tanya

I disagree. I think that by the middle of the fourth century, Mani's followers had largely been assimilated into Constantine's church, with destruction or conversion of most of Mani's temples of worship. It was rather, Arius, who represented the fourth century's "heretical obsession".

That's not what Codex Sinaiticus nor what Codex Vaticanus write:

(but with a superscript bar over Xs==> flaw in my font/browser/technique/skill (or lack thereof)

In English: "the Christ", not Jesus the Christ. (Meaning: the anointed, not the Messiah, for I disagree with those, including spin, who claim that the English word messiah corresponds to anointed, rather than saviour.)

But, as noted by Philosopher Jay,(post 12), those sources "from antiquity" are themselves corrupted, so it not particularly credible to claim knowledge today of what Marcion believed or taught.

Were they forged "as a group"? I think they were manipulated individually, at different times, by different authorities....

Duvduv

Tanya, what do you mean by "manipulated "?
Do you think they were they forged from scratch?
Or isn't it more likely they originated from different sects who had existed in the second or third century?
Obviously the gospels represented different sects and so did various epistles. So it's not likely they were invented by an imperial committee under Theodosius. So where did they originate and by whom between the time of Justin and Theodosius, which was a period of over 200 years. Plus this would call into question dating manuscripts before the fourth century.
What do you think?

aa5874

The Epistles are NOT all different from one another and that is precisely how it can be deduced that the style and contents of some epistles were authored most likely by a single writer.

However, Apologetic sources suggests that ALL the Pauline writings in the NT Canon, regardless of authorship, were writing WELL after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and most likely AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr and Aristide or after the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

We know that what are usually called "authentic" and "unauthentic" (pastorals) are different. We can see that Galatians is different from others, and so is Romans, which is rather Jewish in flavor, not to mention the different style of Hebrews. As one point, the Galatians description of the EXCLUSIVE nature of "Paul's" revelation/gospel is not repeated elsewhere. In other epistles the writer simply includes his teachings as "ours" meaning that he was part of a group who had certain beliefs. Had these letters all been forged by a single Church writer, he would have made sure that they corresponded to one another AND that they corresponded to the gospels. Not to mention the fact that he would have wanted to ensure that the gospel stories were the same and should have included some reference to his "Paul."

Then there is the issue we have not touched about dating the epistle manuscripts, and whether existing ones date later or earlier, or whether the people doing the dating are biased.

aa5874

I really don't understand why you should think that a single person cannot make statements that are "FULL of HOLES".

A Liar or Fiction writer can make multiple contradictory statements about the same matter. Once the there are "HOLES" in a story from the same person then those are the "RED FLAGS" that we are dealing with a source that is NOT likely to be credible.

Liars are KNOWN to CHANGE their stories in written statements even UNDER OATH.

Duvduv

Yes, that is a valid point. But in this case WHO could have written texts as diverse as Matthew, Galatians and Hebrews without giving himself away even slightly even in use of language?

How could he ever even guarantee their acceptance over such a wide area without even the slightest evidence of who he was and where he was?
And then to have it followed by extensive writings of apologists and be able to fake it all into the first and second centuries?

It just seems so far-fetched .....

.

aa5874

Well, that is PRECISELY why I told you to READ "Church History" attributed to Eusebius and "Against the Galileans" attributed to the Emperor Julian.

1. "Against the Galileans" is reasonable evidence that ALL writings that passed through the Church were NOT wholly manipulated or invented.

2. "Church History" is reasonable evidence that Apologetic sources of the Church wrote FICTION or Deliberate False statements even when there were KNOWN sources that contradicted their fabrication.

In "Church History" the author made the False claim that Josephus did STATE that Herod saw an ANGEL in "Antiquities of the Jews" 19 but it is shown that Josephus made NO such statement.

In Antiquities Josephus claim Herod SAW an OWL.

Examine "Church History" 2 But, in "Antiquities of the Jews" 19.2 Josephus is NOT in agreement with "Church History" 2. Agrippa did NOT see any angel just an OWL.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 19.2 Apologetic sources for the Church did MAKE FALSE statements and even directed their readers to the books that would EXPOSE their FALSE claims.

People who read Josephus Antiquities would have KNOWN that "Church History" 2. was Fiction.

It is NOT far-fetched at all that a single person can make FALSE and Contradictory statements even when there is evidence to show that the claims are fabricated.

Duvduv

But in the case of all the NT texts, we're talking about whole letters discussing theology that have to be more or less consistent EVEN with differences as between Galatians and Romans and Ephesians. Or outright contradictions between the non-historical Jesus of the epistles and historical Jesus of the gospels, WITHOUT GIVING AWAY through errors and use of language etc. But what EVIDENCE is there that all these texts were actually written by one person and not by representatives of several sects??

aa5874

Are you NOT aware of at least TWO versions of gMark? Both The Short-Ending and the Long-Ending gMark are ATTRIBUTED to the same author and should have been KNOWN to the Public and circulated although 12 verses were ADDED to the Long-Ending gMark.

This would suggests that inconsistency was NOT the issue but that the Jesus story was to be CHANGED

First of all, there is ONE Jesus in the NT Canon---a NON-HISTORICAL Jesus. The historical Jesus argument is NOT about mere existence--it is about a supposed human character.

In the Gospels, Jesus was a PHANTOM with NO human father and was God the Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

The Pauline story BEGINS exactly where the Gospels END.

The Pauline story is a POST-Resurrection account of Jesus according to Paul which could ONLY be TOTAL FICTION.

Duvduv

The content of each does not address the substance of my question. WHO sat down and wrote all those epistles and at least 4 gospels of all different types and theologies as a fictitious endeavor as opposed to their being the works of particular sects??
WHAT is the evidence that all of this was the work of one hand working on different theologies and ideas??
That's all I am asking. I don't see the epistles as continuing anything from any of the gospels at all. The epistles never indicate that the writer(s) know anything about the parables, stories or minimalist theologies of the synoptics or of John, as we have discussed at length.
BUT if one guy wrote all these things WHY did he write them with so many differences and contradictions?

At least the guy who wrote the Book of Mormon concentrated on one main book (aside from the Pearl of Great Price etc.) with one basic story line.