aa5874

Tertullian did not ever claim Marcion had 10 epistles of his own in Tertullian's AM 5. Tertullian claimed Marcion interpolated, rejected or falsified the Pauline Epistles except Philemon.

Essentially, Tertullian is claiming all the 13 Pauline letters were available to Marcion but he falsified 9 Epistles, Rejected 3 and left Philemon unmutilated.

Tertullian's Against Marcion 5 Marcion mutilated or rejected St. Paul's Epistles based on Tertullian.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" Tertullian even claimed there was No author and No Title ascribed to the material he attributed to Marcion.

Incredibly, Tertullian was reading an Anonymous Untitled writing of which no manuscript has ever been found.

Tertullian' Against Marcion 1 Tertullian did not claim anywhere at all in "Against Marcion" that Marcion wrote 10 Epistles of his own.

It is the reverse, Tertullian is claiming Marcion FALSIFIED or Rejected the Pauline writings.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 5 Marcion REJECTED and mutilated the Pauline writings based on Tertullian.

Duvduv

Academics can only "reconstruct" Marcion once they have taken statements attributed to biased church apologists about Marcion at face value and accurate. Since when is an uncorroborated statement of a biased writer taken at face value?!

aa5874

Where is your source of antiquity for Marcion's Galatians?

You are merely making unsubstantiated claims. It would seem that you are just denying the evidence that contradicts your argument.

Upon examination of Galatians it is clear to me that Marcion did NOT write it because the Epistle Galatians advocates the worship of the God of the Jews and His Son Made of a woman who was raised from the dead.

The Epistle Galatians does not even mention Marcion's God--Only the God of the Jews and his Son Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:1-3 KJV Please, identify a source of antiquity, an ancient source, that shows the contents of Marcion's Galatians.

I find it difficult to understand why you claim Marcion wrote an Epistle to the Galatians in the 2nd century and the Church would claim that it was written by Paul 100 YEARS earlier.

Surely, Marcion's Galatians Church should have had Marcion's letter as proof it was received.

And the Galatians Church of Paul should already have known and established the Pauline Galatians Epistles 100 years before Marcion.

Duvduv

Jake, there is no point in engaging in argumentum ad hominem here. Can you simply address the SUBSTANCE of my point instead of attacking me personally?
Can't you just admit that you accept the claims of the church apologists on
FAITH?

I already stated that I do not oppose people going on the basis of FAITH as long as they admit it such as I do. You and I BOTH KNOW that the human sciences are not and never devoid of bias. It is inherent in the human condition.

We are not engaged in a chemistry experiment in a laboratory.

Each person approaches the issue with underlying values and biases. If you don't believe me check with the writings of Max Weber.
In the meantime please just abstain from argumentum ad hominem. In debating it is considered a real no-no.

I have already repeatedly stated my approach to analyzing the origins of Christianity as an Orthodox Jew, but apparently you and some others believe that as an Orthodox Jew I must not participate in this process, and that only secularists who adhere to so-called secular "church" dogma may do so.

The FACT is that one can only RECONSTRUCT something based on more than mere baseless speculation. Does that bother you so much?

aa5874

Nothing can be reconstructed from speculation.

Speculation at any level of an investigation is universally unacceptable.

We can analyse what is actually written.

We have written statements atttributed to writers of antiquity and they can be analysed and a resolution can be argued.

It can be reasonably argued based on the present available written statements put forward in writings of antiquity that the Pauline writings were unknown up to at least the time of the composition of "Against Heresies" 2.22 or at least after 180 CE.

It is clear that the Pauline writings were not necessary for the development of Christianity in writings of antiquity.

In the 2nd century and later, it was the story of Jesus, the Son of God, who was killed by the Jews that was absolutely necessary for the Christian Faith.

Duvduv

Well, there is a big academic world out there that do just that. They reconstruct despite the fact that there is no corroborative evidence for their hypotheses anywhere. No information and no remnants related to any books written by a guy named Marcion or his followers.
It all starts from pure speculation about his "gospel" or his "epistles" that he "collected." Jake will get upset with me for questioning the academic dogma, but a fact is a fact.

aa5874

The more one examines the Pauline letters the more it becomes extremely clear that they were not written by Marcion and then later mutilated by Church apologetics.

Examine Philippians 3 If Marcion wrote the Epistles to Seven Churches in the 2nd century then it would have been established that the author was a man from Pontus who was NOT a Jew.

From the very start it would have been known that Marcion's writings and teachings were mutilated by Church Apologetics if people of the Roman Empire actually heard Marcion when he preached and actually read what he had written.

MrMacSon

What sources are you aware of for the likes of Irenaeus & Justin [Martyr], and what is dubious about them?

Duvduv

There is no more evidence for their existence in the second century than there is for the existence of a Paul in the first century.

aa5874

What is the evidence than any person mentioned in the Talmud was real or actually wrote anything or said anything in any century??

You seem to have completely missed the fact that it is the statements made in the writings atrributed to Paul, Irenaeus and Justin that were analysed.

The writings attributed to Paul and Irenaeus are INTERNALLY contradictory and cannot be reconciled.

And further, recovered and dated manuscripts like the DSS and NT Texts do NOT support the claims made in the NT about Paul and Jesus.

The recovered dated manuscripts like the DSS and NT Texts support the argument that there was NO Jesus cult and NO Pauline letters in the 1st century.

The recovered DSS and the NT manuscripts support the 120 year BLACKHOLE of the activities of the Jesus cult found in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

The history of the Jesus cult was confined specifically and only to the supposed Apostles found in the very same Memoirs of the Apostles.

In fact, in the writings attributed to Justin, after the supposed ascension of Jesus, it was the 12 Apostles that preached the Gospel to the all the world and wrote the Memoirs.

Writings attributed to Justin virtually PERFECTLY match the recovered dated DSS and NT manuscripts.

Writings attributed to Justin virtually PERFECTLY match the writings attributed Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger.

The writings attributed to Paul and Irenaeus are historically and chronologically bogus. Not even the Church knew when Paul really lived, died and what and when he really wrote.

The very same applies to Irenaeus, and even worse, he did NOT know that if Jesus was crucified c 49 CE or at about 50 years of age under Claudius and was 30 years old at baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius that virtually everything claimed about Paul would be TOTAL Fiction.

It is claimed Paul preached Christ Crucified since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 yet Irenaeus argued Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

It is implied that the Pauline writer SAW the Crucified and Resurrected Jesus since c 37-41 CE. See all the Pauline writings.

There was no known history of the Jesus cult of the NT from the time of Tiberius to the time of Justin 120 years later.

The writings that match the recovered dated DSS and NT manuscripts can be accepted as credible until new evidence is found.

Copies of copies of writings attributed to Justin do Match the evidence from antiquity.

The Jesus story, from conception to Ascension, was known and read in the Churches in the 2nd century-- NOT the Pauline letters. See First Apology.

The very first source to claim Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches is Irenaeus who lived AFTER Justin Martyr.

The Pauline letters to Seven Churches are ALL after writings attributed to Justin.

Pauline letters have been recovered and dated and it is claimed they may have been written between 150-250 CE with a 95% probability.

Essentially, it is a 95 % probability that writings attributed to Justin are historically accurate when he did not acknowledge the Pauline letters and showed that the Churches developed WITHOUT the Pauline Revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus.

In the Canon itself, the author of Acts appears to have corroborated Justin and also showed that the Jesus cult developed and was sustained by the Holy Ghost--WITHOUT the Pauline Revealed Gospel and WITHOUT the Pauline letters up to c 62 CE.