Sheshbazzar

It appears that 'Paul' had already been thoroughly co-opted by Marcion's Christianity, well before the 'orthodox' (as represented by Justin) even began to 'get their act together'_ 'Paul' and his writings were already Marcion's creature.
To employ the Paul, and Pauline Epistles that Marcion used would have been giving quarter to Marcion's teachings.
Simon Magnus was ancient history, and by that time no threat at all to the orthodox or to Justin, Marcion was not employing 'Simon Magnus' like he did 'Paul', so there were no reasons to so studiously ignore stories about this character.

In this case it proves nothing at all to quote from any 2nd century onward 'versions' of Paul's writings, as the very premise being presented is that the orthodox Church took over these texts from Marcion, and altered and extensively interpolated these Marcionite Pauline writings to make them reflect and support popular (required) orthodox positions and theology.
We do not -have- the same Pauline writings that were employed by Marcion, only a few shreds tied together with reams of latter orthodox interpolated material.
Justin could not admit to, nor use Marcion's 'Paul' materials until they were 'cleaned up' and made fit for orthodox palates.
That explains why the Church was so vehement about the destroying of every vestige of Marcion's actual texts.

Every reference that I have found on Marcion, presents that he 'collected' and employed TEN of 'Paul's Epistles', and ONE 'Gospel of Marcion'.
(perhaps he was the original author behind it all)

Can you provide a source that documents a different claim?

Me thinks you put entirely to much unskeptical trust in the preaching of Justin Martyr, and in an assumption that the Pauline Epistles have always read exactly the way you see them today.

show_no_mercy

Marcion's Pauline "To the Galatians", which is different than our current... Catholic... Pauline "To the Galatians".

dog-on

Like I said, Paul was batting for the other team...

Now take this and wrap your head around Mark.

aa5874

Paul died before Marcion was born based on Church writings and had already evangelised the Roman Empire perhaps 50 years ahead of Marcion.

And based on Justin, Marcion was not preaching about Paul's Jesus. Marcion's Jesus was not of the God of Moses or the prophets. There is no co-opting of any Pauline doctrine by Marcion in the writings of Justin Martyr.


This cannot be supported in the writings of Justin Martyr. He did not write a single word about Paul. Justin wrote very negatively about christians during the time of Claudius, and yet did not write a single thing, good or bad, about the most prolific writer and evangelist who was supposed to be a contemporary of Simon the christian magician.

There was no orthodox Church, Justin Martyr,Marcion, Simon Magus, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, even Municius Felix all showed that there were a multipliticity of beliefs about Jesus.
Justin referred to christians as devils if they did not believe in his Jesus, he certainly did not need to clean up anything. He did not clean up anything from the christian and magician Simon Magus or the christian magician Menander who claimed that he would live forever.

It is likely that Justin would have called Paul a devil or of the devil if he did not believe in his Jesus, just as he called Marcion a devil or of the devil.
The Church wrote fiction about Marcion. They tried to use Marcion to historicise Paul as a 1st century character, but no such character lived in the 1st century. Justin Martyr cannot account for Paul, his writings, his churches, or his 1st century magical conversion.

But the very sources that claim Marcion used the Epistles of Paul did NOT EVEN KNOW what Paul wrote.

The same sources you rely on for your claim that Marcion collected and employed TEN of Paul's Epistles may have to retract their statement.

How could Marcion have employed and collected TEN when it is now believed that there were many persons writing under the name Paul and perhaps one them only wrote 7 or 8.

Your source is bogus. The very sources you rely on are not credible. It would appear that your sources have erred. Embarrassingly it has turned out that they don't even know what Paul wrote, when Paul wrote and how many people used the name Paul.

But, Justin has maintained that Marcion did propagate that his Phantom Jesus was not of the God of the Jews, and was of a God greator than Justin's own God. And he did not mention Paul anywhere at anytime.

mountainman

There are problems enough to find any archaeological evidence by which to support one team of underground "Green" non-epigraphic undocumented unrecognised sects, let alone two competing ones in the same region of history-space. The "Other Team" becomes very clear once Constantine sends his team in to bat. The opposition flee the pitch in disarray: those vile despicable unmentionable unnamable docetic minded gnostics. They get servings off the Christian Team Members all the way through the fourth century, until they are de-registered multiple times and burnt out.

This "other team" business prior to the fourth century has major problems.

dog-on

Not at all. You are simply refering to a different league. You know, after the promotion.

Paul is quite clear when he calls his competitors perverters of the gospel.

... or maybe that was Marcion...

mountainman

Maybe the dissembled Paul and the dissembled Marcion are actually the wretched dissembling and promoted Eusebius.

Sheshbazzar

+
Really, you cannot see the incongruence of this?
It doesn't add up.
You have just stated that;
"Paul died before Marcion was born based on Church writings and had already evangelised the Roman Empire perhaps 50 years ahead of Marcion"

If that is the position you are supporting, WHY would you think that Justin Martyr who lived contemporary with Marcion, (85-165 AD) 50 years after Paul had already evangelised the Roman Empire, would really be so unaware of Paul ?

Evidently you still need to make up your mind as to when you believe Paul died.
You seem to not want to accept the fact that every early Christian source is unanimous in support of the claim that Marcion did use TEN of the Pauline Epistles as the very core of his form of Christianity.
'Paul' was the only Apostle that Marcion accepted (another sore spot with Rome and its Petrine claims)
Evidently you have spent a lot of time reading Justin Martyr, but have utterly neglected reading what the Church Fathers had to say about Marcion, and Marcionite teachings, teachings that according to ALL accounts, were heavily based upon the writings of Paul.
So much so that there would not, and COULD NOT, have even been a Marcionite schism without these Pauline writings existing contemporary with both Marcion AND Justin.
Overall, church history is unanimous in supporting that Marcion DID use 'Paul' and TEN Pauline Epistles as the basis of his teachings.
Where does this leave Justin's absolute silence regarding Paul?
It most certainly is NOT explained by the rest of the entire Church's explanation and stand against Marcion ("Adversus Marcion" anyone?)

The only reasonable explanation regarding Justin's total silence about Paul and The Epistles, is that it was deliberate, or as I said earlier 'cultivated', as by the accounts of the entire Church, and its own Apostolic claims, there is simply no way that Justin Martyr could have actually remained unaware of 'Paul', or of the Pauline Epistles employed by Marcion.
('Acts of The Apostles' would not have been known to Justin, as it was a latter fabrication of the Church to finally integrate Paul into mainstream Roman Christianity.

I seriously doubt that is ever going to happen

Not really a problem at all, and again, the recognized spurious ones were generated by, or heavily interpolated by, the latter Church to counter or to modify teachings originating with Marcion or with his version of Paul.

My sources are the testimony and the writings against Marcion of the early Church Fathers, Without whose writings we would know nothing at all of these matters.

You really ought to take some time to read up on Marcion in some sources other than Justin.

aa5874

I am using your sources to expose the bogus claim that Marcion mutilated the Pauline Epistles. These sources claimed or implied Paul died under Nero and had written every single Epistle including the Pastorals.

It now appears that your BOGUS sources provided erroneous information about Paul, and not only Paul, but the authorship and time of writing of all the canonised books of the NT.

You seem not to want to accept the fact your bogus sources also claimed, [/b]virtually unanimously,[/b]that Paul wrote all the Epistles including the Pastoral. You seem not to want to accept that your bogus sources have been fundamentally rejected with respect to the authorship and dating of the canonised books of the NT.

But, you are completely wrong. I spend time reading the Church Fathers and it is for that precise reason why I have found many of the Church Fathers to be fiction writers.

The Church Fathers provided bogus information about Paul. They UNANIMOUSLY appear not to know what Paul wrote, when he wrote and how many persons used the name Paul.

Now, look at Tertullian in "Against Marcion", he appear not to have any writings from Marcion. What he said was from Marcion was actually ANONIMOUS, no author was affixed to the writing.

This is a writer called Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.2

Your source condemns himself. He does not know what Paul wrote, when Paul wrote, or how many persons used the name Paul and now he uses an ANONIMOUS writing and claimed it was written by Marcion.

Your bogus sources claimed PAUL WAS aware of gLuke, but it would appear that gLuke was written long after your bogus sources claimed PAUL WAS DEAD.

It is virtually unanimous that the history of the Paul is fundamentally in error. Justin Martyr made no errors or provided any bogus information about Paul. Your sources provided bogus information about the chronology and authorship of the canonised NT including Paul.

What do you expect of their information about Marcion?

It must logically follow that it is very likely to be bogus.

IT is your sources that have a history of unanimously providing bogus information about Paul and the authors of the canonised NT.

Not Justin.

Your sources are the same sources that have been found to be not credible with respect to the authorship and chronology of the canonised NT. Their historical veracity is near ZERO.

Well let's read Tertullian together. His information appears to be bogus. He is not credible.

Against Marcion 4.2Do we not have unanimous fiction?

I have an explanation. Justin Martyr did not write about PAUL, his history, his teachings, or his churches because he was backdated 1st century fiction, not known by Justin.

Your bogus sources attempted to historicise Paul by using their late bogus writings under the name of Paul and simply re-wrote history by claiming Marcion was aware of and mutilated the Pauline Epistles.

Marcion God and his son Jesus had nothing in common with the Pauline Jesus.

And the writer using the name Tertullian has confessed that he re-wrote information about Marcion.

Let's read Tertullian together.

Against Macion 1.1 Please tell me about the original story by Tertullian of Marcion? Why did this writer want what was found written before about Marcion to be discarded or not to be taken into account?

Was not the original account true about Marcion?

Sheshbazzar

So, as you reject the writings of all of the Early Church Fathers except for your idol Justin Martyr, And HE wrote that Marcion "......who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies,...... All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians;"

Others latter wrote more about Marcion, but Justin, whom you trust, wrote about him first. No?

So this gives us a few questions;
1. Do you accept Justin's account that Marcion was alive, that is to say, a real person, living in Justin's time?

2. Do you accept Justin's statement that Marcion was; teaching his disciples?

3. Do you accept Justin's statement that Marcion; "caused many of every nation to speak blasphemie" ?

4. Do you accept Justin's statement that; "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians;" ?

By Justin's own testimony they were "called Christians", (he may not have liked it, but had to admit to the fact) and to the rest of the world they were also known as, and recognised as, being "Christians".

At this point, one might wonder what the contents of this "Christian" doctrine Marcion and his disciples were preaching might consist of?

You reject -everything- that -all- of the other Church Fathers ever wrote on this subject, as they took on the task of refuting these well known and widely spread 'heresies' one by one, pointing out where, how, and why Marcion had 'cut out' and 'altered' the NT texts.

But you don't accept it. (But then, neither do I, in believing that they were the ones that 'edited', corrupted, and added to these writings)

What then, in your learned opinion, was it that Marcion was preaching, that was being so readily identified with, and as being 'Christian' doctrine?
The Early Church tells us much of his peculiar theology as contained within his 'Evangelicon', 'Apostolikon' and 'Antitheses'.

What can you tell us of the contents Marcion's well known and widely spread 'Christian doctrines' that were so upsetting to Justin, and to the Roman Church?