aa5874

Marcion may have been dead Before the Pauline writings were composed.

Hippolytus clearly stated that Marcion used the Teachings of Empedocles.
Refutation of All Heresies 7.19

Toto

Why believe Hippolytus? Maybe this was just a smear. Does he say explicitly that Marcion did not know Paul's letters?

aa5874

You believe Paul??

You must understand that Hippolytus is corroborated by Apologetics Justin and Ephrem. They wrote about Marcion without claiming he manipulated the Pauline letters.

Why does Doherty believe the Pauline writings were early when there is NO corroboration?? Maybe they were NOT early.

Why don't so-called Scholars use the abundance of evidence that suggest the Pauline letters are all late instead of believing Paul ALONE while simultaneously arguing that the Pauline writings are manipulated??

You very well know that it is quite possible that the Pauline letters were LATE, after c 70 CE, exactly like ALL the other books of the Canon and were fitted with FAKE authors to make them appear early.

Why don't you examine the evidence yourself???

Now It is extremely significant that Apologetic sources place Paul AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER gLuke and place the Pauline letters AFTER Revelation by John.

Does it state anywhere in the Pauline letters that they were composed Before c 68 CE?? The answer is NO.

Are there any corroborative evidence in the NT that the Pauline letters were composed Before c 68 CE?? The answer is NO.

We can deduce with the existing evidence who most likely put out the false information that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed in the 1st century.

It was the Roman Church.

The Roman Church has NOT ever denied that the supposed Letter to the Corinthians [First Clement] was composed by them.

The Letter to the Corinthians by the Church of Rome There was NO Church of Rome in the 1st century--the Church of Rome is from the 4th century and originated under Constantine.

I have EXPOSED that it was the Roman Church that wrote a FAKE letter to deliberately mis-lead all mankind that the Pauline letters were composed in the 1st century.

Duvduv

AA is always talking about corroboration, as if some manuscript in the hands of the church or a monastery is evidence of corroboration when it is nothing of the sort as empirically objective.
Speaking of manuscripts, take a look at the confusion associated with Justin described in the Catholic Online says about manuscripts (full of errors and gaps) of the texts attributed to "Justin Martyr" who AA loves so much: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6554

Chili

But truth must be known before the error can be, and so Rome was already in existence before even Matthew was written, or Mark, take you pick, as they are like twins with Judaism removed in Mark.

It so is that Matthew is put through the wringer by Mark, who of course chucked out the baby with proverbial water, and is like dry bones all on his own, held together with hoppers and wild honey that must give one indigestion to read it with nothing worthy to chew on.

But can you not see that the Truth must be denied by those looking to see, as it is in looking for thruth that they do not see, simply because the light that we follow must lead us astray because it is the 'other side' of the sun we must see where light has no opposite in darkness.

To note here is that light was before the sun and moon were created, to say that the light of common day is an illusion, and so to follow the ray of light that we see must necessarily lead us astray, and so finally conclude that things must get better after we die, because we know after all the searching we have done that the light we are looking for must be real.

aa5874

Your view that Jewish writings are credible and non-Jewish writings must be dismissed is fundamentally illogical..

The writings of Justin are far more credible than the Hebrew Bible.

Duvduv

AA, this is exasperating. Are you trying to triumphantly establish the validity of your corroboration claims concerning Justin or whomever simply by attempting to criticize what you consider to be my views of the Jewish texts?! How do you succeed that way?!

aa5874

Again, the writings of Justin Martyr are far more credible that the Jewish Bible.

You seem incapable of understanding that one MUST, MUST, MUST first read and analyze the contents of the works of Justin and after doing so it is found to be far more more credible than the Hebrew Bible.

Duvduv

Again you are not focusing. This is not what I was talking about vis a vis the issue of corroboration from questionable manuscripts, and you know it.

aa5874

I am completely focused. You very well know that the Hebrew Bible is NOT historically reliable and contains many Fake or False Prophets upon which Justin relied.

If Justin was NOT Deceived by the Fake or False Prophets found in the Hebrew Bible then we would probably not be having this discussion.

The Fake or False Prophets in Hebrew Bible mentioned the coming of the Messiah and have DECEIVED Not only the Jews Not only Trypho and Justin but all mankind.

This is BC&H.

People were Martyred because they were Deceived by the words of the Fake or False Prophets in Hebrew Scripture.