Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgreen44 · 11-21-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Paul" claimed he was LAST. It was SO EASY.

Couldn't "Paul" be the last to see and the first to write?

stephan huller · 11-21-2010, 01:04 PM

Couldn't "Paul" be the last to see and the first to write?

That's what the Marcionites believed see Adamantius

stephan huller · 11-21-2010, 01:30 PM

I am having a crazy day but let me say this on my BlackBerry

The Dialogues of Adamantius have the Marcionite say that none of the (other) disciples of Jesus wrote a gospel. In specific Matthew and John (which are out forward by the Catholics as apostolic witnesses) were not written by disciples.

The basic idea is that Paul wrote a written gospel BEFORE Matthew and John were written. The Marcionite also denies that the Marcionite gospel was written by Peter. Instead it was properly called "the gospel of Christ" because Christ wrote it.

I think that this sounds suspiciously similar to surviving Coptic polemics that the Gospel of Mark (which begins with "the gospel of [Jesus] Christ") was not written for Peter as the Catholics claim

In any event Galatians seems to imply that the circle of Peter wrote a gospel which the Apostolikon claims was a rip off of the apostle's public gospel (1 Cor 2.1 - 2). I am not so sure. There are reasons for suspecting that Mark's gospels were developed as a correction of a Petrine original written before 70 CE.
At least this is what a critical reading of the available evidence would suggest

jgreen44 · 11-21-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There are reasons for suspecting that Mark's gospels were developed as a correction of a Petrine original written before 70 CE.

Are mistakes concerning Galilean customs and geography among these reasons for suspecting a late (relative to the Pauline epistles) date for Mark?

aa5874 · 11-21-2010, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Paul" claimed he was LAST. It was SO EASY.

Couldn't "Paul" be the last to see and the first to write?

You mean "Paul" was the FIRST to write about what he SAW last?

I don't understand!!!!!

Please, I beg of you, First tell me what "Paul" "SAW LAST"?

You think "PAUL" SAW something.

A RESURRECTION is indeed the very LAST thing any human being will ever.

"Paul" was probably the FIRST and LAST to write about a RESURRECTION and SWEAR by God that he was NOT lying.

.2Co 11:31 -

Quote:

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Ga 1:20 -

Quote:

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

Ro 3:7 -

Quote:

For [b][u]if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Examine the LIE unto his glory.
1 Cor.15.3-7

Quote:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

"Paul" saw NOTHING in the FIRST PLACE.

But the so-called God was GLORIFIED in the END.

Ro 9:1 -

Quote:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost....

What did "PAUL" SEE? Or did He ONLY hear a VOICE. A RESURRECTED DEAD is the LAST thing anyone is expected to see.

Ac 9:4 -

Quote:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Ac 22:7 -

Quote:

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Ac 26:14 -

Quote:

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

"PAUL" was probably the FIRST to write LIES when he claimed he personally SAW the RESURRECTED Jesus.

stephan huller · 11-21-2010, 07:58 PM

No I don't anything about contemporary Galilean customs. I don't think anyone does. My reasoning is based on the strange way that Mark and the Marcionite narrative goes out of its way to attack Peter for believing that Jesus was the Christ. It doesn't seem to me to be logical to go to such lengths to disprove Peter unless this was the established position associated with Peter and likely his gospel. Remember the Marcionites are said by Tertullian to interpret the Galatians letter as the apostle correcting Peter for corrupting and Judaizing 'the gospel' - i.e. the heavenly revelation which came from Jesus. That's the Marcionite understanding of the trip to Jerusalem. This sounds strangely reminiscent to me of Theodore Weeden's work on the gospel of Mark where he says that Mark seems to have hostility to the Jerusalem Church headed by Peter. Just a note.

The real kicker for me is the repeated intimation in Tertullian that the Marcionite version of Mark 13.9 had slightly different punctuation. I suspect the only way to make sense of Tertullian's accusation that the Marcionites have accepted Marcion as their Christ announced by Jesus is that they read Mark 13.9 as if Jesus was denying Peter's future claim that Jesus claimed to be the Christ:

Many will come and say that I am the Christ and they will deceive many. Do not believe them.

As a point of note "saying I am - The Christ' is added by eight MSS of Mark including Coptic, Armenian, Saxon, and four of the Itala.

The point of course is that this seems to reinforce Jesus rebuke of Peter for calling him the Christ (something which Origen reads in the Marcionite manner).

When you realize that the Marcionites were attacked for embracing Marcion (or at least Paul but look at the third citation) as the one who Jesus heralded (see also repeated mention that the Marcionites held Paul to be the Paraclete of Jesus cf. Hom. Luc Origen and the Acts of Archelaus) the Petrine claim ends up looking to have existed BEFORE the writing of the gospel as such the gospel was a Markan reaction against the original Petrine claim that Jesus was the Christ:

The impudence, therefore, of Marcion's Christ will be evident, when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at all belong to him, since he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom these names do properly appertain [Tertullian AM 4.39]

then those people will come, saying I am Christ. You, <Marcionites> will receive them: you have received one exactly like them. For this one too has come in his own name. What then of the fact that there is still to come the real owner of the names, the Christ and Jesus of the Creator? Shall you reject him? [ibid]

No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. [5.1]

ph2ter · 11-22-2010, 01:05 AM

Thanks everybody for the reply's.

I don't partake in aa5874's convictions. The Acts are not a kind of document on which I would base my position. I believe that the Marcionite understanding is much more closer to the original and the true beginnings of Christianity.
I find very hard to reconcile Paul's mystic and somewhat ahistorical understanding with a plain historical narrative exposed in the Gospel of Mark. Paul paying no attention to the teachings and deeds of Jesus showed that they are probably only a byproduct of a teaching method, a milk for the babes.The epistles of Paul are much more in line with the allegorical understanding, they look like to be more in line with what the secret gospel probably was.
It is reasonable to believe that Mark's gospel was a reaction to some already existent gospel (or only a preaching) of Peter. Mark then probably used this skeleton gospel to express his own ideas which were somehow revolutionary (but only as a preparation for his secret gospel revelations). Jesus in Paul's epistles is only a passive object who has nothing to say. But as a object Jesus serves a grandiose purpose for Paul. Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are so central in Paul's theology. Despite that I doubt that those concepts were his invention, rather they should be something which predates Paul and on which he built his building.
If we look for a book which could illuminate our understanding of Peter's preaching, maybe it is the known Gospel of Peter. This book deals only with the passion narrative, and maybe this represents the basis of Peter's preaching and subsequently basis for the public version of Mark's gospel.

Paul really speaks about himself almost like he is the Christ which is in line with Stephan's reasoning.

jgreen44 · 11-22-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, I beg of you, First tell me what "Paul" "SAW LAST"?

When we say, "I see", we sometimes mean, "I know" or "I understand". If one can "have eyes but cannot see" then, one could be literally blind and yet still "see" God. As such, Paul's "seeing" of the risen Christ would be a metaphor for spiritual "sight", an inward perception or knowing of spiritual truth or reality.

But, I see (for example) your point. If Paul is referring to literal optical perception of an object or entity occupying a location in our material world, then he, Paul, is lying.

aa5874 · 11-22-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, I beg of you, First tell me what "Paul" "SAW LAST"?

When we say, "I see", we sometimes mean, "I know" or "I understand". If one can "have eyes but cannot see" then, one could be literally blind and yet still "see" God. As such, Paul's "seeing" of the risen Christ would be a metaphor for spiritual "sight", an inward perception or knowing of spiritual truth or reality.

But, I see (for example) your point. If Paul is referring to literal optical perception of an object or entity occupying a location in our material world, then he, Paul, is lying.

So, are you claiming that you don't SEE or understand what "Paul" "SAW"?

The Pauline writer after claiming that resurrected Jesus was SEEN by OVER five hundred people, including himself, in 1 Cor.15.3-8 now SEEMS to have developed Amnesia in his supposed second letter.

"Paul" could NOT RECALL.

Look at 2Co 12:2-3

Quote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell, God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)...

Now, please explain HOW the literally blind can SEE "God"?

Even in the Bible it is claimed NO MAN has SEEN GOD.

Joh 1:18 -

Quote:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The author of Acts claimed THREE times that "Paul" HEARD a VOICE but "Paul" claimed the RESURRECTED Jesus was SEEN by OVER 500 people including himself.

NO man has seen the RESURRECTED at any time.

There has been NO resurrection.

You see now?

I see the Pauline writings as LIES about the RESURRECTION.

aa5874 · 11-22-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Thanks everybody for the reply's.

I don't partake in aa5874's convictions. The Acts are not a kind of document on which I would base my position. I believe that the Marcionite understanding is much more closer to the original and the true beginnings of Christianity.

We have Church writings which ACTUALLY CONTRADICT "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

These CONTRADICTIONS are NOT my CONVICTIONS. They are EVIDENCE from APOLOGETIC sources.

"Refutation of ALL Heresies" by Hippolytus is NOT my own personal writing or conviction, it is an APOLOGETIC source for the Church that CONTRADICTS "Against Marcion" by "Tertullian".

"Refutation of ALL Heresies" 7

Quote:

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one......

"First Apology" by Justin Martyr is not my personal writing or conviction. It is an APOLOGETIC source for the Church that CONTRADICTS "Against Marcion" by "Tertullian".

"First Apology" 26

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, 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, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

"Against Celsus" by "Origen" is NOT my own personal writing or conviction, it is an APOLOGETIC source for the Church that CONTRADICTS "Against Marcion" by "Tertullian".

"Against Celsus" 2.27

Quote:

...After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.

Based on the EVIDENCE supplied by APOLOGETIC sources Marcion did NOT need gMark or the Pauline writings.

Marcion PREACHED ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

Marcion PREACHED DUALISM.

Marcion BLASPHEMED the God of the Jews.

MARCION DID NOT ALTER THE GOSPELS.

I DEAL with sources of Antiquity not with people's PERSONAL OPINION.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-21-2010, 01:04 PM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Couldn't "Paul" be the last to see and the first to write? That's what the Marcionites believed see Adamantius

11-21-2010, 01:30 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am having a crazy day but let me say this on my BlackBerry The Dialogues of Adamantius have the Marcionite say that none of the (other) disciples of Jesus wrote a gospel. In specific Matthew and John (which are out forward by the Catholics as apostolic witnesses) were not written by disciples. The basic idea is that Paul wrote a written gospel BEFORE Matthew and John were written. The Marcionite also denies that the Marcionite gospel was written by Peter. Instead it was properly called "the gospel of Christ" because Christ wrote it. I think that this sounds suspiciously similar to surviving Coptic polemics that the Gospel of Mark (which begins with "the gospel of [Jesus] Christ") was not written for Peter as the Catholics claim In any event Galatians seems to imply that the circle of Peter wrote a gospel which the Apostolikon claims was a rip off of the apostle's public gospel (1 Cor 2.1 - 2). I am not so sure. There are reasons for suspecting that Mark's gospels were developed as a correction of a Petrine original written before 70 CE. At least this is what a critical reading of the available evidence would suggest

11-21-2010, 07:58 PM	#26
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No I don't anything about contemporary Galilean customs. I don't think anyone does. My reasoning is based on the strange way that Mark and the Marcionite narrative goes out of its way to attack Peter for believing that Jesus was the Christ. It doesn't seem to me to be logical to go to such lengths to disprove Peter unless this was the established position associated with Peter and likely his gospel. Remember the Marcionites are said by Tertullian to interpret the Galatians letter as the apostle correcting Peter for corrupting and Judaizing 'the gospel' - i.e. the heavenly revelation which came from Jesus. That's the Marcionite understanding of the trip to Jerusalem. This sounds strangely reminiscent to me of Theodore Weeden's work on the gospel of Mark where he says that Mark seems to have hostility to the Jerusalem Church headed by Peter. Just a note. The real kicker for me is the repeated intimation in Tertullian that the Marcionite version of Mark 13.9 had slightly different punctuation. I suspect the only way to make sense of Tertullian's accusation that the Marcionites have accepted Marcion as their Christ announced by Jesus is that they read Mark 13.9 as if Jesus was denying Peter's future claim that Jesus claimed to be the Christ: Many will come and say that I am the Christ and they will deceive many. Do not believe them. As a point of note "saying I am - The Christ' is added by eight MSS of Mark including Coptic, Armenian, Saxon, and four of the Itala. The point of course is that this seems to reinforce Jesus rebuke of Peter for calling him the Christ (something which Origen reads in the Marcionite manner). When you realize that the Marcionites were attacked for embracing Marcion (or at least Paul but look at the third citation) as the one who Jesus heralded (see also repeated mention that the Marcionites held Paul to be the Paraclete of Jesus cf. Hom. Luc Origen and the Acts of Archelaus) the Petrine claim ends up looking to have existed BEFORE the writing of the gospel as such the gospel was a Markan reaction against the original Petrine claim that Jesus was the Christ: The impudence, therefore, of Marcion's Christ will be evident, when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at all belong to him, since he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom these names do properly appertain [Tertullian AM 4.39] then those people will come, saying I am Christ. You, <Marcionites> will receive them: you have received one exactly like them. For this one too has come in his own name. What then of the fact that there is still to come the real owner of the names, the Christ and Jesus of the Creator? Shall you reject him? [ibid] No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. [5.1]

11-22-2010, 01:05 AM	#27
ph2ter Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 219	Thanks everybody for the reply's. I don't partake in aa5874's convictions. The Acts are not a kind of document on which I would base my position. I believe that the Marcionite understanding is much more closer to the original and the true beginnings of Christianity. I find very hard to reconcile Paul's mystic and somewhat ahistorical understanding with a plain historical narrative exposed in the Gospel of Mark. Paul paying no attention to the teachings and deeds of Jesus showed that they are probably only a byproduct of a teaching method, a milk for the babes.The epistles of Paul are much more in line with the allegorical understanding, they look like to be more in line with what the secret gospel probably was. It is reasonable to believe that Mark's gospel was a reaction to some already existent gospel (or only a preaching) of Peter. Mark then probably used this skeleton gospel to express his own ideas which were somehow revolutionary (but only as a preparation for his secret gospel revelations). Jesus in Paul's epistles is only a passive object who has nothing to say. But as a object Jesus serves a grandiose purpose for Paul. Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are so central in Paul's theology. Despite that I doubt that those concepts were his invention, rather they should be something which predates Paul and on which he built his building. If we look for a book which could illuminate our understanding of Peter's preaching, maybe it is the known Gospel of Peter. This book deals only with the passion narrative, and maybe this represents the basis of Peter's preaching and subsequently basis for the public version of Mark's gospel. Paul really speaks about himself almost like he is the Christ which is in line with Stephan's reasoning.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.