FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2013, 11:01 PM   #541
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
There's another interpretation that the centurion said "a" son of god, not "the" son of God. Apparently the Greek could be interpreted either way.

He does not call Jesus Messiah or Christ, which would remove any doubt.

Perhaps the author wanted the reader to speculate on whether the centurion was unimpressed, impressed, or converted.
The author of gMark claimed his Jesus was the Son of the Blessed when he was on trial before the Sanhedrin.

Mark 14
Quote:
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am. and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith , What need we any further witnesses?

64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
The Jesus of the gMark Myth Fable was the Son of God and was found guilty of death for BLASPHEMY.

In Jewish Laws claiming to be a God is Blasphemy.
Are the terms equivalent or were there two questions? If two, which was he answering?
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 03-18-2013, 11:30 PM   #542
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Are the terms equivalent or were there two questions? If two, which was he answering?
Jesus answered the question in the affirmative and was immediately accused of Blasphemy.

gMark's Jesus was the Christ--the Son of the Blessed.

Mark 14
Quote:
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Leviticus 24:16 KJV
Quote:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death , and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death .
The Temple of the Jewish God was made Desolate because the Jews Killed the Son of the Benefactor.

Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews
Quote:
7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? ............. it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor...
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 02:43 AM   #543
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

My argument is that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER 180 CE or After "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and BEFORE c 350 CE or Before "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor.
Dear aa,

Thanks for the information.

You have a gaping hole of over 170 years where you have no idea what happened, at the end of which the Pauline Epistles appeared ca. 350 CE.

:huh:

Is there anything you can add to that?
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 02:57 AM   #544
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
1) What dating are you using for Paul? There are no firm dating anchors for the career of the alleged historical Paul. He first appears in the hands of the heretics in the second century ce. See the OP
2) Do you find the Paul=Marcion theory credible? Phrased as a simple equivalency, no.
So Mary, I now have a question for you. Who had the first collection of Pauline epistles from your point of view? Do not be shy!
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 03:11 AM   #545
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
1) What dating are you using for Paul? There are no firm dating anchors for the career of the alleged historical Paul. He first appears in the hands of the heretics in the second century ce. See the OP
2) Do you find the Paul=Marcion theory credible? Phrased as a simple equivalency, no.
So Mary, I now have a question for you. Who had the first collection of Pauline epistles from your point of view? Do not be shy!


Nice way out of that equation......not a simple equation but a complex equation - is that the way you want to go. Fancy footwork.......??

As to my view on who had the first collection of the Pauline epistles - I'll think about it.....right now I'm online watch the fancy dress parade of old men shuffling about.........
maryhelena is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 05:46 AM   #546
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
1) What dating are you using for Paul? There are no firm dating anchors for the career of the alleged historical Paul. He first appears in the hands of the heretics in the second century ce. See the OP
The OP states: Dating Paul

Quote:

Quote:
BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
The evidence for this dating is?

Quote:


2) Do you find the Paul=Marcion theory credible? Phrased as a simple equivalency, no.
How about a straight answer to the equation presented as Paul=Marcion. Please don't sidestep this question with "equivalency". A straight answer would be appreciated.

Quote:
So Mary, I now have a question for you. Who had the first collection of Pauline epistles from your point of view? Do not be shy!
I'm not shy about presenting ideas.... Jake, you need to answer my questions without throwing the ball in my court. This is your thread: Dating Paul. So, do it - date Paul - or admit that you can't date Paul without making some linkage with Marcion. If that is so - then you need to explain what that linkage between Paul and Marcion is in your theory. That's the first step is it not? Why seek to sidestep this first step by asking questions about who had the first collection of the Pauline epistles - when you have not dated Paul....:huh:

What is the point of asking for the theories of other people - when you are not prepared to state your own theory. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....:wave:
maryhelena is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 06:04 AM   #547
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Jesus answered the question in the affirmative and was immediately accused of Blasphemy.

Mark 14
Quote:
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
Leviticus 24:16 KJV
Quote:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death , and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death .
Leviticus 24:16 LXX doesn’t say anything about Blasphemy.
Bingo the Clown-O is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 06:25 AM   #548
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O View Post
Leviticus 24:16 LXX doesn’t say anything about Blasphemy.
You did not say anything about Leviticus 24.16 KJV or you did NOT see Leviticus 24.16 KJV

Leviticus 24:16 KJV
Quote:
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death , and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death .
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 07:06 AM   #549
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

My primary objective is to show that:

1. There is NO claim in the NT itself that the Pauline letters were composed Before the death of Nero.

2. There is ZERO corroboration by Non-Pauline writers in the NT itself for the Presumption that the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero.

3. The supposed contemporaries of the Pauline writer, the author of Acts and Clement, did NOT claim the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero.

4. No Pauline letters have been recovered and dated to the time of Nero.

5. Up to c 160 CE, a Non Apologetic writer wrote Nothing about Paul but wrote about the Jesus story.

6. Up to c 180 CE, Apologetic writers, were NOT aware of and NOT influenced by the Pauline letters.

7. Supposed early Apologetic sources up to c 180 CE that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters are NOT credible.

Effectively, there is a BIG BLACK HOLE of at least 150 years c 30 -180 CE for the Pauline writings and all the Pauline letters are products of fraud, forgeries or manipulation AFTER c 180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-19-2013, 10:03 AM   #550
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Well here's the breakthrough I think that will help explain the name Marcion. I've been working at this for over twenty years (since I was at York University and I asked my professor of Aramaic studies how to explain the name - he suggested the idea of a Greek diminutive). While it is interesting to follow the idea in Ephrem of some sort of a relationship between Marcion and the Semitic root mrq, this may well be one of Ephrem's typical attempts at faux etymologies. The problem is the 'ion' suffix - it can only be Greek. But the other idea I have pursuing - viz. the idea that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite NT) has some new legs given the number of appearances of the term Κλήμεντίων to describe the collection of writings ascribed to Clement. I noticed it appears in this critical edition of what is commonly called the Pseudo-Clementine writings. Apparently one manuscript refers to the body of writings as the Κλήμεντίων (MS Regio 940).

http://books.google.com/books?id=KLf...%CE%BD&f=false

This would strengthen and perhaps ultimately prove that the references to Μαρκίων 'cutting' and 'self-castrating,' to him 'erasing' passages from the NT, to 'his' gospel and the like go back to Μαρκίων relative to Mark being the equivalent of Κλήμεντίων to Clement, Ὅμηρείων to Homer etc.

Yes, I finally have something to write about Marcion. Here is another manuscript (or perhaps it is the same) showing clearly that Κλήμεντίων is the equivalent of the Latin 'ex clementinis':

http://books.google.com/books?id=cqU...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

More:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNY...%CE%BD&f=false

I don't know the dating of this one but it refers to τῶν Κλήμεντίων συγγραφές:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8IQ...%CE%BD&f=false

There we go. This is the most viable explanation to the sudden appearance of 'Marcion' in whatever year it was under Antoninus Pius. If you look at the same section of text in Against Marcion Book One of Tertullian you will see that the statement is made twice - once about the writings associated with 'Marcion' (= the gospel in particular) and then about 'Marcion' himself. The reason why this manifests itself in this way - and why there is such confusion in general about the dating of 'Marcion' is because the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων which were probably opposed by Justin. Justin is the first to make reference to 'Marcion' and Justin also happens to deny (or does not make reference to) the Pauline writings. The short (= 'mutilated') gospel and letters of Paul = Μαρκίων. Justin only knew the gospel, hence there is no 'collection', there is no collective form 'of Mark.' He demonized them.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.