FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection (What Really Happened)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 48 of 53 « First 384647 48 4950 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-23-2009, 11:58 AM   #471
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Maybe the dissembled Paul and the dissembled Marcion are actually the wretched dissembling and promoted Eusebius.
Anything's possible. It's possible my own large intestine will leap up my throat and throttle my brain--and only slightly less probable than your fantasy.
J-D is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 12:48 PM   #472
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So in your opinion, which came first? the chicken? or the egg?
You have to tell aa___ first which YOU think it is. Then he will disagree with you, and then tell you that not only was there no chicken, but there was no egg, and the person who was claiming either was a fraud and a liar. And not only was that person a fraud and a liar, but he didn't even exist. Unless you were arguing that he didn't exist, of course. In which case he will tell you that you have no evidence for your position. Then mountainman will weigh in and tell us that there were no references to a chicken and an egg until Consantine, and the whole thing was made up by Eusebius anyway. (Why isn't there an icon of someone shooting themselves in the head?)
:notworthy::notworthy:
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 01:12 PM   #473
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
If I tell aa he's right about all this, likely he will begin to argue that I'm wrong about that
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 02:02 PM   #474
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

The Church Fathers provided bogus information about Paul. They UNANIMOUSLY appear not to know what Paul wrote, when he wrote and how many persons used the name Paul.

Now, look at Tertullian in "Against Marcion", he appear not to have any writings from Marcion. What he said was from Marcion was actually ANONIMOUS, no author was affixed to the writing.

This is a writer called Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.2
Quote:
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his GOSPEL, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.
Your source condemns himself. He does not know what Paul wrote, when Paul wrote, or how many persons used the name Paul and now he uses an ANONIMOUS writing and claimed it was written by Marcion.
This is a pregnant example of your lack of comprehension, and abusing of the texts.
The 'source' here (Tertullian), wrote NOTHING at all here about 'Paul'.
He is however writing about the GOSPEL which Marcion employed, an anonymous GOSPEL that consisted of a short version of Luke,
There was no 'Paul' to be found anywhere in it. Marcion does not take any credit for being its author, nor is Tertullian giving him that credit.
In this instance, contrary to your misunderstanding, Tertullian was not even discussing 'Paul' or any 'Pauline' writing.
A Mack truck could be driven through the holes in your credibility.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 02:07 PM   #475
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
It appears that 'Paul' had already been thoroughly co-opted by Marcion's Christianity, well before the 'orthodox' (as represented by Justin) even began to 'get their act together'_ 'Paul' and his writings were already Marcion's creature.
To employ the Paul, and Pauline Epistles that Marcion used would have been giving quarter to Marcion's teachings.
Simon Magnus was ancient history, and by that time no threat at all to the orthodox or to Justin, Marcion was not employing 'Simon Magnus' like he did 'Paul', so there were no reasons to so studiously ignore stories about this character.

In this case it proves nothing at all to quote from any 2nd century onward 'versions' of Paul's writings, as the very premise being presented is that the orthodox Church took over these texts from Marcion, and altered and extensively interpolated these Marcionite Pauline writings to make them reflect and support popular (required) orthodox positions and theology.
We do not -have- the same Pauline writings that were employed by Marcion, only a few shreds tied together with reams of latter orthodox interpolated material.
Justin could not admit to, nor use Marcion's 'Paul' materials until they were 'cleaned up' and made fit for orthodox palates.
That explains why the Church was so vehement about the destroying of every vestige of Marcion's actual texts.
Justin did not quote Paul as such, it is less clear whether or not his work contains Pauline allusions. see my post Paul and Justin

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 02:46 PM   #476
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
It appears that 'Paul' had already been thoroughly co-opted by Marcion's Christianity, well before the 'orthodox' (as represented by Justin) even began to 'get their act together'_ 'Paul' and his writings were already Marcion's creature.
To employ the Paul, and Pauline Epistles that Marcion used would have been giving quarter to Marcion's teachings.
Simon Magnus was ancient history, and by that time no threat at all to the orthodox or to Justin, Marcion was not employing 'Simon Magnus' like he did 'Paul', so there were no reasons to so studiously ignore stories about this character.

In this case it proves nothing at all to quote from any 2nd century onward 'versions' of Paul's writings, as the very premise being presented is that the orthodox Church took over these texts from Marcion, and altered and extensively interpolated these Marcionite Pauline writings to make them reflect and support popular (required) orthodox positions and theology.
We do not -have- the same Pauline writings that were employed by Marcion, only a few shreds tied together with reams of latter orthodox interpolated material.
Justin could not admit to, nor use Marcion's 'Paul' materials until they were 'cleaned up' and made fit for orthodox palates.
That explains why the Church was so vehement about the destroying of every vestige of Marcion's actual texts.
Justin did not quote Paul as such, it is less clear whether or not his work contains Pauline allusions. see my post Paul and Justin

Andrew Criddle
Obviously, Paul had much better theology. I do not see where it would be unlikely that some of those ideas would start making their way into the theology of his adversaries. In other words, the recasting of Paul does not necessarily need to be an evil conspiracy. It may have simply happened over the period of a few decades in the second century.
dog-on is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 04:27 PM   #477
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So, as you reject the writings of all of the Early Church Fathers except for your idol Justin Martyr, And HE wrote that Marcion "......who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies,...... All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians;"
Where did I idolised Justin Martyr.

You have accused your own bogus sources of fraud or interpolation yet you want me to accept whatever they write about Marcion and Paul.

I will do no such thing.

Thi is what you wrote about the Church regarding the Pauline Epistles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
..... [b]the recognized spurious ones were generated by, or heavily interpolated by, the latter Church to counter or to modify teachings originating with Marcion or with his version of Paul.
Why did not your sources admit that the information about Paul was bogus, that Paul did not write Timothy, Titus and Philemon?

Please tell me where did your source get the information about Paul from? They did not get it from Justin Matyr and what they got was bogus.

Where did your sources get their information about Acts of the Apostles from? They did not get it from Justin and Acts of the Apostles is filled with fiction where Paul was converted by MAGIC or BY A BRIGHT LIGHT that blinded him to reality.

Your bogus sources presented fiction with respect to Paul and claimed Acts of the Apostles was authentic and was probably written when Paul was imprisonned.

Acts of the Apostles appears to have been written long after your bogus sources claimed Paul died.

Justin did not write a word about Paul or his MAGICAL conversion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
Others latter wrote more about Marcion, but Justin, whom you trust, wrote about him first. No?

So this gives us a few questions;
1. Do you accept Justin's account that Marcion was alive, that is to say, a real person, living in Justin's time?

2. Do you accept Justin's statement that Marcion was; teaching his disciples?

3. Do you accept Justin's statement that Marcion; "caused many of every nation to speak blasphemie" ?

4. Do you accept Justin's statement that; "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians;" ?
I accept Justin Martyr as a far more credible source than your sources since it can be shown with ease that your sources provided bogus information about Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
By Justin's own testimony they were "called Christians", (he may not have liked it, but had to admit to the fact) and to the rest of the world they were also known as, and recognised as, being "Christians".
But did your bogus sources ever admit that Marcion was a christian? Or did they call him an anti-christ?

Justin Martyr was probably the first writer to admit that there were Christians since the time of Claudius who did not believe in or followed any character called Jesus. Almost all of Samaria were Christians who believed in and followed Simon Magus the magician, the Holy One.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
At this point, one might wonder what the contents of this "Christian" doctrine Marcion and his disciples were preaching might consist of?
What Justin Martyr wrote about Marcion has been corroborated, but what your bogus sources wrote about Paul has been found to be false.

Your sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke and refered to gLuke as his own gospel, but it has been deduced that gLuke was written long after your sources climed Paul had died.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
You reject -everything- that -all- of the other Church Fathers ever wrote on this subject, as they took on the task of refuting these well known and widely spread 'heresies' one by one, pointing out where, how, and why Marcion had 'cut out' and 'altered' the NT texts.
Where did I write that I have rejected everything from the Church Fathers?

I did no such thing. Please read my post carefully.

Scholars have REJECTED the Church writers information on authorship and chronology of the NT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
But you don't accept it. (But then, neither do I, in believing that they were the ones that 'edited', corrupted, and added to these writings)
Now isn't this a bit disingenous? You really don't trust your own bogus sources. You think they are fraudsters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
What then, in your learned opinion, was it that Marcion was preaching, that was being so readily identified with, and as being 'Christian' doctrine?
The Early Church tells us much of his peculiar theology as contained within his 'Evangelicon', 'Apostolikon' and 'Antitheses'.
I have already shown where Tertullian claimed that the document supposedly from Marcion really was ANONYMOUS.

"Against Marcion"
Quote:
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his GOSPEL....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar
What can you tell us of the contents Marcion's well known and widely spread 'Christian doctrines' that were so upsetting to Justin, and to the Roman Church?
Justin will answer you himself.

First Apology 58
Quote:
...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son..
1.Marcion does not need the Pauline Epistles to DENY that God is the Maker of all things in heaven and on earth.

2. Marcion does not need the Pauline Epistles to DENY that Jesus is not the Son predicted by the prophets.

Your sources produce fiction.

They attempted to historicise Paul by claiming he wrote Epistlles even before Marcion was born but it has now been deduced that perhaps Marcion himself was already dead before some of the very Epistles were ever written.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 05:27 PM   #478
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

The Church Fathers provided bogus information about Paul. They UNANIMOUSLY appear not to know what Paul wrote, when he wrote and how many persons used the name Paul.

Now, look at Tertullian in "Against Marcion", he appear not to have any writings from Marcion. What he said was from Marcion was actually ANONIMOUS, no author was affixed to the writing.

This is a writer called Tertullian in Against Marcion 4.2

Your source condemns himself. He does not know what Paul wrote, when Paul wrote, or how many persons used the name Paul and now he uses an ANONIMOUS writing and claimed it was written by Marcion.
This is a pregnant example of your lack of comprehension, and abusing of the texts.
The 'source' here (Tertullian), wrote NOTHING at all here about 'Paul'.
He is however writing about the GOSPEL which Marcion employed, an anonymous GOSPEL that consisted of a short version of Luke,
There was no 'Paul' to be found anywhere in it. Marcion does not take any credit for being its author, nor is Tertullian giving him that credit.
In this instance, contrary to your misunderstanding, Tertullian was not even discussing 'Paul' or any 'Pauline' writing.
A Mack truck could be driven through the holes in your credibility.
Drive your Mack truck through this.

This is "Against Marcion 5.21" by some writer USING the name Tertullian.

Quote:
..To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline. His aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of (St. Paul's) epistles.....
Your BOGUS sources did not know what Paul wrote, when he wrote and how many persons used the name Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 05:40 PM   #479
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default
I do not know if I would call Paul's theology "better" than Justin's. It is certainly different from it.

My understanding is that 2nd century Christian theology was not dependent upon Pauline theology, although certainly influenced by it. Bt Justin's time, Christianity was being marketed as a personal philosophy akin to philosophies such as those based on Plato, the Stoa, etc.

Albert Schweitzer comments:
From Paulinism, again, there are no visible lines of connexion leading to early Greek theology. Ignatius and Justin do not take over his ideas, but create, in their turn, something new. Paul & His Interpreters, preface
and again ...
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 1 Clement, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the writings of Ignatius, in the works of Justin, expressions occur which show acquaintance with the Epistles of Paul, and may have [081] been influenced by him in respect to their wording; but beyond that they show no trace of his conceptions or his spirit.

The remarkable point, therefore, is that the post-Apostolic writers, though they are acquainted with the works of the Apostle of the Gentiles, make no real use of them. His ideas remain foreign, lifeless, so far as they are concerned.

That is also shown by the fact that early Greek Church-theology is quite independent of him. It is concerned with the incarnation and resurrection of Christ and with regeneration; Paul's speculations deal with the death and resurrection of the Lord, and he never speaks of regeneration. The underlying logic is in the two cases so different that the representatives of Greek theology, even if they wished to do so, could not appeal to the Apostle. No community of thought between him and Justin is to be discovered. ibid. pp. 80-81
DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

Justin did not quote Paul as such, it is less clear whether or not his work contains Pauline allusions. see my post Paul and Justin

Andrew Criddle
Obviously, Paul had much better theology. I do not see where it would be unlikely that some of those ideas would start making their way into the theology of his adversaries. In other words, the recasting of Paul does not necessarily need to be an evil conspiracy. It may have simply happened over the period of a few decades in the second century.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 10-23-2009, 06:09 PM   #480
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

This is a pregnant example of your lack of comprehension, and abusing of the texts.
The 'source' here (Tertullian), wrote NOTHING at all here about 'Paul'.
He is however writing about the GOSPEL which Marcion employed, an anonymous GOSPEL that consisted of a short version of Luke,
There was no 'Paul' to be found anywhere in it. Marcion does not take any credit for being its author, nor is Tertullian giving him that credit.
In this instance, contrary to your misunderstanding, Tertullian was not even discussing 'Paul' or any 'Pauline' writing.
A Mack truck could be driven through the holes in your credibility.
Drive your Mack truck through this.
But don't bother with admitting that you did royally f*** -up in your interpretation of Tertullians statement about Marcion's GOSPEL :constern02:
Sheshbazzar is offline  
 
Page 48 of 53 « First 384647 48 4950 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM.

Top

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