Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 03-15-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at the same time we have to be able to answer the basic question - what evidence is there for Christianity being developed in the second century other than a lack of evidence for anything surviving DIRECTLY to us from the first?

1) I do not recall making the argument that nothing survived directly from the first century so therefore it must be the second.

2) This is obviously an arena for Argument from Best Explanation. The issue is whether second century is a better argument than the first century, not whether second century can be proven with something like a video recording of Marcion writing out the epistles.

Because the logical fallacy employed under this deceit is that absent the video recording, it must have been the first century.

stephan huller · 03-15-2013, 06:03 PM

No we start with a tradition that says that Christianity started in the first century. To argue in favor of the second century requires an explanation of why all of our surviving sources identify Christianity as starting in the first century.

jakejonesiv · 03-15-2013, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at the same time we have to be able to answer the basic question - what evidence is there for Christianity being developed in the second century other than a lack of evidence for anything surviving DIRECTLY to us from the first?

I have a copy of The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the Origins of Christianity from about 3 yrs ago. I may feel motivated to dig it out and have a few questions for you.

rlogan · 03-15-2013, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No we start with a tradition that says that Christianity started in the first century.

Hilarious. No need to actually inspect the history of that tradition, what with over a thousand years of police power of the state being used to persecute, torture, and kill those disagreeing with the patently absurd nonsense therein.

No need to look at the Church forgery mill, its destruction of "heretical" documents, or even their widespread sodomizing of little boys and covering up same by the Popes themselves.

See how reasonable I am by adhering to this pristine, trustworthy tradition, absent even the slightest hint of reproach? :grin:

stephan huller · 03-15-2013, 06:36 PM

Quote:

I have a copy of The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the Origins of Christianity from about 3 yrs ago. I may feel motivated to dig it out and have a few questions for you.

I used to write these books and send them to people. This book was from far beyond the publishing date. I never expected people to publish any of these formally. And then they did. Moral of the story - be careful what you ask for.

stephan huller · 03-15-2013, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Hilarious. No need to actually inspect the history of that tradition, what with over a thousand years of police power of the state being used to persecute, torture, and kill those disagreeing with the patently absurd nonsense therein.

That's not what I am saying. I am mere saying that we can't just push to the side tradition. In order to argue against a first century dating for Christianity you have to at least have to demonstrate that a second century dating better explains the evidence.

jakejonesiv · 03-15-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Supposedly, we have the Apostle Paul ca. 58 CE writing to the Church in Rome, a church that is already familiar and in agreement with Pauline doctrine. As Van Manen noted, the presumed Christians who are the recepients of that letter must be Pauline Christinas who are fully aware of the nuances of Pauline doctrine. (Else the arguments "Paul" makes are indecipherable). Yet, we find as late as the middle of the second century the Roman church has scarcely any familiarity with Paul or his doctrines. Justin, his student Tatian, Papais and others had no information on Paul. What had happened to the illustious epistle and all the friends and supporters of Paul? Had they disappeared and left scarcely a trace in next generations? Had the epistle lain buried in the archives of the Roman church for nearly a century until it emerged again to the light of day --- in the possession of Marcion!?? Marcion brought a large monetary gift to Rome (as Paul was said to do to Jerusalem, and Simon Magus to St. Peter!).

There is something very wrong with the traditional dating of the Epistle to the Romans.

"In Paul's day there was no church there, according to Acts. But in our epistle there is already an established congregation before Paul visits. The text seems confused: Paul is pictured as the pioneer missionary to the gentiles, so he wants to exercise his ministry in Rome (verses 13-15). That would seem to mean he wants to found a church in Rome as he does elsewhere--but then to whom is he addressing? Are we to imagine him writing to a Roman church that does not exist? If there is one for him to write to, then it is too late to found the church, isn't it? It all makes more sense as the announcemnet of Marcion to preach among them a version of the gospel they may not have heard. We know he did, in fact, "audition" his gospel in Rome, hoping to be acclaimed bishop there."
(R.Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, page 256).

We find the historical context in the epistle to the Romans to be that of Marcion's time, not the mid-first century. Romans 1:8-17 reads perfectly as a portion of a letter from Marcion to the elders of the second century Roman church!

Let's see how well a Marcioite origin fits with chapter one of Romans. Very well indeed!

Jake - Congratulations on a job well done. I very much enjoyed this whole section of posts and felt it was a strong contribution to the second century dating of Pauline material and its association with Marcion.

We can't make any progress whatever in understanding Christianity while chaining ourselves to the first century myth. I too find it curious that the Gospel Jesus is so readily rejected nearly everywhere you look and yet the propensity to cling so desperately to first century origins remains.

The Hebrew Bible too shows the same consolidation and co-option of separate traditions into one canon witrh doublets and so forth, from its very first page. One creation story follows immediately after another. So it is silly for anyone to be feigning surprise that we would see the same thing with Marcionite material being co-opted and subsumed into the Catholic redaction.

Thank you.

Hi rlogan,

Thanks. I try to do a bit of research. I have tried to bring something a little new to this forum. The trolls do not like it one bit, but a whipped dog do howl!

Jake

jakejonesiv · 03-15-2013, 07:16 PM

Lotta Vin Dieseling ... just sayin'....

aa5874 · 03-15-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But at the same time we have to be able to answer the basic question - what evidence is there for Christianity being developed in the second century other than a lack of evidence for anything surviving DIRECTLY to us from the first?

If the Jesus cult of Christians was developed in the 2nd century what evidence would you expect to survive from the 1st century??

The lack of evidence for the Jesus cult in the 1st century is precisely what is expected when there was none.

The very same applies to the Pauline letters.

Once there is no evidence for Pauline letters in the 1st century then the argument can be maintained forever that the Pauline letters were fabricated after c 190 CE.

aa5874 · 03-15-2013, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No we start with a tradition that says that Christianity started in the first century. To argue in favor of the second century requires an explanation of why all of our surviving sources identify Christianity as starting in the first century.

Your statement is wholly in error. It is the complete opposite. No surviving sources of the stories of Jesus of Nazareth are dated to the 1st century.

In fact, ALL surviving sources of the stories of Jesus are dated to the 2nd century or later.

And further, none of the characters in the Jesus stories, like Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 disciples and Paul, have been identified by any non-apologetic writers who wrote about events in Judea, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Colosse and Philippi in the 1st century.

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

03-15-2013, 06:03 PM	#402
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No we start with a tradition that says that Christianity started in the first century. To argue in favor of the second century requires an explanation of why all of our surviving sources identify Christianity as starting in the first century.

03-15-2013, 07:16 PM	#408
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Lotta Vin Dieseling ... just sayin'....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.