Julio

These interesting points, from a friend.

I believe there is nothing but supposition about Paul ever writing a Gospel.
On this I do not agree with Waite.
Not lets look at some facts; Paul uses the word preach no less than 20 times in his epistles, all of which is connected or inferring the gospel.
Not once did he ever hint he wrote a gospel.
Paul had no interest in Christ after the flesh or from a worldly point of view (2 Cor. 5:16) saying, "So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ this way, we do so no longer".
Paul's interest in the gospel was presenting the only Christ he knew, The Christ he personally experienced. "Christ in you, the hope of Glory." (See John 14:17)
So according to Paul's own statement he would not have been interested in compiling a gospel about the worldly activities of Jesus.
If Paul had compiled a gospel of the actives of Jesus, they would have been based upon hearsay as are the four Gospels, seeing Paul also was not an eyewitness to these events.
I conclude all concrete evidence points to the belief that Paul did not write a Gospel telling of the worldly events of Jesus, as these were not important to him.
How many times did Paul quote Jesus??????
There have been so many different controversial things written about Marcion and what he believed, I learned some time ago it was not worth my time to be tossed about with so many different views.
It is unfortunate that we have no first hand concrete information about some of the things Marcion believed and taught, therefore I'm in no position to comment on some of these discussions.
I believe Marcion was right concerning his most important teaching, that is the antithesis between the Gods.
It was this that triggered his controversy with Rome. Carroll

DCHindley

Andrew,

It turns out I already have Epiphanius' writings about Marcion, at least in translation, through Philip Amidon's The Panarion of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1990). I lucked out on that one: bought it as a remainder for $25 US, when they now sell used for at least $217 US.

I dread trying to pick through Tertullian's Against Marcion, which I have access to electronically (and in print) in English, and with luck I may be able to find a table somewhere that summarizes the individual differences he claims Marcion introduces into the "canonical" text. The Greek text is surely online somewhere.

Now that brings me to Adamantius. Where might he be available in English and/or Greek?

Thanks again!

DCH

DCHindley

Ahh, I guess I'd really need a copy of Adolf von Harnack's Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der Katholischen Kirche (1960 reprint of 1924 2nd edition). All the detail is in a 455 page appendix. Lovely.

Toto

Harmack seems to be online here and (with appendix) here, if you read German.

aa5874

But, the Pauline writers could NOT have had any personal experience with JESUS.

The claim of the Pauline writers are EQUIVALENT to some one claiming that they had personal experiences with PERSEUS, HERCULES, ZEUS or ACHILLES.

The Pauline writings experiences CANNOT even be verified even at the time of writing.


But, the Pauline readers or audience MUST have been aware of the Jesus story. The Pauline audience MUST have been AWARE of the activities of the Apostles in the Jesus stories.

It is not reasonable to expect that the Pauline writers could have introduce JESUS to his audience without them having NO IDEA about the origin, conception, birth, history, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

The Pauline story BEGINS AFTER the ascension of JESUS.

The Pauline writers heard from JESUS after he(Jesus) was ascended through the clouds.

1.The story from the Pauline writers BEGINS AFTER the ascension.

2.A Pauline writer claimed he DID NOT CONFER with FLESH and BLOOD but with JESUS who was RAISED from the dead.

3.The Pauline story is about the REVELATIONS from the ASCENDED JESUS.

4. The Pauline writers will QUOTE the information he received the ASCENDED JESUS.


FORTUNATELY We do have FIRST HAND information about Marcion and it comes from JUSTIN MARTYR.

Justin Martyr tells us about Marcion in "First Apology" XVI.

So, the first hand information about Marcion show that he did not even believe in the God of the Pauline writers.

A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Creator of heaven and Earth but Marcion, according to FIRST HAND information, DENIED that God of the JEWS was the Creator.

"First Apology" LVIII Based on Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Marcion, he DENIED that God of the Jews was the Creator and that he (Marcion) PREACHED about ANOTHER SON.

Fortunately we have FIRST HAND information from a contemporary of Marcion, Justin Martyr.

aa5874

But, this is COMPLETELY DENIED in "Against Marcion" by Tertullian. There was NO Gospel named "Gospel of Marcion".

"Against Marcion" 4.2 by Tertullian So the writer of "Against Marcion" has COMPLETELY DESTROYED and DISPELLED the notion that there was a Gospel called the Gospel of Marcion.

The NAME and PROFESSION of the author of the anonymous Gospel was MISSING.

andrewcriddle

Adamantius. Dialogue on the True Faith in God (or via: amazon.co.uk) translated by Robert Pretty.

Andrew Criddle

Julio

From my friend Carroll, on this topic [to whom I sent your reply for comment (he is a Marcionite)].
...
Hi Julio: Good morning as it is still morning here 10:30 AM our time.
I am rather amused at the comments...
Some thoughts and what I have observed about his posts:
If I understand what he wrote he seems to take the Gospel stories far ahead of Paul's writings that he indicates were not even written by Paul.
He also seems to support the myths in the gospels as if they were truth.
The gospels are contradictory on many things in their Jesus stories.
He seems to take the "Stories of Jesus, His origin, conception, birth, history, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus" as authentic.
I would like to ask him just which gospel story of these events does he accept and authentic, as they all are different and even contradictory.
Only a few examples of which I would like to ask him;
1. Was Mary Joseph's wife (Matthew) or were they espoused (Luke)?
2. Were they residents of Bethlehem (Matthew) or residents of Nazareth (Luke) ?
3. Was Joseph's father Jacob (Matthew) or was Joseph's father Heli (Luke)?
4. Did Joseph take Mary and Jesus south to Egypt (Matthew) or did they return to their home in Nazareth by way to Jerusalem (Luke) ?
5. Did Jesus say we are not to love our father and mother more than Him (Matthew) or did he actually say we had to hate them in order to be His disciple (Luke)
6. The resurrection stories in the canonical gospels are so filled with diversity is it any wonder that Mark and John chose to omit them altogether. So just which one does this 'veteran' accept as gospel truth and which does he ignore??
7. The author of Luke - Acts is the only one that states Jesus ascended into a cloud as an adult person . No such assertion is mentioned in Matthew, Mark (without the later addition from 16:9 to 20) or in John.
... he seems to either be unaware of the inconstantincy of these and other gospel stories, or chooses to ignore them.
He sounds to me like he has swallowed the Catholic myths by their writers and in the Bible, "hook line and sinker".
The virgin birth for one and no telling how many more myths about Jesus does he hold as truth.
He also has followed the Catholic version of Marcion and his teaching, believing what his enemies said about him.
Very few enemies deal fairly and honestly with those they are opposing.
He also seems to have doubts about the writings of Paul.
I would recommend he spend less time searching the opinions of commentators and more time actually in the Bible, actually seeing how the Catholic Bishops have corrupted it with myths and traditions.
Do some comparing of the various Bible stories and learn it is not the inerrant, infallible word of God.
One thing that is so often overlooked, commentators are just common taters and their views are no better than the rest of us 'taters'. Ha. Carroll

aa5874

But, in order to be a Marcionite did he not accept the information provided by Marcion's enemies hook, line and sinker? All the information about Marcion are from his enemies.

Now, I am not a Jesus believer or a Marcionite. I have accepted Tertullian's "Against Marcion" as FICTION or full of mistakes.
...
I don't know the information you sent to your friend but my position is that the Pauline writings are ALL AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and ALL AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr or ALL AFTER 150 CE.

That is completely false. I do not claim that the Jesus stories are true. They are truly FICTION or MYTHOLOGICAL.

Again, I consider the JESUS stories as authentic FICTION or MYTHOLOGY no different to Homer's Achilles, or the many MYTHOLOGICAL Gods of Antiquity.

This is my position.Before the Fall of the Temple, or BEFORE 70 CE, Jesus, the disciples and Paul are ALL 1ST century FICTITIOUS characters.

In order for your freind to be a Marcionite he/she MUST have taken some of the catholic myths about Marcion "hook, line and sinker.

The virgin birth of Jesus as described in the NT Canon is one of the many indications that JESUS was MYTHOLOGICAL.

Now, I do consider Tertullian's "Against Marcion" as fundamentally Fiction with respect to Marcion.

I have rejected the BAIT (hook, line and sinker) from the Church about Marcion when they have provided other apologetic sources that contradict Tertullian.

My position is that Marcion MOST likely did NOT have or see any Pauline writings. It would appear Marcion was already dead when "Paul" wrote his FICTION.

Your friend seems to have taken the catholic version of Paul HOOK, LINE and SINKER.

The catholic claimed Paul was alive and wrote before the Fall of the Temple.

I have REJECTED the BAIT (hook, line and sinker) from the catholic church about Paul.

The evidence even from apologetic sources show that Paul was NOT accounted for, and had no influence on the information about Jesus found in the Synoptics to the middle of the 2nd century.

But, your friend is a Marcionite. He/She must believe in the Phantom or ghost stories of Marcion hook, line and sinker.

Your friend may NOT understand the difference between the presentation of EVIDENCE and belief or theories based on the Evidence.

The Church writers and the authors of the NT presented their EVIDENCE about Jesus, the disciples and Paul and, AFTER reviewing the EVIDENCE, I BELIEVE or theorise that BEFORE the Fall of the Temple that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were fictitious 1st century characters AFTER seeing how the Church writers and NT authors have provided FICTION and MYTHS about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I have REJECTED the BAIT (hook, line and sinker) from the Church.

Julio

Hi, aa5874

Well, I agree with you to a point, but my friend gave up with these words:
"I will waste no more time dealing with a person who has such outrageous ideas. It appears he is too far out in left field to even see the ball. Carroll"