Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-19-2013, 12:11 PM

The more common way of referencing the writings is τὰ Κλημέντια γράμματα or simply τὰ Κλημέντια. The term is at least as old as the Chronicon Paschale http://books.google.com/books?id=MmE...%CE%B1&f=false λέγει δε περί τούτου Πέτρος ό άπόδτολος εις τα Κλημέντια

Duvduv · 03-19-2013, 02:50 PM

AA, let me add several more important things to your list.

8. There is NO evidence that any of the epistles were actually written to anyone.

9. There is NO evidence that any of the epistles was received by anyone.

10. There is NO evidence that any of the alleged Christian communities even existed at the time the epistles were allegedly written.

11. There is no evidence that the SET of epistles was ever "collected" from anywhere or that they had ever even been separated from each other at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

jakejonesiv · 03-19-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

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:

Hi Mary,

I am not making this up from scratch, as many people on list are. Pretty much everything I write is based on the scholarship of the Dutch Radicals. The dates in the OP are based on the consensus of Dutch Radical dating. Anyone who wants to do so can investigate this for themselves quite easily.

My position is quite simple; Marcion was not Paul, Paul was someone else, if he existed at all.

Marcion gathered a collection of Pauline epistles and wrote the first draft of Galatians as a cover for his collection, and came with them to Rome. The Marcionite recension of the epistles were more original than the catholic version we have today.

Please pay attention, so I do not have to repeat. I do not think that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles in his possesion from scratch (aside from Galatians). It is evident that his even version had been around awhile, because even it shows redactional seams. But I do think that Marcion's version was more original than the version we have today.

Think about it like this. The Gospel of Matthew is in reality a redaction of the Gospel of Mark. (It is a little more complicated than that, but I am keeping its simple). The great majority of Mark's text was retained, but Matthew added a whole lot of other stuff that changed Mark's message substantially! So the redaction was accomplished mainly by the addition of text to an existing document. That is just the way they did things in those days. I am proposing that the same thing happened with Marcion's version of the Pauline epistles.

Marcion had the first canon of New Testament scriptures, ten Pauline epistles and a gospel which was a substratum of Luke. The NT canon we have today developed in opposition to Marion's canon. And I think Polycarp himself had a hand in doing it.

Jake

Iskander · 03-19-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, let me add several more important things to your list.

8. There is NO evidence that any of the epistles were actually written to anyone.

9. There is NO evidence that any of the epistles was received by anyone.

10. There is NO evidence that any of the alleged Christian communities even existed at the time the epistles were allegedly written.

11. There is no evidence that the SET of epistles was ever "collected" from anywhere or that they had ever even been separated from each other at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

Fr.Brodie has published a book in which he says that Jesus and Paul are only literary fiction.
Fr, Thomas L. Brodie was until very recently the director of a Catholic Biblical Research Centre in Limerick, Ireland and for over 40 years involved in teaching the subject , he has written many books and so forth

It surprises me to see people in this forum trying to impose their incoherent inventions on others and justifying their insulting bad manners on the grounds of a superior intelligence, knowledge of ancient Greek tales and familiarity with dejected patristic literature,

jakejonesiv · 03-19-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the GHOST.
Whatt??? How could Jesus BE a ghost and give up the GHOST. The cross would be empty and there would be no body to take to the tomb.

Coincidentally, Jesus ben Ananias also gives up the ghost following interrogation by first the jewish authorities, second the Roman Governor, including a flogging, etc etc:

!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

6.5.3 Jewish Wars

That is a very good point.

Jake

stephan huller · 03-19-2013, 03:12 PM

Of course I would be expecting to much to have anyone comment on the idea that 'Marcion' might have been a caricature developed from the parallel term 'Clemention.' We just continue to regurgitate the same information as given to us by the clueless Church Fathers. Maybe we should discuss Marcion's historical 'deflowering of a virgin.' Maybe we could develop it into a Showtime movie.

jakejonesiv · 03-19-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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?

Effectively, there is a BIG BLACK HOLE of at least 150 years c 30 -180 CE for the Pauline writings...

What???

You are now proposing a big black hole of over 320 years where you do not know what happened! See, this is what you get when you start making stuff up off the cuff.

Is there anything you can add to that? Would you like to go for 500 years where you don't know what happened?

Jake

jakejonesiv · 03-19-2013, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Of course I would be expecting to much to have anyone comment on the idea that 'Marcion' might have been a caricature developed from the parallel term 'Clemention.' We just continue to regurgitate the same information as given to us by the clueless Church Fathers. Maybe we should discuss Marcion's historical 'deflowering of a virgin.' Maybe we could develop it into a Showtime movie.

Stephan,

I asked for alternative views and you provided one. Thanks.

Jake

stephan huller · 03-19-2013, 03:35 PM

but it's no longer your thread. once some establishes a thread it becomes the property so to speak of everyone that participates here. it's not like i am the guy in the mailroom bringing up a plan for greater office efficiency to the CEO. we're all equals here and I think I've finally got the right answer

Duvduv · 03-19-2013, 03:37 PM

Except, Jake, that there is not a SHRED of evidence of any texts used or written by a fellow named Marcion OR his followers other than in the speculative gymnastics of some people based on biased Church writers.
There is not a SHRED of evidence that the current NT is a response to a Marcion canon. So why do people continue pushing it?

And what EVIDENCE is there of texts used by Marcion considering the fact that conventional wisdom tells us that one Justin Martyr lived in the SAME TOWN AND TIME as Marcion but says NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, about any texts of Marcion, including anything called a Marcionite gospel or epistles of anyone including someone named Paul??????????

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

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:

Hi Mary,

I am not making this up from scratch, as many people on list are. Pretty much everything I write is based on the scholarship of the Dutch Radicals. The dates in the OP are based on the consensus of Dutch Radical dating. Anyone who wants to do so can investigate this for themselves quite easily.

My position is quite simple; Marcion was not Paul, Paul was someone else, if he existed at all.

Marcion gathered a collection of Pauline epistles and wrote the first draft of Galatians as a cover for his collection, and came with them to Rome. The Marcionite recension of the epistles were more original than the catholic version we have today.

Please pay attention, so I do not have to repeat. I do not think that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles in his possesion from scratch (aside from Galatians). It is evident that his even version had been around awhile, because even it shows redactional seams. But I do think that Marcion's version was more original than the version we have today.

Think about it like this. The Gospel of Matthew is in reality a redaction of the Gospel of Mark. (It is a little more complicated than that, but I am keeping its simple). The great majority of Mark's text was retained, but Matthew added a whole lot of other stuff that changed Mark's message substantially! So the redaction was accomplished mainly by the addition of text to an existing document. That is just the way they did things in those days. I am proposing that the same thing happened with Marcion's version of the Pauline epistles.

Marcion had the first canon of New Testament scriptures, ten Pauline epistles and a gospel which was a substratum of Luke. The NT canon we have today developed in opposition to Marion's canon. And I think Polycarp himself had a hand in doing it.

Jake

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

03-19-2013, 12:11 PM	#551
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The more common way of referencing the writings is τὰ Κλημέντια γράμματα or simply τὰ Κλημέντια. The term is at least as old as the Chronicon Paschale http://books.google.com/books?id=MmE...%CE%B1&f=false λέγει δε περί τούτου Πέτρος ό άπόδτολος εις τα Κλημέντια

03-19-2013, 03:12 PM	#556
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Of course I would be expecting to much to have anyone comment on the idea that 'Marcion' might have been a caricature developed from the parallel term 'Clemention.' We just continue to regurgitate the same information as given to us by the clueless Church Fathers. Maybe we should discuss Marcion's historical 'deflowering of a virgin.' Maybe we could develop it into a Showtime movie.

03-19-2013, 03:35 PM	#559
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	but it's no longer your thread. once some establishes a thread it becomes the property so to speak of everyone that participates here. it's not like i am the guy in the mailroom bringing up a plan for greater office efficiency to the CEO. we're all equals here and I think I've finally got the right answer

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.