Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 07-29-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Paul thinks about Jesus and immediately reveals that he found out about Jesus by reading scripture

It doesn't have to say it right there. Whenever Paul gives any source for anything he says in any of his writings, he attributes the information either to scripture or to some personal revelation he got from God himself. According to his own words, he knows nothing whatsoever about the gospel that he didn't learn by direct divine revelation or by reading the scriptures.

The original post quotes a scripture and implies that that scripture shows that he found out about Jesus from reading scripture. That passage does not say that. The author of the post is confusedly reading his ideas into the passage.
Paul did learn about Jesus from direct personal revelation and of course knew the scriptures that confirmed and expanded the knowledge he gained from his personal revelations.

rlogan · 07-30-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

"Paul" did not appeal to the Jewish scriptures for authority. he claimed authority by the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. The appeals to scripture are proto-orthodox interpolations.

From the beginning, the Septuagint was the early proto-orthodox Christians' favored recension of the Jewish Scriptures, and many alleged prophecies of Jesus were found by non-literal readings of the Septuagint. This process continued at least until the middle of 2c; Justin was first to discover that Jesus had been nailed through the feet as well as the hands. And this revelation came not from any eyewitness testimony or oral tradition, but from pondering the 22nd Psalm. Going beyond allegorical interpretations, we find record of Jews accusing Christians of outright forging the Septuagint to support Christian doctrine (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho).

Marcion insisted upon a literal reading of the Old Testament. For this reason alone, many imaginitive prophecies and references to Jesus Christ were eliminated. This common sense approach aligned Marcion with the Jews on this subject, as was noted by Tertullian, who railed against both. Marcion was likely not as antisemtic as he is often portrayed; he just didn't think the Jewish scriptures applied to Christians. The Jewish scriptures were perfectly valid for the Jews, and he agreed the Jewish Messiah would yet come; it just wasn't Jesus Christ.

Marcion established the earliest known canon of Christian scripture. It consisted of one gospel (The Evangelion), and ten Pauline Epistles (the Apostilicon). The Apsotilicon did not included the
Pastoral Epistles, which did not yet exist. The other epistles existed in a shorter and simplier recension. These circulated with Marcion's own composition (the Antithesis) in which he attempted to prove that the God of Jesus, the Father, was not the same as the God of the Jews. This was done by juxtaposing OT passages along with NT from his canon, showing the harshness and cruelty of the OT god vs the loving kindness of the NT God. Marcion did not consider the god of the Jews (the Demiurge) as absolutely evil, just ignorant with an inflated sense of his own justice. According
to Marcion, this obsession with justice resulted in the atrocities found in the Old Testament.

The authority of Old Testament concerning Christians was rejected in its entirity. For this reason, Marcion with perhaps the aid of Valentinus, wrote his own Psalms to be used in litugury rather than the Davidic psalms of the OT.

For the most part, Marcionite services were so similar to those of the proto-orthodox, that proto-orthodox Chrsitians were warned to be careful not to attend a Marcionite service by mistake. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechisms 18.26)

Marcion's church was very large. It rivaled in size the proto-orthodox sects of the time. Already, about 150 CE, Justin Martyr acknowledged that Marcion's influence extended all over the Empire. (Apol. 1.26 cf. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 5:19). Marcionism challenged the Roman church for the rights to be called the Universal (i.e. Catholic) church.

Marcion and the Gnostics appealed to Paul. In fact Basilides the heretic (about 138 CE) was the first to elevate any Christian text (in this case Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians and Ephesians) to the level of Scripture (Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7,13-14). The proto-orthodox were forced to lay claim to Paul also, to prevent the charge of not perceiving and preserving the Gospel in all its newness. But this was a grudging process. Irenaeus quotes from the Pauline epistles 206 times, and never introduces it with "scripta ait" or any similar formula. (Werner, _Der Paulinismus das Irenaeus_ (1889), pp. 21-46. Footnote 3, page 31, of _Marcion and his Influences_, E.C. Blackman, 1948)

Lying behind the twisted image of Paul (meaning "the small") is the shadow of Simon Magus, "the Great." Thus even Paul's name is an ironic twist on Simon's description. Irenaeus linked Marcion with Simon through his teacher Cerdo. (Adv. Haer. 1.27). Even the titles of Simon Magus' alleged works (non-extant) bear the mystery of heresy; "The Four Quarters of the World" and "The Sermons of the Refuter."

The proto-orthodox New Testament arose as a mere new edition of the Marcionite canon, revised and largely rewritten. There is no adequate evidence for the the existence of the fourfold Gospel before Irenaeus, 185 CE. Adv. Haer. 3.11.8. Ireneaus admits that the four gospels have authority because various heretics used them first. (Justin Martyr in the middle of 2c. never
called any gospel by the name it is now known by. They are always the catch-all "Memoirs" of the Apostles.

Justin seldom quotes exactly the words from our present gospels, but seemingly some sort of harmonization mixed with heretical and unknown gospel material.

To be clear, the Pauline Epistles we find in our Bibles today are not the same ones found in Marcion's version. The Heresiologists accused him of cutting down the epistles, but it is more likely that the proto-orthodox interpolated them heavily to the "tame the Apostle of the Heretics." That is why when we read the alleged writings of Paul today, the logic seems so convoluted and strange. The text is the result of multiple redactions with clashing theological agendas.
This makes Paul seem to talk out of both sides of his mouth. As van Manen noted, the Marcionite recension is smooth and elegant and proceeds logically. This could hardly be the result of mutilating a previous text; the Marcionite version is more original.

Jake Jones IV

Thanks, that was well done.

Doug Shaver · 07-30-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The original post quotes a scripture and implies that that scripture shows that he found out about Jesus from reading scripture.

No, the original post does not imply that. It asserts that Paul learned about Jesus from scripture, but it does not assert that the quoted passage proves it. Nor does it need to, because we already know from everything else Paul wrote that scripture and revelation were Paul's sole sources of information about Jesus.

And by the way, I really do not appreciate it when my words are appended to material other than that to which I am responding. I was responding to something you said, not what Steve said.

aChristian · 07-30-2009, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

The original post quotes a scripture and implies that that scripture shows that he found out about Jesus from reading scripture.

No, the original post does not imply that. It asserts that Paul learned about Jesus from scripture, but it does not assert that the quoted passage proves it. Nor does it need to, because we already know from everything else Paul wrote that scripture and revelation were Paul's sole sources of information about Jesus.

I does imply that as I read it. Maybe the original poster could clarify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

And by the way, I really do not appreciate it when my words are appended to material other than that to which I am responding. I was responding to something you said, not what Steve said.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

aa5874 · 07-30-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

....Marcion established the earliest known canon of Christian scripture. It consisted of one gospel (The Evangelion), and ten Pauline Epistles (the Apostilicon). The Apsotilicon did not included the Pastoral Epistles, which did not yet exist......

Your reliance on Tertullian and Irenaeus to establish the writings of Marcion appears to be flawed since Tertullian and Irenaeus could not properly account for the writings of their own writers and could not therefore properly account for the history of their own Church.

Tertullian claimed Marcion's Gospel was actually an anonimous writing, there was no author named and by the time the writer called Tertullian wrote Against Marcion, he, Marcion, was already dead.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.2

Quote:

...Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel...

Tertullian did not ever make it known that there were more than one person who wrote under the name Paul. Tertullian did not ever claim that the Church called Ephesians either did not exist or never did see a letter from Paul and that Paul if he lived did not see any forged letter with his name written to the Ephesians.

You claimed the Pastorals did not exist at the time of Marcion, yet Tertullian claimed Marcion rejected the epistples of Timothy and Titus.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.21

Quote:

I wonder, however, when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline.

There is a historicity dis-connect. Tertullian, if you are correct about the Pastorals, was not writing history.

You claimed Marcion had 10 epistles of Paul, but it has been deduced that the writer called Paul did NOT write 10 epistles at all.

There is a historicity dis-connect.

If you are correct that Marcion had 10 epistles of Paul, then Tertullian was not writing history.

Tertullian claimed Marcion mutilated gLuke but on occasions quote passages found only in gMatthew instead.

Tertullian Against Marcion 4.7

Quote:

But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.......

What was Tertullian writing? Propoganda.

And the propaganda was written by the Roman Church.

Marcion did not ever see or use the Pauline Epistles or ever see a gospel called Luke. He did not need them to promote his Jesus that was not of the God of the Jews and was not born at all.

Doug Shaver · 07-30-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

And by the way, I really do not appreciate it when my words are appended to material other than that to which I am responding. I was responding to something you said, not what Steve said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Here is the complete text of my original post to you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Paul thinks about Jesus and immediately reveals that he found out about Jesus by reading scripture

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

It doesn't say that in the passage.

It doesn't have to say it right there. Whenever Paul gives any source for anything he says in any of his writings, he attributes the information either to scripture or to some personal revelation he got from God himself. According to his own words, he knows nothing whatsoever about the gospel that he didn't learn by direct divine revelation or by reading the scriptures.

And here the part you quoted in your response:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Paul thinks about Jesus and immediately reveals that he found out about Jesus by reading scripture

It doesn't have to say it right there. Whenever Paul gives any source for anything he says in any of his writings, he attributes the information either to scripture or to some personal revelation he got from God himself. According to his own words, he knows nothing whatsoever about the gospel that he didn't learn by direct divine revelation or by reading the scriptures.

I was responding to what you said. You made it appear that I was responding to what Steve said.

spamandham · 07-30-2009, 11:32 PM

Back to the OP again. It doesn't seem like the basic point has really been addressed, which is, that Paul is equating ancient words with Christ, and implying that Christ is a contemporary of those ancient words, rather than a recent man of history.

Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

aa5874 · 07-31-2009, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Back to the OP again. It doesn't seem like the basic point has really been addressed, which is, that Paul is equating ancient words with Christ, and implying that Christ is a contemporary of those ancient words, rather than a recent man of history.

Actually it is the reverse. The implication is that Jesus was a contemporary of Paul who was a fulfillment of ancient scriptures.

jakejonesiv · 07-31-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

....Marcion established the earliest known canon of Christian scripture. It consisted of one gospel (The Evangelion), and ten Pauline Epistles (the Apostilicon). The Apsotilicon did not included the Pastoral Epistles, which did not yet exist......

Your reliance on Tertullian and Irenaeus to establish the writings of Marcion appears to be flawed since Tertullian and Irenaeus could not properly account for the writings of their own writers and could not therefore properly account for the history of their own Church.

Hi AA,

Thanks to you, I occupy the middle of the road position. I need you to be as outre and eccentric as possible.

Best,
Jake

aa5874 · 07-31-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your reliance on Tertullian and Irenaeus to establish the writings of Marcion appears to be flawed since Tertullian and Irenaeus could not properly account for the writings of their own writers and could not therefore properly account for the history of their own Church.

Hi AA,

Thanks to you, I occupy the middle of the road position. I need you to be as outre and eccentric as possible.

Best,
Jake

But, that is exactly what I didn't want to happen. I did not want you to maintain a position because of me, I prefer if it was because of what you see in the writings of antiquity.

Now as I have pointed out, the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian are all implausible with respect to Jesus yet these writers, unlike Justin Martyr, attempted to merge implausibility with the plausible.

Justin Martyr's Jesus was the product of prophecy, that is, the evidence for Jesus can ONLY be found in Hebrew Scriptures [b], there was no post-ascension history of any disciples.

Justin's Jesus is consistent with a non-historical entity that was simply planted.

Now, writers using the names of Irenaeus and Tertullian would fabricate witnesses that will confirm that the implausible, Jesus, was a figure of history and that real humans saw Jesus and his disciples, like Peter and John.

The Jesus storyreally ended in the ascension, but Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote that the Jesus story did not end at ascension and they brought the myth, the implausibe, back to life or back to earth, using fictitious disciples and the non-existing Paul.

There is a historicity disconnect.

07-30-2009, 11:32 PM	#47
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Back to the OP again. It doesn't seem like the basic point has really been addressed, which is, that Paul is equating ancient words with Christ, and implying that Christ is a contemporary of those ancient words, rather than a recent man of history. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.