aa5874

There appears to be an Empedocles sometime before the mid- 2nd century.

Justin Martyr, Lucian, and Hippolytus made mention of Empedocles.

Now, examine "Refutations of All Heresies" 7 attributed to Hippolytus. See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

Duvduv

When did Hippolytus actually live, if he lived? When did his book actually appear?
Wikipedia says Empedocles died around 430 BCE, which would be ages before Hippolytus, Marcion, etc.

aa5874

It can be reasonably deduce that a writing attributed to Hippolytus was most likely written AFTER Marcion since Marcion is mentioned in "Refutation of All Heresies".

Is not C P Sense AGES after Hippolytus? When did CP Sense books appear?

Duvduv

Sense's book appeared about 100 years ago.

aa5874

Hippolytus is AGES before C P Sense.

Hippolytus is an Apologetic source of antiquity so whatever is attributed to him is EXTREMELY Significant.

Based on Hippolytus, Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings and Hippolytus did state the doctrine of Empedocles and that of Marcion.

It is extremely significant that Apologetic sources CONTRADICT "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian especially when no apologetic source for over a hundred and fifty years was aware that Tertullian wrote such books.

aa5874

Please refrain from making your unsubstantiated claims with respect to my position.

I have shown that the author of Acts did not denigrate Paul at any time in Acts of the Apostles.

Please state ONE single verse or passage in Acts of the Apostles where the author of Acts belittled Paul.

You constantly make spurious remarks but cannot support them with actual written evidence.

There is ZERO passages in Acts where the character called Saul/Paul is belittled by the author. ZERO--NIL--NONE.

Duvduv

Well, at least we can say that the exclusiveness of his "gospel" in Galatians does not apply in Acts, where he works with others who never had the revelation. In fact it is rather strange that despite his visions of the Christ the others seemed to treat him as just one of the guys rather than as somebody very special.

aa5874

Who heard Paul? Who read any Pauline Epistles? What non-apologetic source can account for Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews and Pharisee that supposedly preached that a resurrected dead JEW, of the seed of David, who was NOT human was Lord and was the End of the LAW?

There is NOTHING. ZERO--NIL--NO Source.

In the Gospels, the supposed details about the words and deeds of the character called Jesus BEFORE the resurrection are NOT from the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the Gospel authors and non-apologetic sources like Josephus, Philo, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the younger and Celsus.

The Pauline writings are about the Post-resurrected PERSONAL revelations from Jesus not about the life of Jesus.

The Pauline writings are NOT about history they are Myth Fables to deceive.

Duvduv

Of course for the orthodox establishment the little encounter with Celsus proved to be beneficial in trying to date a historical Jesus as far back as possible since they could point to Celsus and say, "See, even this opponent of Christianity believed some type of historical Jesus existed!"
So even a debate could be useful in legitimizing their claims. It must mean there were still big debates going on as to the historicity of Jesus. I tend to doubt Origen 's writings were from the early 3rd century anyway -- likely much later.

The only point I was making about Acts versus Galatians in terms of Paul was that although Paul is important, the END RESULT was two different orientations even if Acts came first since the orthodox never bothered to notice that the Paul of the exclusive Galatians revelation is considered merely one of the guys in Acts despite the Damascus story.

Speaking of which, doesn't the contrast between Saul and Paul suggest the possibility of a composite text involving two people?!

Toto

This was not an issue until modern times. In the 3rd century (more or less) the opponents of Christianity seemed to have thought the most potent argument they had against Christianity was that Jesus was merely a man.

No, there weren't.

Why?

Could you rewrite this so it makes some sort of sense?

I answered this above. Do you bother to read anything here?

There is no contrast between Saul and Paul. The character Paul in Acts has two names - Saul was also known as Paul.

The contrast is between Acts and the epistles.