aa5874

I don't know how you can tell what Marcion wrote because the document that Tertullian claimed was written by Marcion had NO AUTHOR.

In "Against Marcion" Tertullian attributed an ANONYMOUS writing to Marcion.

"Against Marcion" 4.2 The admission by Tertullian that the writing of Marcion was ANONYMOUS has created credibility problems since the very Gospels appear to have no known authors yet Tertullian attributed authorship to Gospels of the NT by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which even Scholars have rejected.

Your claims about Marcion are unsubstantiated. Even Hippolytus, a Christian writer, claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but that he used the doctrine of Empedocles.

[b]Refutation of All Heresies" 7 Please, show a document that was written by Marcion?

Who asked "Paul" hundreds of questions?

Look at Galatians 1 Tell me who questioned "Paul"? Not even angels.

Whatever "Paul" said was the gospel and final and not even "Paul" himself could have reversed what he already changed.

Even the supposed words of Jesus on earth was changed by Paul through the revelations of the resurrected Jesus.

"Paul" got his story from the resurrected Jesus and gMark story ENDED when the dead body of Jesus had VANISHED.

"

aa5874

The NT is the primary source for Paul whether or not the stories about Paul are believed.

The stories about Paul cannot be altered and ignored since those very claims allow us to make a determination about the veracity or historicity of Paul.

In the NT, it is EXTREMELY critical to understand that it is claimed that Paul was converted to the Faith AFTER Jesus was resurrected.

The Pauline story begins AFTER Jesus was ALREADY claimed to have ascended in a cloud. See Acts 1.9

The Pauline story begins AFTER the day of Pentecost when the apostles were FILLED with the Holy Ghost and began to speak in tongues. Acts 2.1

The Pauline story begins AFTER thousands of people were converted to the Faith after the day of Pentecost. See Acts 2.41

The Gifts of Holy Ghost was the IMPETUS for the FAITH. There would have been NO Faith without the Gifts of the Holy Ghost based on Acts.

Acts 2:41 - On the day of Pentecost 3000 people were converted to the Faith according to Acts.

Now, if gMark was written DECADES after the day of Pentecost and that there were thousands of Believers in Jerusalem on the SAME day the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem why did NOT the authors of Sinaiticus gMatthew and gMark claim that the disciples should meet Jesus in Jerusalem INSTEAD of Galilee?

Luke was supposedly written DECADES after the day of Pentecost and the author wrote that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem and that they should wait in that city for the Promise of the Holy Ghost.

The authors of gMatthew and gMark wrote NOTHING about the Promise of the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem and claimed the disciples were to meet the Risen Jesus in Galillee.

It is clear that gMark and gMatthew were written BEFORE gLuke and Before the story about the day of Pentecost when the apostles received the gifts of the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues and 3000 persons were converted on the very same day.

But, "Paul" wrote about the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, claimed he spoke in tongues and PERSECUTED the Converts in JUDEA.

The Pauline Jesus story is After gMark.

Kent F

aa5874 wrote:
True, Marcion had an unnamed Gospel, but that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about Galatians. The Gospel he used which had no author was his own. Tertullian claimed Marcion had ”mutilated Luke” but, as Stephan Huller has pointed out, he then goes on to quote things which aren't in Luke at all. This in turn suggests that Luke borrowed and rewrote a lot from Marcion.

The Marcionites, i.e. the followers of Mark, claimed that their Gospel was written by Paul. Is it not then logical to assume, as Huller does, that Paul and Marcion was one and the same? I think so. And professor Markus Vinzent will in his forthcoming book date Marcion to before the gospel writers of the NT, that Marcion was in fact their source.
I will! His writings can be deduced from what his critics has said about him; Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, Adamantius, Ephiphanius. Several scholars and researchers has tried to reconstruct Marcion's version of Galatians, as just one example. Among those Herman Detering, Dennis Dean Carpenter and Roger Viklund. And please, aa, try to step out of your box for a moment and assume that the versions Marcion had of the epistles were the oldest. At least, try to read my examples that way.

Some examples:
Gal 1:13-14: Not present in the Marcion version.
The content of the interpolated verses: Paul saying that he ”persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it”, i.e. the interpolator wants to give credence to this invented story in Acts.

Gal 1:18-24. Not present in the Marcion version.
The content of the interpolated verses: Paul going to Jerusalem after three years and staying with Cephas for 15 days. Again, the interpolator wants to give credence to Acts and make Paul look like he's a subordinate of Cephas. Irenaeus says that the time frame corresponds with what is described in Acts. Yes, but someone had to alter Paul's text to make it fit! Interestingly, when Paul has had his vision, he said ”I consulted no man, neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who before me were apostles”, and thus, he didn't care much about them. His vision had little to do with their beliefs!

Gal 2:1 The Marcion version continued with ”After 14 years I went up to Jerusalem and I took Titus with me.” Added: the word ”again” to make sense of the earlier interpolation, and the name Barnabas. The third time the interpolator wants to give credence to Acts, by inserting Barnabas as a companion to Paul.

Gal 2:2-3. Marcion has: ”I went in response to a revelation and I presented the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.” Not present is the line about ”those of repute” and the line about running in vain. The interpolator wanted to make Paul a subordinate to the so called pillars of Jerusalem but Marcion's version brings up a question: these people were obviously circumcised and according to Paul, then slaves under the old law. So what did they preach, those supposed to be in Christ before him?

Gal 2:6-9 Marcion has: ”And from those who seemed to be influential, what they were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality - those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me, that I should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
Content of the interpolated verses: God at work in Peter (not Cephas) as an apostle to the circumcised, and the name Barnabas again. Aren't we beginning to see a pattern here? The interpolator wanted Peter to be at least equal to Paul. But IMO, Gal 2:6-9 can be read as the pillars faced Paul's gospel for the first time and agreed to preach it. Their faith added nothing to him, but his faith added much to theirs!

The above are just a few examples but from my pov, it's clear that Galatians has been rewritten later by members of the early Roman church to fit their beliefs. Paul therefore wrote earlier than the four gospel writers and Acts.

If you are right, that Paul was aware of gMark and Acts, so must his listeners have been and they must have asked him hundreds of questions as to why he supposedly had cut out all human references to his Jesus. Yet he never mentioned one word about why. And since the Pauline epistles have been tampered with, why didn't the interpolators insert verses here and there that Paul truly was aware of the virgin Mary, Pilate and the trial and crucifixion in Jerusalem? Instead, they lied about such awareness in Acts.

Paul's anger against those turning to ”another gospel” is more logical if he had preached the first one, as I believe, and as he himself says time and time again. It was his gospel of no man and he had laid the foundation.

And I must say, I find it strange that you put such reliance upon Acts. It's an obvious fairy-tale with little or nothing to do with reality. It's an attempt, and a successful one, to erase Paul's=Marcion's Alexandrian roots, that he had a gospel of his own and wasn't a subordinate to anyone.

aa5874

I do not invent stories about "Paul". I can only use the written evidence presented by the Church in their own Canon.

In the Pauline writings, a writer under the name of Paul claimed Jesus was the Son of God and made of a woman.See Galatians 4.4.

Marcion's Phantom was NOT born of a woman and had no birth and no flesh.

Now, if you think Acts of the Apostle is a fairy tale then you must understand that what the Church wrote about Marcion may be fairy tales.

You must understand that it is likely to be fairy tales that Marcion used the Pauline writings and gLuke.

Marcion's Phantom Son of God was NOT of the God of the Jews. Marcion's God and Son of God was NOT in Hebrew Scripture or Isaiah 7.14

"First Apology" LVIII

aa5874

Let me continue to show that Sinaiticus gMark was most likely BEFORE the Pauline story about Jesus.

The very first point that I put forward was that the author of gMark did NOT write any thing about the post-resurrection meetings of Jesus and the disciples or anyone else.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

The Pauline writers CLAIMED over 500 people, the apostle James, All the apostles, Cephas and the twelve apostles WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15.

The author of Sinaiticus gMark wrote NO such thing. In gMark, the visitors FLED DUMBSTUCK after the dead body of Jesus was missing. See Mark 16.8

Now, there is another Significant point to demonstrate that Sinaiticus gMark was BEFORE the Pauline writings.

In Sinaiticus gMark Jesus did NOT want the JEWS to be FORGIVEN of their SINS.

Incredibly, gMark's Jesus was NOT a SAVIOR.

The Jesus of gMark SECRETLY told his disciples that he DID NOT want the JEWS to be SAVED.

Examine Mark 4 Jesus in gMark was on a SECRET Mission to KEEP the JEWS Confused so that they would REMAIN in Sin.

The gMark Jesus story is NOT a Salvation story.

The author of gMark did NOT use the Pauline Salvation story where the Pauline writers claimed that Jesus MUST resurrect for the SALVATION of the Jews. See 1 Cor. 15.

But examine Sinaiticus Romans 1 In gMark, contrary to the Pauline writings, Jesus did NOT offer Salvation to the Jews. Jesus of gMark offered CONFUSION and deliberately spoke in an INCOHERENT manner to make sure the Jews REMAINED in Sin.

The Pauline Jesus story of SALVATION for the Jews is AFTER gMark.

The Salvation story in the Pauline writings is a LATE INVENTION.

The Salvation story in gJohn is AFTER gMark.

Jesus in gMark had a SECRET Mission to CONFUSE the JEWS by talking in Parables so that they would remain in SIN.

aa5874

After reading gMark and the other Synoptics there are THREE significant facts.

1. Jesus of the Synoptics did NOT start a new religion under the name of CHRIST.

2. Jesus of the Synoptics did NOT want the Jews to be saved.

3. Jesus of the Synoptics did NOT want the Jews to know he was Christ.

So in the Synoptics, after Jesus supposedly came to earth and then Vanished he had left the Jews in virtually the same position; they were STILL WAITING for an EXPECTED Messiah.

But, there is a major problem in the Synoptics.

Even If Jesus did exist he could have ONLY been human.

In the Synoptics, the disciples had FLED when Jesus was arrested, Peter had denied that he knew or was associated with Jesus, the body of Jesus was missing after it was supposedly buried and Jesus would be a FALSE prophet. Jesus could NOT resrrect.

The Jesus story in the Synoptics must end in DISASTER once Jesus was an ordinary man.

The crucifixion of Jesus because of the Jews was a COMPLETE success. The Jesus movement was DEVASTATED.

But, the Pauline writers do NOT reflect reality. They are claiming Jesus was RAISED from the dead and that he persecuted the FAITH.

What FAITH did "Paul" persecute?

The FAITH preached in Acts of the Apostles after the Holy Ghost came on the day of Pentecost and people were converted.

But, Acts of the Apostles is FICTION.

There was NO FAITH to persecute.

Jesus did NOT resurrect and the Holy Ghost did NOT come on the Day of Pentecost.

Now, without the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost there would have been NO FAITH to persecute based on Acts of the Apostles.

The Pauline persecution is based on Acts of the Apostles because in the Synoptics Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ, did NOT want the Jews to know he was Christ, and did NOT want the Jews to be saved.

The Pauline SALVATION Jesus is AFTER the Synoptic Jesus.

The Synoptic Jesus was NOT known as a SAVIOR or Messiah to the Jews.

The Pauline Jesus, his LORD, Savior and Messiah was AFTER gMark.

Kent F

Well, aa, you wonder ”Who told Paul that Jesus had resurrected on the third day?” The answer is simple: no-one told him. It was his vision and he got it from the old scriptures, see Hosea 6:2.

Acts is a fariy-tale with little historical value. It's a fairy-tale not only in the sense that it has unbelievable stories but also that it portrays early christianity with rose-tinted glasses where everyone preaches the same message. The epistles of Paul, John, James and Jude contradicts this. As does Marcion and other ”heretics.” Marcion's belief system, where Jesus was the crucified and resurrected son of a Supreme God, was viciously attacked by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and others. And yet, Marcion's beliefs were extraordinarily similar to Paul's.

Marcion's version of Galatians did not have the ”born of woman” bit. So Marcion's Paul had a Jesus of no birth and no flesh. And as I've said earlier, Marcion's version of this epistle and the others were the earlier versions. He didn't delete, the catholic church added and changed what he had written.

Marcion's Jesus was a phantom. So was Paul's Jesus.

Marcion believed there was a higher god than the creator god and that Jesus was the son of the higher god, as your quote from Justin says. And Paul also believed Jesus was the son of a higher god and that the creator god crucified Jesus. See 1 Cor 2:6-8.

But if you are right, that Paul was aware of gMark, the earliest sources ought to be filled with personal details about Jesus. The closer in time, the better the memory of all those who witnessed his mission on earth. But we don't find any such sources. Neither do we find any sources from the 1st century written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Why is that? There's an incredible time gap of more than 100 years after Jesus supposed crucifixion on earth before someone quotes something which can be said to have a Jesus on earth as its central character. If I'm not mistaken, gMark was not quoted until mid 2nd century. Paul is quoted earlier, by for instance Clement of Rome. This supposed bishop of the early 1st century has a Jesus who is hidden in the Jewish scriptures, just like Paul's Jesus. Then we have the epistle to the Hebrews, where Jesus is also a spiritual figure. James, in his epistle, doesn't seem to be aware of a Jesus on earth either, as he points to the prophets of the old scriptures as prime examples on how to endure sufferings, Job in particular, ignoring the torture and crucifixion of his own brother in the gospels.

If gMark was earlier than Paul, then how could the spiritual Jesus emerge as a belief in the early 1st century? It doesn't make sense to move from a Jesus on earth to a spiritual one. The Jews would never accept that anyone on earth was equal to God. If Acts are to be believed, they converted by the thousands because Peter in a speech gave them a ”sting in their hearts” of having crucified the son of God. Yeah, right. But a spiritual son of God, crucified and resurrected in the heavens is a much more realistic starting point within the Jewish communities.

And if gMark was earlier than Paul, the familiar gospel-Jesus had to be established, and if Paul then came along and said his gospel with an entirely spiritual Jesus was foretold in the scriptures by God himself, he wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone. But if Paul and other early christians first established their spiritual Jesus, then this could serve as a foundation upon which others later built and re-built. It's the only way the evolution of christianity makes any sense.

aa5874

You are just repeating what has been REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED.

Hosea 6.2 does NOT refer to any character called Jesus Christ. Hosea REFERS to A GROUP of PERSONS.

You should FIRST read Hosea 6.2.

Ho 6:2 - You should REFRAIN from taking passages out of context.

You won't get anywhere if you insist on repeating what has been debunked.

Toto

aa5874 - nothing has been "debunked."

When Early Christians read the Hebrew scriptures, they were not constrained by rigid literalism. One person could easily represent a group or a nation.

aa5874

You don't seem to understand that you are ASSUMING what you have to prove. Please name a early christian source of antiquity that used Hosea 6.2 to claim Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

Please read Hosea 6.2.

Hosea 6.2 DEBUNKS the claims of KentF.

The Pauline writer did NOT even claim he used Hosea 6.2 and an apologetic source claimed the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke. See "Church History" 6.25.6.

In gLuke, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and resurrect on the THIRD day.

Lu 9:22 - I have effectively DEBUNKED KentF. Hosea 6.2 is about "US" not Jesus.