teachings of Paul.

If the author of "Against Heresies" was really a presbyter and then bishop of the Church of Lyons then it would have been virtually impossible that he would have argued that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50 years of age.

Examine the words in "Against Heresies" 2.

The author of Against Heresies 2.22 did NOT know of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

The author of Against Heresies did NOT that in the Pauline letters and Acts that Paul preached Christ Crucified c 37-43 CE.

The argument that the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE is completely unsubstantianted and is the weakest of weak arguments or weaker.

The dated recovered NT manuscripts of the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles are all from the 2nd century or later.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

aa5874

So far there are over 800 posts to this thread and those who argue for early Pauline letters have made little or no input.

The long held presumption that the Pauline writings were composed before c 62 CE is untenable. There was NEVER any actual supporting evidence--not even in the Canon itself.

The Jesus cult of Christians originated in the 2nd century--there were NO Pauline Churches at all in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus have utterly vaporised Acts of the Apostles and all the Pauline letters.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus has opened a massive can of worms.

When it was argued that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after he was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius a most disastrous affair is exposed.

Acts of the Apostles, all the Pauline letters and writings attributed to Irenaeus are products of fraud.

"Against Heresies" as it is found today was NOT written by a 2nd century presbyter of the Church, it was NOT known to the 2nd century so-called Heretics, it was NOT known to non-apologetics of the 2nd century, and unknown to the 2nd century Jesus cult.

Our present copies of "Against Heresies" are products of the 5th century or later.

Augustine of Hippo at 400 CE did NOT know the History of Church that Clement was bishop c 92-101 CE.

In the 5th century it was NOT known in the Church that Clement was bishop of Rome c 92-101 CE as claimed or impiled in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm
Augustine of Hippo is claimed to have written over 40 books and over 200 letters.

Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was the second bishop of Rome.

Eusebius claimed Clement was third bishop of Romec 92-101 CE when there was a Great Dissension at Corinth.

Augustine of Hippo claimed to be aware of Eusebius writings.

Augustine's City of God Surely the people of the Church of Rome must have known the history of Clement and the bishops of Rome.

Why must some presbyter from the Church of Lyons, bishop from Hippo or Caesarea give us the list of the bishops of Rome??

There was NO established bishop of Rome for hundreds of years.

The Apostle Peter and Paul were NEVER in Rome c 62 CE.

aa5874

It is claimed that an anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome mentions Paul and he [Paul]wrote to the Corinthians but, again, No date is supplied for the authorship of the letter.

However, and far worse, is that letters supposedly from Clement of Rome are part of a massive fraud.

See http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...iv.v.lxxiv.htm
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

It can easily be deduced that a Clement letter to the Church of Corinth during the Great Dissension c 95 CE was unknown up to the 5th century because Austine of Hippo, Rufinus, Optatus and the author of the Chronograph 354 did NOT use the supposed c 95 CE letter when they all claimed Clement was bishop at least 27 years before at c 68-77 CE.

The first supposed source to mention Paul outside the Canon is a forgery carried out hundreds of years after c 95 CE.

We can deduce that there was NO Clement letter to a Corinth Church c 95 CE when there was a Great Dissension as implied in "Against Heresies" because Tertullian claimed Clement was bishop immediately after Peter.

It would appear that the forgeries associated with the Church and apologetics are far more wide spread that previously acknowledged.

All the Pauline letters are products of fraud and false attribution.

There is simply no corroborative evidence from the Canon itself or non-Apologetic sources for Pauline letters before c 62 CE and sources which mention Paul and the Pauline letters are themselves forgeries like 1st Clement and "Against Hereies".

Incredibly, it is claimed by an Apologetic source that Clement himself wrote a LETTER to James telling him that he was ordained by Peter.

The Recognitions We have TWO letters supposedly from Clement and they contradict each other.

ALL the Clementine and Pauline letters are products of forgeries, false attribution and fraud.

Kent F

But, aa, all you say is that the Roman church falsified their association with the Pauline letters. Doesn't this strongly suggest that the Pauline epistles were not part of the Roman church to begin with? What if they originally belonged to the Marcionites? Can't you at least consider that possibility?

This explains why the RC had to fabricate the Clement of Rome letters, and why they interpolated and manipulated the Pauline epistles and why they added Acts. This also explains why they accused Marcion of shortening the gospel of Luke and why Eusebius said that Paul's gospel was in fact Luke's. It's all a sham to hide the original thinking that Paul had his own gospel and that it belonged to an earlier church with Alexandrian roots.

So by the late 2nd century, during the reign of Commodus, Paul was stolen by the RC. And since Paul belonged to an earlier church, the dating is down to at least early second century, since those of Marcion had the epistles and one gospel (written by Paul or whatever his real name was).