EarlDoherty

In what way have I altered the text? If you mean by "temporarily" dropping the contentious phrase, that does not alter the "main train of thought." The grammatical question of whether the antecedent of the "he" in the verb is God or the Son remains the same, whether "born of woman, born under the Law" is there or not. I have not removed "Son." You should be able to reason that out even from an English translation, but it would help if you could directly look at the Greek and understand it.

In post after post, you repeatedly demonstrate that you cannot understand things. You latch desperately onto some 'counter' which you also consistently get wrong. I might suggest you turn over the floor to another member of your "team" who might do a better job, but since you refuse to identify them or give us any information about them, for all we know your "team" comprises your dog and cat.

Earl Doherty

FathomFFI

You continue to assert I am misunderstanding things, yet totally avoid the points. As simple as I can make it to you:

You must alter the text to formulate a theory to attempt to justify interpolation. Anybody else can do the same thing and create dozens of different theories. All are theoretical, and all are mere inventions. All are fallacious because the text has been altered.

In other words, stop altering the text; it makes your argument instantly fallacious. Instead, work with the text.

Regards.

Team FFI

FathomFFI

Earl, let me give you a rough example of how to work with the text:

The Gospel of the Hebrews has Jesus stating the following: "My mother, the Holy Spirit."

There's your "born of a woman" link, Earl. Expand on it; find more support. How about connecting "Wisdom" as an alternate understanding of the Holy Spirit, and then applying this understanding to Jesus' meaning in Matt 11.19?

In the beginning, the only "Law" uttered by God was was what we should eat, that we should multiply, and have dominion:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold! I have given you every herb seeding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be for food.

There's a link to "born under the Law," Earl. Many scholars believe that the 7 days of creation reflect a 'spiritual' creation. Therefore, if Christ was but a spirit, then you have the law governing spirits, as opposed to the law governing physical people.

Now that is evidence. Work with the text and instantly you have a valid argument.

Hint: Study Gen 1.27 intensely, and see what alternate reading you can get from the words "male and female."

You may learn that "male and female" are not the original meanings. You will also learn that this is the only "man" ever created in the image of God.

So who then would Christ be? Could the "Father and the Mother" be understood as the "us" and the "our" in Gen 1.26? Since we have "male and female" created in the likeness of "Elohim," then what does that tell you of the substance of Elohim?

After all, you already know Elohim is plural. This is evidence, Earl, and evidence which finds tons of support, if you simply do the work.

If you work with the text, I assure you can make one hell of an argument far better than ever you could by altering it.

spamandham

...are you willing to take such a stand in regards to all letters attributed to Paul, or merely the single passage in question?

FathomFFI

Currently, just the passages we have been discussing.

judge

Earl, do you or do you not have any evidence for interpolation?

If so can you just briefly, even a sentence or two, say what it is?

Thank you.

Ben C Smith

The accusations were mutual, according to Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.4.4:

Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos, viderimus an et penes Marcionem, ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat.

If that gospel which among us is ascribed to Luke, and we shall see whether it is [accepted by] Marcion, if that is the same that Marcion by his Antitheses accuses of having been falsified by the upholders of Judaism with a view to its being so combined in one body with the law and the prophets that they might also pretend that Christ had that origin, evidently he could only have brought accusation against something he had found there already.

IOW, Tertullian is accusing Marcion (in Against Marcion) of removing passages from the original gospel of Luke, while Marcion is accusing the proto-orthodox (in the Antitheses) of interpolating passages into the original gospel (not called Luke). I doubt the debate on the original form of the Pauline epistles was much different.

That may be enough to affirm that Marcion did not possess the original text; but it is not enough to affirm that there is no evidence that the Pauline epistles lacked certain phrases. Marcion himself is such evidence. Even if this Marcionite evidence is not enough to overturn the applecart, it still counts as evidence.

Ben.

FathomFFI

But Ben what this tells you is that Marcion altered the text. It tells you that he got his hands on the texts and changed them according to his understanding. It tells you that the unaltered texts existed before Marcion.

It doesn't provide any evidence of anyone altering text except Marcion. It doesn't explain how Marcion concluded that the texts were altered before he got to them. How would Marcion know?

Adonael

Actually, they are both positive claims. Just because there is a negation within the proposition does not make it negative. Negative claims are statements of a much softer variety such like "i dont believe that the texts contain interpolations" or that "there is no good reason to believe that the texts contain interpolations."

FathomFFI

But again, how does one prove a negative?