jakejonesiv

You are just like everybody else.

jakejonesiv

The trial of Paul in front of Gallio (Acts 18:12-17) is pure fiction. The pejorative use of “the Jews” as the evil opponents of Paul (and hence Christianity) is the usual anti-Semitism shown throughout Acts, i.e. 9:23; 12:3; 13:45,50; 14:4.

It is not credible to believe that the Jews rose up together in concerted action and seized Paul and brought him in front of a Roman proconsul with the charge "this man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the [Jewish] law"??? That is ludicrous. It is a made up story with the sole purpose Gallio’s rebuke. It is really the Jews that the author of Acts had put on trial, not Paul.

Since the story is a piece of religious propaganda, there is no basis to assume that it really happened, and has no value for confirming Paul’s presence in Corinth at that time. Indeed, it has no value in dating Paul’s existence.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

The existence of Paul is no guarantee that he wrote letters to Churches.

Just as the "TF" was was not written by Josephus who was supposedly a contemporary of Saul/Paul.

And the same applies to Marcion.

In any event, we have recovered dated manuscripts of the Pauline letters which have been dated as late as 250 CE which is well after Marcion was dead.

P 45 is also after the time of Marcion.

jakejonesiv

For reference, here is a link to Adolf von Harnack's discussion of Marcion's Antithesis.

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings were composed before c 62 CE is extremely weak and is merely a long held presumption without any actual support in the Canon itself.

Once Acts of the Apostles is examined it is seen that there was no requirement for Saul/Paul to write letters to Churches.

In Acts, Saul/Paul was operating under the authority of the Jerusalem Church and it was the Jerusalem Church that wrote letters addressing doctrinal issues and gave them to the Pauline group.

Based on Acts, all the Pauline letters are forgeries if it is claimed they were written before c 62 CE.

Saul/Paul wrote NO letters to Churches in the Entire Acts of the Apostles up to at least c 62 CE.

The long held presumption that the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE has no basis and should be discontinued on BC&H because such a presumption is not even in the Canon.

tanya

Thank you Jake, interesting link.

How do you explain the supposed Marcionist, Megethius, debating with Adamantius, the fifth century Jewish physician, who had apparently embraced Christianity? Do you suggest that Marcionism, as defined by third century apostate Tertullian, was alive and flourishing in Constantinople in the fifth century, even as followers of Mani had been slaughtered right and left?

Which of these two religious sects, as you understand them, Jake, posed a greater threat to orthodox catholicism: Manichaeism, or Marcionism? Do we today, possess manuscript evidence supporting the notion that Mani had written something so negative about Christians or Jews, that their physical removal from planet earth had been seen as the only reasonable course of action? Did Manichaeism, in the fourth century, at its apogee, threaten the physical well being of adherents of other religious convictions?

Marcionism, is to my very limited grasp of understanding, clearly heretical, in the Jewish sense, and represents a betrayal, treated, typically, by stoning, or beheading. I think the Christians absorbed that aspect of Judaism (as did the Muslims, obviously), but I doubt that Mani's adherents adopted such a posture, so antithetical to their respect for Buddhism.

I would propose an entirely different explanation for this text, at your link. I guess it is a complete hoax, a fabrication, based upon a need to justify the political suppression and consolidation. I cannot imagine that the very center of the Roman empire, degraded though it surely was, at that point in time, would nevertheless permit open collection of revenues aimed at building an infrastructure to support Marcionism.

Were they really so oblivious? I doubt it. Christianity had been proclaimed the state religion. Why would the rulers tolerate growth of a sect so obviously heretical?

Duvduv

From an examination of what is described for the life of "Tertullian," virtually nothing is known apart from some anecdotes of Church writers. So it's really a problem to rely on the claims of the writer under the name of Tertullian regarding a book allegedly written by Marcion or anyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
Scant reliable evidence exists to inform us about Tertullian's life. Most history about him comes from passing references in his own writings.

According to church tradition, he was raised in Carthage[7] and was thought to be the son of a Roman centurion, a trained lawyer, and an ordained priest.

These assertions rely on the accounts of Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, II, ii. 4, and Jerome's De viris illustribus (On famous men) chapter 53.[8] Jerome claimed that Tertullian's father held the position of 'centurio proconsularis' ("aide-de-camp") in the Roman army in Africa.[9] However, it is unclear whether any such position in the Roman military ever existed.[10]

aa5874

I have already pointed out that writings such as "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was unknown even among Church writers for hundreds of years after "Against Marcion" was supposedly composed.

In Church History attributed to Eusebius "Against Marcion" supposedly by Tertullian was completely unknown.

At the end of the 4th century, Jerome in "De Viris Illustribus" again fail to list "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

In fact, Jerome claimed that Tertullian wrote AGAINST the Church.

This is extremely significant--Tertullian was known to have written AGAINST the Church.


De Viris Illutribus 24De Viris Illustribus 40De Viris Illustribus 53 "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian was most likely invented sometime AFTER Jerome's De Viris Illustribus" or after at least the end of the 4th century.

Duvduv

IF there was no Tertullian in the second century, and there is no external evidence for his existence, or of that of Marcion, how do secular scholars adhere so strongly to the claims of the church spokesman and official church dogma about historical figures and events?

aa5874

Tertullian could have existed in the 2nd century but did NOT write "Against Marcion" just like Constantine the Emperor existed in the 4th century but did NOT write the "Donation of Constantine".

See the False Decretals.