aa5874

This THREAD deals with the Pauline WRITERS and dating of the Pauline letters.

Upon examining the NT Canon it is found that there is ZERO corroboration--Zero ATTESTATION that the Pauline letters were composed BEFORE the Governorship of Festus c 59-62 C3.

It is extremely critical that we understand what is written in Acts since it is Canonised and is regarded as Scripture in the very Church.

There is NO record of Pauline letters at all in Acts of the Apostles up to the time Paul was in Rome for TWO WHOLE Years after he was sent to that city by FESTUS the governor of Judea.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcius_Festus

1. Based on Acts of the Apostles Paul was held in prison at c 59 CE.

Acts 24:27 KJV2. When Paul arrived in Rome at least 6 months later those who met Paul claimed that they had received NO letters from Judea about him.

Acts 28.21 KJV3. After TWO years and about 6 months, c 62 CE, when Festus was procurator there are NO Pauline letters documented in Acts.

Acts 28:30 KJVThere is NO other story about Paul in the Canon.

There is NO story in the Canon by any author that Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 62 CE.

Many, many other apologetic writers in the 2nd century also show or did not acknowledge the Pauline letters up to 190 CE.

In fact, the supposed contemporaries and close acquaintances of Paul in and out the Canon did NOT claim the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE.

Now, examine the FIVE BOOKS attributed to Irenaeus called "Against Heresies".

When did Paul die according to Irenaeus??

When did Paul write any Letters to Churches according to Irenaeus??

UP to the writings attributed to Irenaeus it was NOT known when Paul died and NO dates of composition were also known.

Effectively, the Pauline writings could have been fabricated at any time up the composition of Against Heresies and AFTER c 62 CE.

No manuscript of any writer that mentioned Paul has been found and dated to the 1st century.

The argument or supposition that the Pauline writings were early are without a shred of evidence and is EXTREMELY weak.

Early dates for the Pauline writings were ACTUALLY INVENTED.

Sheshbazzar

No matter how long you polish a turd, or with many pretties you decorate it with, its still going to be crap.
The Christian Fathers, and the church invented a lot of theological crap, made up a lot of shit about a God they never met, and knew no more about than my hound dog does. Just saying.

stephan huller

Like any religious 'father' - Christian, Jewish or otherwise - ever met God.

jakejonesiv

You are being untruthful.

Name one source that states that Marcion was dead before the appearance of Paul.
Tell me when did Marcion die?
Tell me when was the first external mention of Paul outside the New Testament texts.

maryhelena

Play fair, Jake. Quote aa in full...

Based on the dating that aa is using for the Pauline letters - he is not being untruthful. Marcion, re Wikipedia, died about 160 c.e.

What you need to do is question the dating for the Pauline epistles that aa is using - posting that aa is 'untruthful' serves nothing positive.

aa5874

Your post is extremely bizarre and is most laughable!! You are the very same person who posted a list of writings with dates attached in your OP.

Were you untruthful??

Please tell me the truth. Don't be untruthful.

1. Name one source of antiquity that states the Gospels were composed c 120-180's CE as you have claimed in the OP.

2. Name one source of antiquity that states the Epistle of Barnabas was composed in the early 140's CE as you have claimed in the OP .

3. Name one source of antiquity that states the Epistle of James was composed in the early 140's CE as you have claimed in the OP.

4. Name one source of antiquity that states 2 Clement was composed approximately 160 CE as you have claimed in the OP .

5. Name one source of antiquity that states Acts of the Apostles was composed c 180 CE as you have claimed in the OP.

Now, again, examine excerpts from your own posts.

Were you untruthful when you claimed the proto-orthodox had the HABIT of accusing Marcion of deleting material he NEVER had??

Post #29 Were you untruthful when you claimed it is is likely that Acts of the Apostles and Luke were POST Marcion??
Post #29
It is most mind boggling that the very same person who makes all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions about the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writers, Revelation, the Pauline and Non-Pauline Epistles, Simon Magus, Barnabas, Marcion and others would accuse me of being untruthful.

Please, if you can claim that Acts of the Apostles was POST Marcion then I can argue that ALL the Pauline letters are POST Acts of the Apostles.

1. It is a PHYSICAL FACT--it is NOT untruthful-- that there is NO mention at all of Pauline letters in Acts of the Apostles.

My argument can be maintained forever that the Pauline letters were POST Acts of the Apostles which were POST Marcion.

Marcion was DEAD BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed.

1. 2. Marcion NEVER EVER had the Pauline letters at all.

The Pauline letters were PLANTED in the hands of Marcion AFTER he was DEAD.

jakejonesiv

AA's source is Wikipedia????
Then it is total bullshit.
Now you play fair. My question was "Name one source that states that Marcion was dead before the appearance of Paul. " Wikepedia does not state that.
But I will ammend my question.
Name one ancient source that states that Marcion was dead before the appearance of Paul.

Jake Jones IV

maryhelena

Now that, Jake, is asking the impossible from me - I don't credit either Marcion or Paul as historical figures!!

Hence - your question is meaningless...

What you need to do is provide historical evidence, not hearsay, for the figure of Marcion and the figure of Paul. i.e. the figure that is mentioned in early christian writing and the figure that is mentioned in the NT.

Yes, there is a Marcion story out there - as there is a Paul story - as there is a Jesus story...we need more than stories if we are searching for early christian origins. Yes, stories might provide some insights as to which way to move forward - but to stay with the stories is to forever go around in circles...

Oh, and by the way, no need for the large font and the bolding - your not talking to aa5874 here.....

jakejonesiv

You need to prove your own assetions. Name one ancient source that states that Marcion was dead before the appearance of Paul.

Nothing in the OP states that Marcion was dead before the Pauline epistles appeared. Nothing. So you are misrepresenting me.

It is a fact that Acts does not mention the Pauline epistles as in the OP. But it has been demonstrated that the author did indeed know the PE. So you logic fails.

jakejonesiv

Then AA needs to know that you disagree with him. He thinks Marcion was a historical figure.


:redface::redface:You are right on that point. Apologies to you.:redface::redface::redface:

According to Sebastian Moll's research, did Marcion have a version of the Pauline epistles? If you disagee, where did you perceive that he went wrong?

Jake