Tenorikuma

Consistency is a great virtue to the post-Enlightment, scientific mind. To us, inconsistency is a sign that an argument is false.

Clearly that was not always the case to the ancients. As long as nothing explicitly heretical is being taught, the more points of view you have represented, the more sects will find something they identify with. How else could the earliest NT manuscript collections have 1 and 2 Thessalonians back-to-back — with the latter accusing the former of being a forgery?

Sheshbazzar

The Bible itself is loaded with 'if's.

'If you will...' and 'If you won't...'

Pretty good word. Separates the wheat from the chaff.

Duvduv

You can change the second if to a "when" since you are our resident English teacher. And resident inquisitor for heretics like MM.

aa5874

The very first author to mention Marcion did NOT even claim Marcion wrote anything. There is NO credible evidence that Marcion had a Canon.

Justin Martyr claimed to be a contemporary of Marcion and Only claimed Marcion was Preaching and Teaching but never said he wrote anything.

First Apology LVIII If Apologetics had NO Canon it is just not logical that Marcion would have one. Justin Martyr claimed the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets were read in the Churches in the time of Marcion.

The very first source "Against Heresies" to mention a Canon of Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Pauline letters to Churches has been Rejected by Scholars today due to errors in chronology, authorship and date of composition.

Even Apologetic sources contradict "Against Heresies"--even writings attributed to Eusebius.

Duvduv

That's a good point, however, we do see efforts at reconciling some contradictions or discrepancies, just not the ones that seem the most poignant. We still don't know WHO decided on the canon, WHO decided which books were sacred and which weren't, how the epistles were brought together and WHY the canon texts are always presented as a SET of books, leading one to suspect that they were all mostly put together by a central authority with the means, motive and opportunity to do so. Or some of the main ideological contradictions.

Duvduv

Charlie, the problem is that no actual evidence exists about Marcion or if he actually lived, or what texts he had or didn't have, etc. apart from the claims of the biased apologists lashing out at a bogeyman as a way of clearly setting themselves up as the arbiters of orthodoxy. There is no evidence even in the poorly written and poorly preserved manuscript texts attributed to a 2nd century writer named Justin who was said to have lived in the same town and at the same time as Marcion.

stephan huller

Hardly an inquisitor. Things have to make sense and my point was simply the more 'ifs' you have in a proposition (and MM has layer upon layer of these 'ifs') the more unlikely and unworthy the original question was. I have no problem with people discussing any topic they like. They just have to recognize that everything mountainman says is 'if squared'

i.e. - if we assume that the gospel was non-existent before Eusebius and if we assume the Pauline writings were non-existent before Eusebius and if we assume that all the writings of the Church Fathers were non-existent before Eusebius and if we assume that all external (pagan) witnesses to Christianity were forged and if we assume that there is no physical evidence for Christianity dated before Eusebius (i.e. that the Abericius monument, the evidence from Dura Europos etc were all forged and the various fragments are misinterpreted) then ...

I don't see how any reasonable person could proceed at that point but if people persist I can't stop them as long as they recognize the multiple layers of 'if' that proceed any conversation.

It's like if your friend who was caught cheating on his wife has a conversation with you over a couple of drinks about his wife leaving him and instead of recognizing that it was his infidelity which led to the break up starts rattling off all these other scenarios. The bottom line is still that the marriage was terminated because of his infidelity if this was the reason cited in the divorce papers. It's your decision how long you go along with all these other stupid explanations.

Duvduv

You have my permission to go through all postings on this Forum posted by me and everyone else to peruse and adjust all grammatical forms that you do not approve of and submit them for computer analysis and inquisitorial review for a kashruth certificate of acceptance to the Forum.
I was simply trying to restrict my comments to a hypothetical scenario, and if the "IFS" bother you, I can't help that.

Chili

This is very simple Duvduv, and that Paul understood was because he lived the very Gospel that he wrote from, and so when he traced the events so he could testify he just wrote from memory that so is by experience prior to him . . . as is was for others who reached that same end before him.

This clearly shows that heaven is a state of mind and not a empty promise in a life of hope that it will begin after we die . . . and be tormented between our salvation while still purple with the color of sin = the saved-sinner still yoked to religion and the law that was given to Moses only to convict the believer of sin so that salvation may be his.

Understand here that the concept sin is artificial to use as bait to catch the [earthly] 'human' nature of the man so that 'it' can be crucified to set the heavenly nature free without impediments, and therefore the Jew in him must die, where Jew here now makes tradition the netherworld as the determinate force within that also makes the soul impure and so must be purified while underground (beyond reason).

So now, not just crucifixion but also burial is critical as that is when and where the the Jewishness of Joseph was redeemed so that also the sins of the clan, tribe and nation can be isolated and released still in the mind of Joseph, for whom Jeus was the way.

It also shows that the narrow gate is narrow to be the same for all, and they will understand each other as Paul understood the route that those before him travelled. Therefore Jesus is the way, and only Jesus is the way and is the same for all.

In other words, if Jesus is the way from A to B you must leave Jesus behind when you get to B, and if you do not recognize the place you had the wrong Jesus because there is two of them already in the four gospels to make this difference known. To note:

Matthew and Mark's Jesus goes back to Galilee (for another 40 years).

Luke and John's Jesus goes to Heaven (for another 40 years).

The difference, is evident by the difference in Jesus as the way, while the efficent cause that makes Jesus just the way to follow is paved by John. To this end notice the major elaboration of John in Luke, that shows his cause of being (origination) via Elizabeth from the netherworld from where she reigned as the determinate cause in the mind of Joseph, who here was Saul as the persecutor of his faith who later in his victory was called Paul.

So there is totally no history in the Gospels, while the event took place in history that Paul here now confirmed, even if Paul did not exist as presented here (in the "eyeball to eyeball" image of Gurugeorge).

Quote:

The second contradiction is between his unique revelation as described in the texts versus the Great Commission to the nations in the canonical gospels. It stands to reason that if the Church accepted the Great Commission commanded by Christ himself in his lifetime, then the exclusive revelation of Paul was superfluous since the Christ had already commanded preaching to the gentiles.

The Great Commision is the anti-thesis of the unifying effect that Paul demonstrates above that so displays the evidence of hell on earth. For this you must accept that when Jesus rose to heaven also hell came crashing down to make the opposites known so they may validate each other. It is just that simple and no more needs to be said on this, but maybe you can smell the smoke of their torment with the wrong end in sight that does not deliver.

There is a beautify Buddhist koan on this to say the same:

"If you want to walk on leather, it is much easier to put on leather shoes than try to clad the whole world with leather."

Quote:

Finally, the apologists never explain the process by which the canon was established, how the alleged letters of Paul were collected or WHO determined that the canonical gospels were allegedly written by apostles of Jesus himself and inspired by God despite all the differences they contain.

Never think that the Church makes an apology for what they wrote. It is there to stay to move the world and not be moved by the world below.

Quote:

Of course there are many more (i.e. mention in GJohn that "salvation is from the Jews" just as the Christ of GJohn does not identify with the Jews), however it remains unanswered as to why Church officialdom and the literati and apologists never thought to iron these contradictions out.

From the Jews also means that there will be no Jews in heaven AS Jew, nor will there be Catholics there AS Catholic, but that both are mystery religions, wherein the way of Tradition is the road they travel on the way out, to be the same path that they will journey back to Eden.

By the law also does not mean in observance, but to stand convicted under it.

Sry for the big letters. They must be from the program someplace, but not from me.

Duvduv

I have been reading about some precursors of Martin Luther such as Wycliff and Erasmus, not to mention Luther himself, and I haven't encountered anything suggesting that they had any problems with contradictions in the canon texts, which is surprising given the extent of their intellectual curiosity and resistance to the church that was the authority behind those texts to begin with.