stephan huller

I am not so sure. And I think that the Diatessaronic tradition of someone like Ephrem or Clement of Alexandria stood fairly close to the Marcionite tradition. You see Ephrem no less than Clement cite Paul in his Commentary on the Diatessaron as if he 'knew the gospel' or was commenting on it. It's only the idiotic Roman tradition in the late second to third centuries that imagines that Paul didn't have a gospel. With respect to changes to the Apostolikon I bet I could think of an example of a passage in the existing Pauline canon which (a) the Catholic Fathers claimed Marcion erased and (b) which they said proved that Jesus was a human being. I've just got a lot on my head right now. But the stuff from the first two books of Galatians (which is never cited as being in the Marcionite canon) is likely place to start looking for it.

Sheshbazzar

Present a 'proposed position' that is not based upon swallowing the fabricated tales of Christian characters and their fudged and fabricated writings.
_If you can positively identify any such; 'there was an epidemic of revision and forgery throughout the early history of the documentary record'.

stephan huller

I just checked Tertullian. It is incredible that Tertullian never touches upon the obvious passages related to Jesus's human birth. Were they not found in Tertullian's text? It's incredible.

stephan huller

Look at the change in Galatians 4:4 - 'born of a woman' does not appear in Tertullian Against Marcion:

But it does appear in Tertullian On the Flesh of Christ:

gurugeorge

Consider how difficult it is even in this thread for some people to see what's actually really obvious once you make the gestalt switch. The Catholic redactors probably read the gospels into the text just as much as some people in this thread have been doing, and Christians have been doing down the centuries. (e.g. automatically reading the "appearances" as being post-ministry/death/resurrection appearances, and the Apostles being former disciples of a preaching Jesus)

IOW, it's not like they were trying to cover something up (i.e. an original celestial nature), they already had a good deal of "celestiality" in their own beliefs, they weren't all that different in terms of theology, they just had a firm belief that they were heirs of a lineage going back to pre-death/resurrection discipleship. That's the novel idea, the result of their taking the GMark allegory seriously and working it up into what to them must have been a clearer and more disciple-friendly form in GMatthew.

The purpose of including Paul in the canon wasn't so much to legitimize the gospel Jesus, they already firmly believed they were the correct heirs to that; rather, it was to get the Pauline (i.e. proto-Gnostic and Marcionite) churches on board with Catholicism, by including their founder in the Canon, in a form that was recognizable to the Pauline churches, but sanitized enough to be Catholic. And given their own reading of the gospel Jesus back into the texts, they didn't feel they needed to alter things that are now evidential to us of a celestial Jesus. They probably didn't even see those clues (purely visionary "appearance" to Apostles and Paul in the very earliest Christianty), so firmly did they have their gospel goggles affixed to their noses. Just as with most people today.

Or to put it another way, the purpose of including Paul in the Canon wasn't so much to legitimize their lineage in others' eyes, it was to legitimize Paul's lineage in Catholic terms, to place Paul into a Catholic line (by having him make friends with Peter), saying to the proto-Gnostics and Marcionites "look, you see, we too accept Paul as legitimate".

It's really just an alternative tactic to crying "heretic!" that they tried, and it was to some extent successful.

aa5874

You are just making suff up. Where are your sources?? At one time you claim the Pauline writings are interpolated and then at other time you accept them without corroboration.

The Pauline writings are 2nd century or later Anti-Marcionite Texts to argue that Jesus the Son of God made of a woman was Crucified and Bodily Resurrected.

It is claimed that Marcion's Phantom Son of God was on earth in Capernaum of Galilee but had NO birth, No Flesh and was NOT resurrected.

"Against Marcion" 5.5

stephan huller

But notice the addition of 'born of woman' to Galatians 4:4. The purpose is transparent isn't it? Or do we have drag this one out?

aa5874

Again, it must not ever be forgotten that Tertullian's "Against Marcion" is completely WITHOUT Provenance hundreds of years after it was supposedly composed.

Amazingly, "Against Marcion" is the most voluminous work attributed to Tertullian yet it was completely unknown among Church writers up to the end of the 5th century and later.

When the Three Proses of "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephrem of the 4th century are examined they appear to completely contradict Tertullian's--there is hardly any mention of the Pauline letters to Churches and the gospel of gLuke.

It is clear that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was invented.

stephan huller

But Ephrem does know the Pauline letters.

aa5874

It must be made clear that all sources of antiquity that claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches are themselves questionable sources and may be forgeries or falsely attributed.

There is a troubling pattern in the NT.

If we examine the Canon without considering the Pauline letters it would be noticed that all the authors are FAKE.

But, it is NOT just a matter of FAKE authorship that is most disturbing--it is the fact that all the FAKE authors were supposed to be CONTEMPORARIES of Jesus and some were even his supposed Relatives or Siblings and Disciples.

In an attempt to make it appear that the books of the Canon were composed before c 70 CE or before the end of the 1st century.

It is claimed that gMatthew was composed before Mark wote his Gospel during the time of Philo--before c 50 CE.

It is claimed that gLuke was composed BEFORE Paul was dead c 64-66 CE and that gJohn was composed by a disciple of Jesus.

However, it has been deduced that all the Gospels were composed ATER c 70 CE and NOT by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Acts of the Apostles storyline ends at about c 62 CE giving the impression that it was composed before the Fall of the Temple but Acts was composed long after the Fall of the Jewish Temple--perhaps 100 YEARS after or later.

James and Jude are FAKE authors of the Epistles and so are Peter and John giving the False impression that the Non-Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century.

Revelation by John is no different--John was NOT a disciple of Jesus and it was composed AFTER c 70 CE.

So what makes PAUL different?? Why are NOT all the Pauline writings of Fake authorship and composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple??

We have 100% Fake or unknown authorship in ALL Non-Pauline writings in the Canon.

We have 100% bogus or unknown date of authorship in All Non-Pauline writings in the Canon.

The Pauline letters are NO different. We have ALL FAKE Pauline authors in the Canon.

We know they are ALL FAKE because Apologetic sources have Exposed them.

The short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Arnobius, Municius Felix, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Ephrem, Chrysostom and others have EXPOSED that ALL the Pauline letters were NOT composed in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.