stephan huller

But why does the author go out of his way to say that the gospel of Mark and the writings of Paul DO NOT support the Marcionite doctrine unless they were claiming that it did. Indeed if Irenaeus were to be believed Hippolytus (if he was the author of the Philosophumena) should have said 'the gospel of Luke and the writings of Paul' instead of 'the gospel of Mark and the writings of Paul.'

We know the Marcionites treasured their Apostolikon ('the writings of Paul') and developed their doctrines exclusively from it. We also know that the Marcionite gospel was called 'the Gospel of Christ' (don't believe all the drivel that gets passed around about it being 'the gospel of the Lord' even von Harnack recognized the real name). Origen also infers that when the apostle references 'the gospel of Christ' he is referencing Mark 1:1 albeit in a slightly different recension (it is not at all strange to have variant readings of the early wording of Mark; Irenaeus cites two different versions of some lines in the same book).

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...tified-as.html

aa5874

Well you may have IDENTIFIED the problem. People may have been FALSELY claiming that Marcion used gLuke, gMark and the Pauline writings.

Would you NOT have told Irenaeus that Marcion did NOT use gLuke if you KNEW he used EMPEDOCLES?

But, it is not ONLY Hipplytus, Origen also claimed Marcion did NOT mutilate the Gospels. It was his followers.

"Against Celsus" Again, Marcion himself did NOT alter the Gospels according to Origen. Marcion used Empedocles. Perhaps AFTER he died his followers did but NOT Marcion.

But that is EXACTLY what Hippolytus and Origen has CONTRADICTED.

And Hippolytus stated CATEGORICALLY that Marcion preached a doctrine of DUALISM not found anywhere in the NT.

Refutation of ALL HERESIES" The Pauline writings, gMark, and gLuke does NOT have anything about DISCORD and FRIENDSHIP as the TWO CAUSES of the UNIVERSE or of a GOOD principle and an EVIL principle.

Do you NOT understand that MARCION'S GOD was NOT the God of the Jews but a TOTALLY DIFFERENT GOD and his Son of God was NOT the Son of the God of the Jews?

The NT is about the God of the Jews and his son the Lord Jesus Christ.


Do you even realize that "Tertullian"in "Against Marcion" claimed that the writing he ATTRIBUTED to MARCION was ACTUALLY ANONYMOUS?

"Tertullian" himself PROVIDED BOGUS INFORMATION about the dating, authorship, and chronology of the very Gospels, Acts and the Pauline writings.

Why is "Tertullian" magically right about an anonymous writing and COMPLETELY wrong about ALL the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings?


"Against Marcion" 4.2
"Tertullian" have NO history of CREDIBILITY with regards to attribution of authors to anonymous writings. He was completely fooled or wanted to fool his readers about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and All the Pauline writings.

No disciple of "Peter" was name "MARK" or wrote any Gospel before the fall of the Temple. "Tertullian" did not know that.

No disciple of "Paul" was called " Luke" who wrote a Gospel BEFORE the fall of the Temple. "Tertullian" did NOT know that.

No character called "Paul" wrote ALL the Epistles with the name "Paul" before the Fall of the Temple. "Tertullian" did not know that.

"Tertullian" may have been fooled again or wanted to fool his readers again with the anonymous writing he atrributed to Marcion.

But we have Hyppolytus, Origen and Justin Martyr. You won't find the doctine of DUALISM in the entire NT.

jgreen44

But, on the other hand, the gospels do not appear to have been known by the authors of the Pauline writings. Specifically, in all of the Pauline epistles only one gospel teaching of Jesus is ever attributed to Jesus (communion). And, as we all know, Paul barely mentions any details of the gospel biography of Jesus. So how can we possibly know which set of writings came first?

stephan huller

No there's a difference. I don't really care one way or the other. When I go into a movie and they have a sign saying 'based on true story' or something like that, I say to myself 'yeah right.'

But in the end, what does it matter. Christianity isn't about Jesus, it's about Christ. If it was only about Jesus they would have called it Jesusanity or some such name.

aa5874

Of course the Pauline writers were AWARE of the Gospel story and the Church historian claimed there was a tradition the "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke and called gLuke "my gospel."

"Paul" claimed:

1. Jesus was made of a woman. See Matt. 1.18, Luke 1.35

2. Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1.

3. Jesus had an apostle called Peter. See all the Gospels.

4. He stayed with the Apostle PETER for fifteen days. See all the Gospels and Acts.

5.Jesus was betrayed IN THE NIGHT after he supped. See all the Gospels.

6.Jesus was crucified. See all the Gospels.

7.Jesus was raised from the dead on the THIRD DAY. See all the Gospels.

8.Jesus was ascended to heaven. See Mark 16, Luke 24, Acts 1.9

9. He spoke in TONGUES. See Acts 2

10. Jesus would be RETURNING to earth. See all the Gospels.


The Pauline writers were COMPLETELY aware of the Gospel story and even Acts of the Apostles.

"Paul" is the ONLY NT writer to PERSONALLY claim he SPOKE in TONGUES and "PAUL" gave a chronology of the events.

1Co 14:18 - 1 Cor 12.27-28 The DAY of Pentecost when the disciple spoke in Tongues can ONLY be found in Acts of the Apostles and was a completely FICTITIOUS event yet "PAUL" , the ONLY writer in the NT, claimed he PERSONALLY was AWARE of the the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and speaking tongues.

But, the LETTER to the Romans has EXPOSED the Pauline writer. The FAITH of the Romans was ALREADY KNOWN throughout the WHOLE WORLD before "PAUL" even went to the Romans.

Romans 1.7-8 7 The FAITH was KNOWN THROUGHOUT the WHOLE WORLD even BEFORE "Paul" went to Rome.

"Paul" calls NAMES of some in CHRIST BEFORE HIM.

Ro 16:7 - "Paul" admitted that HE PERSECUTED the FAITH and that he NOW preach the very FAITH he once DESTROYED.

Ga 1:23 - The notion that "Paul" was NOT aware of the FAITH is COMPLETELY FLAWED

. "Paul" claimed he persecuted the FAITH he now preached, that there were PEOPLE in CHRIST before him and that he spoke in tongues.

stephan huller

But the Marcionite Apostolikon (i.e. the collection of Pauline writings) was very different than ours. There is no reason to believe that all or any of this was necessarily present in the Marcionite NT (except for 5, 6, 8 and maybe 7).

aa5874

We are dealing with the EXTANT writings of Antiquity. We are NOT dealing with BELIEF or FAITH.

There is NO REASON to believe you if YOU have NOTHING but BELIEF or FAITH.

I will show what is WRITTEN not what I believe.

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVEwhen you have no source to show that the Pauline writings were actually first written by Marcion.


This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology"
.

Do you understand what MARCION was preaching?

MARCION denied that God was the MAKER of the UNIVERSE

And this is "PAUL" in "Col.1.12-16 MARCION did NOT NEED the Pauline writings to preach BLASPHEMIES, to DENY that God was the Creator and to PREACH DUALISM.

jgreen44

But, again, all of the above, as documented in the Pauline epistles, could have served as a rough outline for the story that is so much more fleshed out in the gospels.Given that the synoptics do not similarly suggest a late date of composition, this is a good point.
I wasn't suggesting that he was not aware of the faith. I was suggesting that it's really hard to say which came first, the Pauline epistles or the Gospel story.
Again, a good point as the synoptics do not suggest that anything remotely like Christianity existed before Jesus.

But I still don't see anything definitive that says one set of writings is earlier than the other set of writings. I still see two equally good arguments:

1) Even though the Pauline epistles contradict the gospels at several points, they do serve as a commentary on the gospels. So, from an editorial standpoint, you appear to be correct.

2) It's also possible (again, despite the contradictions) that the gospels are a fleshing out of Pauline ideas.

stephan huller

I hope people aren't adverse to some new ideas on the subject. If I am right about the Apostolikon witnessing the apostle's production of two gospels - a public and secret text in the manner of the Letter to Theodore then the question becomes which of the two gospels was bundled together with the Apostolikon in the Marcionite NT canon? The public or the secret gospel?

I don't know. I am still thinking this through. My guess is that it had to be the secret gospel. This might explain why the author of Acts seems to have no knowledge of the contents of the Apostolikon. Just my first impression.

Also the gnostics seemed to have interpreted their gospel with the Apostolikon as a guide. This gospel clearly wasn't limited to the synoptic narratives AND NEITHER WAS THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL.

Origen makes reference to the Marcionite interest in the Paraclete a term which is not found in the synoptics.

Also the Marcionites and Valentinians are lumped together throughout the Patristic writings. There must have been great similarities between the two traditions in terms of the way they interpreted the gospel.

A great example of this similarity is Origen's patron Ambrose who is identified both as a Valentinian and a Marcionite. The only way this misunderstanding could have occurred is because the two groups were so similar that misidentification necessarily followed.

Indeed I think the terminology was inherently flawed. Tertullian interestingly reports that Valentinians denied they were followers of Valentinis.

I don't think "heresiology" was ever an exact science. It resembles the classification of orders of angels - ie more fantasy than science

aa5874

Why is it so hard to say which one came first?

Do you have another book of antiquity , another Epistle, another Church writing, canonical or non-canonical, which state that "Paul" was first to PREACH the FAITH or wrote his Epistles before any of the Gospels?

There is Acts of the Apostles and the author claimed Jesus ascended to heaven in Acts 1.9, later in Acts 2, the apostles received the Holy Ghost and started to speak in tongues.

After that the Apostles, including Peter, began to preach Jesus Christ and perform miracles and, according to the author of Acts, thousands began to believe in Jesus Christ in Acts 2.41 and 4.4.

It was in Acts 7.58 that "Saul/Paul was FIRST introduced as a PERSECUTOR of the Jesus cult or the FAITH and AFTER at least 8 thousand people were ALREADY CONVERTED to the FAITH.

Why is it so hard to say who or what is first?

Now, "Paul" claimed he did INDEED persecute the FAITH in Gal. 1.13-23 and that there were people in Christ BEFORE him in Romans 16.7.

Why it so hard? It is NOT hard. The story is rather easy to understand.

And LOOK. "PAUL" said he was LAST to SEE Jesus.

1Co 15:8 - "Paul" claimed he was LAST. It was SO EASY.