aa5874

Who was preaching and teaching the doctrine of the Trinity before the Catholic Church in the second century? The belief that Jesus was NOT always in existence may have been orthodox before the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Catholic Church may have been heretical.

And the Church writers did not know! You mean to tell me that the Church canonised or used the writings of a Marcionite even before Marcion existed, before there were even Marcionites.

You seem not to realise that according to the Church the Pauline writings were in circulation about 100 years before Marcion. According to the Church Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement were aware of the Pauline writings.

So, you will just guess.

When was Marcion teaching the doctrine of the Trinity in a "pure" form. You seem not to understand the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of Marcion.

You must have forgotten that Marcion's God was not the the God of the Catholic Church.


"IF'S" are not beasts they are more like nuisances when they cannot be substantiated by the real beasts called facts.


I suppose that the beliefs of Empedocles may have been found in documents. I suppose Hyppolytus saw the documents from Marcion and Empedocles and noticed there were similar in doctrine.

How would I do what? The writer called Origen is saying what he knows was not done. This writer Origen is claiming that it was the followers of Marcion that mutilated the Gospels.

Tertullian may have been working from what he knows was false. And the abundance of internal evidence from Church writers suggests that Tertullian provided false or erroneous information about Marcion.

Tertullian even admitted that what he claimed was from Marcion was really anonymous.

When I say that the Pauline writings are anachronistic it is because I have information that indicate that "Paul's" time machine was not built or in operation before the Fall of the Jewish Temple around 70 CE.

Paul's time machine was built or became operational after the Jesus story was written. Jesus of the Synoptics was the driver of Paul's time machine and was taught to drive this machine by Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and his assitant the Septuagint also known or posing as Hebrew Scripture.

dog-on

AA, you seem to have read more into my post then I actually said, so I do not know how to respond, exactly.

aa5874

But, please identify what I have mis-read in your post. I have deliberately configured my post in such a manner that it could be extremely clear.

dog-on

For instance, I never claimed that Marcion was preaching the trinity.

This kinda thing...

aa5874

But this is what you posted.

Can you please explain what exactly you mean by "the orthodoxy"?

Clivedurdle

AA. what is your background?

For example I was brought up pentecostal xian and am therefore steeped in loads of preaching about this sort of stuff and am therefore completely befuddles by it!

I remember all of this fitting together like a glove so actually I would argue it is probably very carefully woven together - I cannot work out if that is an order imposed afterwards by two millenia of trying to make it fly, like the spruce goose.

Clivedurdle

Do we mean him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian

Doug Shaver

Because Paul was not "well known all over the Roman Empire." During his lifetime and for at least a hundred years afterward, he was a historical cipher.

aa5874

But, a Pauline writer claimed that he was not lying when he placed himself in a basket somewhere in Damascus during the time of Aretas or sometime around 40 CE.

This a Pauline writer in 1 Cor 11.31-33

My position is that the Pauline writer is very likely to be lying.

There is NO historical source that show there was a character called Jesus the Messiah or Christ who was defied by Jews who did not worship men as Gods.

I did not use the word "additional". You use the word "additional". Please read what I wrote.

Church writers claimed all the Epistles with the name Paul are authentic. It has been deduced that there were more than one writer using the name Paul.


Well you have answered your own question. Once there is no dependence on Paul then one can reasonable claim that the authors of the Synoptics were not aware of Paul's revelations or were not his converts.

Once the Pauline Jesus was already established all over the Roman Empire, and there were churches and converts who believed in the Pauline Jesus then the Synoptic Jesus should have the "color" of the Pauline Jesus.

It must be noted that the author of gLuke claimed he used sources and possibly eyewitnesses to compile his gospel, but still did not use a single verse from a Pauline writing to "color" the Lucan Jesus.

The Pauline Jesus did not tell or reveal to Paul that the Jewish Temple would fall or that Paul himself may see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven.

Now, gLuke's Jesus has almost the same "color" as gMark's Jesus.



But, you are showing that gMatthew, gMark and gLuke have the same "color". No where in the Synoptics does Jesus teach his disciles that he MUST die and resurrect for the sins of all mankind. Jesus in the Synoptics came tp preach almost entirely to Jews ABOUT the gospel of the kingdom of God and heaven.

It has been deduced that gLuke and Acts were most likely written after the Fall of the Temple. It is also very likely that there was no real character called Peter in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

Your are very wrong. That is exactly what can be inferred. When we see blatant disagreements it surely cannot be inferred that the authors of the Synoptics were aware of the Pauline writings.

But, that is exactly what I need. There is silence.

And you have confirmed the silence.

I need silence to demonstrate that the authors of the Synoptics were unaware of the Pauline revelations and were not his converts.

I use the argument from silence to show that there was silence in the Synoptics with respect to the Pauline writings.

And I am not dealing with Ignatius right now, but I will show that he was most likely aware of the Pauline writings.

This is a writing under the name Ignatius in an "Epistle to the Ephesians"

Ignatius is NOT silent about Paul but there is no argument that the Synoptics are SILENT and show no awareness of the Pauline revelations.

dog-on

The group that later became the Catholic Church.