Duvduv

Supposedly Marcion and Justin lived in the same city in the same period.
Supposedly Marcion had some Paul epistles and a "gospel."
"Justin" mentions neither in relation to Marcion nor anything about a Marcionite community or texts.
Then presto 30 years later "Irenaeus" (about whom even the church apologists know almost nothing) knows all about the four gospels and all the epistles.
And the only "corroboration" is from the self-same biased church spokesmen and apologists. And everybody is supposed to accept it.

stephan huller

Esatto! It is amazing how we become 'locked into' the idea that 'Paul' was 'Paul' when even in the Catholic fairy tale he had another name. Like the guy whose been married to the prostitute so long he forgets her former occupation.



Sonia Braga in this movie encouraged me to visit Rio. But anyway back to the point of the discussion. Peter and Paul both have different names. What are the odds of that? It's like two best friends who are both identical twins with different brothers. Very, very odd.

And then if you throw in the 'bad Simon' of the Pseudo-Clementines who sounds very much like Paul the situation gets even weirder. Simon and Simon, one of whom is Peter the other is really Saul who is Paul. How do we reconcile this mess? My instincts tell me that there was only one Simon and all the rest is a smokescreen. 1 Peter is Pauline too.

aa5874

Your Instincts talk to you??? Instincts resolve Nothing without evidence.

Christians may have more Instincts than you.

There is NO mess.

Forget about your instincts and deal with the Hundreds of manuscripts that show clearly that the Apostle Peter and Paul had NO real existence before c 70 CE or later.

1. When Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was walking on the sea did he not save Peter from drowning?? See Matthew 14

2. When Jesus, the Son of the Ghost, transfigured wasn't Peter there?? Mark 9

3. When Jesus, the Son of the Ghost, resurrected wasn't Peter one of those who saw him?? Acts 1

4. When Jesus, God the Creator, was cooking and eating Fish after the resurrection wasn't Peter at the cook-up--See John 21

4. When Jesus the Son of the Ghost, ascended wasn't Peter present?? See Luke 24

The Apostles Peter was a not only a witness to events that did NOT happen but the Apostle Peter participated in events that NEVER EVER happened.

Peter was a fiction character in the Myth Fables called Gospels and other books of the Canon.

Now, we can rather easily deduce that Paul is another fiction character in the compilation of Myth Fables in the Canon.

Examine Galatians 1.18 How in the world could Paul stay 15 days with a fiction character called Peter??

There was NO Jesus and No disciples and NO Paul.

Paul is a Mess--a MESSY FRAUD.

jakejonesiv

Yes, there is another Trinity.
The heretic Simon der Magier
The heterodox Paul with his temperate Simonianism.
The orthodox Simon Peter

Theologen, die mit der Trinitätslehre vertraut sind, sollten sich auch auf diese Trintität verstehen.
Aus drei mach eins,
das ist das
Hexen-Einmaleins! (Frei nach Goethe's Faust)

Wer es fassen kann, der fasse es.

Best Regards,
Jake

Sheshbazzar

Interesting. I prefer one encompassing word for them all; Horseshit.

('cept for the christer crap, that is distictively 'Horse' shit.)

jakejonesiv

Whatt?? You say that Jesus was the Son of the Ghost according to gMark? The GHOST is in Matthew and Luke, not MARK.
You do not know what you are writing.

Duvduv

There is also no evidence that the texts of the official Christian religion had individual gospels. The gospels were always presented as a set of four.

Toto

That's true only if you confine "official" to the proto-orthodox following Irenaeus. Marcion had only one gospel. I think some of the other heretics were reputed to follow one gospel - John. Justin Martyr seems to be quoting from a single gospel, although we can't identify it.

It's not like Paul's letters, which are always part of a group.

Duvduv

The Justin texts are of little corroborative benefit, and yes, I was referring to official Christianity. There is no evidence that they developed with anything other than a set of four despite the contradictions among them.
All the claims otherwise are pure speculation dressed as fact.
The four most likely served to appeal to four different audiences simultaneously.
The claims concerning the heretics always revolve around these four. There were never others such as the life of Jesus according to the Gospel of Anthony or of Edward etc. Nor is there any evidence that a set of gospels accepted was less or more than four.

aa5874

What????

gMark's Jesus was a GHOST !!!!!

Surely you must understand that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke USED gMark and claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost because gMark's Jesus had the "Anatomy" and "Specific Gravity" of a Ghost.

Effectively, the authors of gMatthew and gLuke Provided the conception and Birth of the gMark Jesus.

The Anatomy and Specific Gavity of a human being does NOT allow for sea-water walking, the transfiguration and the resurrection in gMark.

Mark 62. Mark 9:2 KJV3. Mark 16:6 KJV In gMark Jesus was a Ghost. He walked on sea water, transfigured and after burial he vanished.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke USED the gMark STORY OF JESUS and claimed gMark's Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Behold the Markan Ghost--Jesus of Nazareth