Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:01 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 10:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The statement is VERY strange.
Proper historians never talk about "proper conclusions".

It's not an attack.
It's an observation.
You said it.

I am not speaking as if I am writing a thesis. I am speaking from the position of a debater.

Learn the difference.

What ever would be most proper.
Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 03:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 12:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all. Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

[...]

Despite the literary evidence demonstrating that Nazareth was mentioned as place of existence as early as CE 130, Mark also tries to make the claim that the written gospels didn't exist until nearly the middle of the 2nd century.

So the question is this:

How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?

Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence, and we know it mentions Nazareth, this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more bizarre.

Again, I don't think either of you are grasping the bulk of his (or my) arguments. We think that there were shifts in the theology of the group that would become known as "Christians", and that the myth was added to most heavily prior to the writing of the Gospels. Thus, looking to the Gospels (even if we assign them their standard dates-of-writing, which I do) as evidence for what happened before they were written is useless; it's only a snapshot of what had come to be believed among the 2nd-generation followers of Jesus the Nazarene, in this case as he was shifting to become "Jesus of Nazareth". Simply put, there's nothing useful added to the discussion by saying that the gospels certainly were around by 130 C.E.; it is useful information for Mark to correct his later-authorship hypothesis, but it's not on point with regard to the discussion we've been having.

Also, stop saying "in the first century" as if it's a single block of time. It's as stupid to compare the events of the year 6 C.E. (given an estimated birthdate of 6 BCE, it would be when Jesus first started to teach) and 24 C.E. (when the return to the "hometown" of Nazareth is alleged to have happened as he began his ministry) to stuff that would happen in 70 C.E. as it would be to use something that happened in 1970 as evidence of something happening in 1924. Can you guess how many American towns were built between 1924 and 1970? Can you guess how many more would have been built up as a result of refugee relocation, if we'd been fighting a rebellion against the near-genocidal, occupying forces of Rome at that time? But according to you guys, it's enough to say "in the 20th century".

There are a few fairly major problems with accepting the Gospel narratives as honestly depicting the life of Jesus in Nazareth.

* They supposedly try to throw him off a cliff, upon his return to the town, when there are no cliffs near the town that would become known as Nazareth. This is a good way of establishing (on behalf of later-generation Christians) that Jesus was not a Nazarene sect member, but a man rejected by the people who didn't accept the new "post-Judaism" religion because of his "true vision from God", so to speak. It takes him from being a mere Jewish sage to being "A Man Without A Country" (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut), which could appeal to the mixed Jewish-Hellenic populations to which Paul belonged and to whom the religion was being marketed.

* There is no way a town as small as this would have had a synagogue or temple, at which Jesus could have gone in to read from Isaiah, as claimed in Luke. It makes further sense that this was a small place being built up in the wake of the revolt's displaced crowds when you consider that a priest had to be assigned there after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

* Luke uses the Greek word polis, meaning a large, usually walled, city. The word for a village would be kómé, which he does not use in describing it, even though he uses kómé to describe other villages throughout the region. Luke also refers to "multitudes" from that town. This indicates that the author of Luke is trying to show Jesus as coming from a significant, well-populated place that simply could not have existed without having left much more evidence, according to what we know about the region. (This is hardly surprising, as Luke is infamous for having the least apparent knowledge of Judaism, and is clearly written by an educated Greek far from Judea.)

If Nazareth arose around the time of the rebellion, perhaps founded by Nazarenes seeking to avoid the conflict altogether, it would be a simple matter for the writers to "assign" this place as the hometown of their new-and-improved version of Jesus. They don't need to invent a town, as you suggest in your mockery. They do need to invent a Jesus who is not just a member of a cult, but a founder of his own... as his legend grew, it mattered that he have such stories that try to demonstrate not only his background, but to legitimize their claim that he was the Messiah, and later, God Incarnate.

Simply scoffing at straw versions of the argument, rather than addressing the points being (actually) raised, doesn't make you guys look all that great. We're continually pointing out to you that there are reasons to doubt the traditional, suppositionalist accounts, but all you do is mock and use phrases like "conspiracy theory" so you don't actually have to consider any alternatives.

If that's how you want to do it, fine. But don't be dicks about it.

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you lately, Tomasia, but you need a serious attitude adjustment. Try getting a drink and getting laid, perhaps.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-07-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 07:32 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I said it may have been an addition...I don't know about that, and neither do you.

And 9/11 may have been an inside job, and the moon-landing may have been faked, and the holocaust may not have happened. "Well then how do you explain the video footage, the photographs, the survivor interviews." Listen I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, I'm just saying it may have.

That's how inbreds such as yourself sound when you say "may have".

In fact there's likely not a single verse or portion of the Gospels, which we can be more sure about being a part of the original writing than than the Nazareth passages. They appear in all four of the Gospels. Not even the slightest whiff of evidence of interpolation or editing of those particular verses exist. No manuscripts, copies of the text that show any disparity regarding these portions. Not to mention your suggestion that it may have been edited to replace the term "the nazarene", gets entirely deflated by the fact that all four Gospels contains passages in which Jesus is referred to as "the Nazarene".

It's why you prefer to back the fuck away from following through with your "may have", with an something even remotely resembling an reasonable explanation that accounts for the variety of logistical problems it raises.

Your "may have" is nonsense, in reality it's highly unlikely that the "the Nazareth" portions were later additions to the text. In fact you would think if anyone was gonna to add in a false hometown for Jesus, it would have made more sense to have it be Bethlehem, rather than a obscure town that serves no messianic purpose at all.

Being original to the text, with the text dating to the 1st century, posses a problem for your suggestion that the Nazareth didn't exist till the 4th century now doesn't it? I mean how the fuck else would folks in the first century have known of a town that wouldn't come to exist till a few centuries after them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't understand what I wrote. You haven't acknowledged what I wrote. And you are being abusive. And you are, once again, repeating yourself unnecessarily.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 05:13 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 09:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 09:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  According to my research, none of the following key players in the written annals of Christianity mentioned a place called Nazareth. (I may be wrong about this and am happy to be corrected.)


1. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c.110 CE)

2. Polycarp, (70–155 CE) the Greek bishop of Smyrna, (modern Izmir, in Turkey) was the leading second century figure in Roman Asia by virtue of his intermediary position between the apostolic and patristic (referring to the Church Fathers) ages

3. Papias (70–163 CE) was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. (Modern central Turkey.) He was, according to Irenæus,
“... a companion of Polycarp.”
Papias did not claim to know Jesus’ disciples (as with Polycarp, it would have been extremely unlikely that any of them would still have been alive in Papias’ time.) It is claimed by Eusebius of Caesaria (c. 320 CE) that Papias talked to people who knew the authors Mark and Matthew. Papias could not have done so, as these authors’ names are only first mentioned elsewhere c.180 CE, long after Papias was dead.

4. Marcion (110–160 CE) was a key figure in Christianity’s history.

5. Valentinus (100–160 CE) was the best known and, for a time, the most successful early Christian Gnostic theologian.

Not sure how any of this is relevant.

We have Justin mentioning Nazareth circa AD 140 (perhaps earlier) from quotes that so obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke, which means this gospel (named or unnamed) must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140.

Marcion of Sinope published the earliest extant fixed collection of New Testament books. Marcion's teaching was condemned as heresy in the year 144, which means he had been teaching his version for many years previously. Now here's the thing ...

The Gospel of Marcion, called by its adherents the Gospel of the Lord, is based upon the Gospel of Luke. Church Fathers wrote, and the majority of modern scholars agree, that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology, Marcionism. The late 2nd -century writer Tertullian noted that Marcion, "expunged from the Gospel of Luke all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion".

So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144. According to Irenaeus and Tertullian, Marcion was a student of Credo, and Tertullian adds that Cerdo received only the Gospel of St. Luke.

So now we can go back even further, because Cerdo started out as a follower of Simon Magus. He taught at about the same time as Valentinus and preceded Marcion.

So here we have Marcion (AD 140) being a student of Cerdo (AD 130), and Credo being a student of Simon Magus (1st century). We can see a pattern here regarding the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in which Simon Magus is mentioned quite prominently.

With all this evidence combined, it is very reasonable to reach the proper conclusion that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were named and in wide distribution at the very least the beginning of the 2nd century, and probably long before that.

This is simply following a chain of evidence concerning Luke, and since it is obvious that Justin quoted from Luke in Dialog with Trypho, and mentions Nazareth is one of these quotes, and then we have Marcion only using a version of Luke which he created from what he learned from Cerdo who was a follower of Simon Magus, we can reasonably go back to the turn of the 1st century with this.

There's just too much evidence to eliminate Nazareth, or to even say the Gospels (Luke in particular) were not named before AD 140. Both existed long before AD 140, obviously.

"So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144."

No we don't. We know that church fathers claimed WHAT LATER BECAME "LUKE" was edited by Marcion. There is no mention of the gospel author Luke until c 180 CE.

Pause for a minute. It is possible it was someone else who did the interpolating of the Jewish bits into Marcion's gospel to create "the gospel of Luke." Big Grin The church fathers didn't hesitate to write versions of events that suited them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 05:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's how inbreds such as yourself sound when you say "may have".

How very Christian of you.

Quote:In fact there's likely not a single verse or portion of the Gospels, which we can be more sure about being a part of the original writing than than the Nazareth passages. They appear in all four of the Gospels.

No they don't.
Matthew 2:23 (mistakenly, ALONE) said "and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene", and as far as Matthew was concerned, that served precisely a messianic purpose.

Guess you blew that one. In all respects.
For some who claims not to care about a Jesus, you sure sound desperate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2016, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 05:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 12:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I mean how the fuck else would folks in the first century have known of a town that wouldn't come to exist till a few centuries after them

Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all. Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

If that position isn't fucking weird, I don't know what is.

Consider

But, aside from all the evidence, the problem with his logic is obvious.

Despite the literary evidence demonstrating that Nazareth was mentioned as place of existence as early as CE 130, Mark also tries to make the claim that the written gospels didn't exist until nearly the middle of the 2nd century.

So the question is this:

How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?

Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence, and we know it mentions Nazareth, this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more bizarre.

No offense to anyone who thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, but I find anyone who subscribes to that view as to be kind of ... weird. It requires you to bend over backwards with really weird conspiracy theories that have no evidence for them at all, and also to defy all reason and logic, and then deny the existence of all available evidence.

People, I don't care what anybody says, but this is just too fucking weird for me. It's giving me the creeps.


Mark's position is that all 4 gospels and Acts are complete works of fiction that depict absolutely nothing of historical value at all.


No. You are making stuff up about me. Check out http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ht=Yeshua. I very clearly state there are elements of truth in the gospels...

"Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet turning to the Gospels is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature. There are good reasons to assume that some parts of the Gospels fit with a realistic story about him."

This has always been my position.

"Therefore, according to him, Nazareth was an imaginary town in the Gospels, and later Christians conspired to create a real town and name it Nazareth to make it appear like it had always existed. Then, we are expected to believe that nobody noticed this invented town and said anything about it such as, "[i]Hey, look at those fucking Christians! They actually created a town and called it Nazareth in an effort to make it look like the Nazareth that is in the Gospel actually existed!"

If that position isn't fucking weird, I don't know what is."

You have ignored all my arguments that there is no mention from apologists about Nazareth prior to about 140-60, or that no Christian bothered to visit "Nazareth" until the early 4th century. These are the "fucking weird" facts you need to consider.


"How could early Christians invent a town called Nazareth as early as CE 130 to make it jibe with a written gospel record that didn't supposedly exist until CE 150?"


This question is full of false assumptions.
1. My position is that we don't know when "Nazareth" was first in the gospels' stories, but it was prior to Justin Martyr (so, maybe 140-160.)
2. I think the first gospel, later called Mark, was probably first written c 70's CE. (NOT c 150)
So I can't make head nor tail of whatever you are trying to say.

"Also, since we know the written Gospel of Luke existed long before CE 130 as per previous posts with evidence,"

No. We know that some literature that Marcion bought to Rome c 130-140 CE resembled some of the narrative in today's Luke. "Luke" was not named as such till c 180CE.


"...and we know it mentions Nazareth...,"

Well, we know today's Luke mentions Nazareth, and we know Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian knew of the gospel's Nazareth (so...let's say we know "Nazareth" was an accepted idea post c 140 CE), but we don't know for sure whether any of the gospels contained the "Nazareth story" in the years 70 - c140CE. They may have, but the evidence is lacking.

"..this just makes this conspiracy theory of his concerning Nazareth all the more
bizarre."


You are grossly exaggerating. All I am saying is that there is no good, definitive written evidence for a Nazareth the place, before about 140 CE. "Nazareth" may have been in the original version of Mark (70's CE), but we can't prove it.

"People, I don't care what anybody says, but this is just too fucking weird for me. It's giving me the creeps."

Cool your jets, precious. We're simply discussing history. If a conversation about Nazareth freaks you out, maybe you should go back to a pew in church. They don't ask questions there.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 05:15 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 04:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 09:46 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Not sure how any of this is relevant.

We have Justin mentioning Nazareth circa AD 140 (perhaps earlier) from quotes that so obviously came from a Gospel attributed to Luke, which means this gospel (named or unnamed) must have been in existence for quite some time before AD 140.

Marcion of Sinope published the earliest extant fixed collection of New Testament books. Marcion's teaching was condemned as heresy in the year 144, which means he had been teaching his version for many years previously. Now here's the thing ...

The Gospel of Marcion, called by its adherents the Gospel of the Lord, is based upon the Gospel of Luke. Church Fathers wrote, and the majority of modern scholars agree, that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology, Marcionism. The late 2nd -century writer Tertullian noted that Marcion, "expunged from the Gospel of Luke all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion".

So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144. According to Irenaeus and Tertullian, Marcion was a student of Credo, and Tertullian adds that Cerdo received only the Gospel of St. Luke.

So now we can go back even further, because Cerdo started out as a follower of Simon Magus. He taught at about the same time as Valentinus and preceded Marcion.

So here we have Marcion (AD 140) being a student of Cerdo (AD 130), and Credo being a student of Simon Magus (1st century). We can see a pattern here regarding the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts in which Simon Magus is mentioned quite prominently.

With all this evidence combined, it is very reasonable to reach the proper conclusion that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were named and in wide distribution at the very least the beginning of the 2nd century, and probably long before that.

This is simply following a chain of evidence concerning Luke, and since it is obvious that Justin quoted from Luke in Dialog with Trypho, and mentions Nazareth is one of these quotes, and then we have Marcion only using a version of Luke which he created from what he learned from Cerdo who was a follower of Simon Magus, we can reasonably go back to the turn of the 1st century with this.

There's just too much evidence to eliminate Nazareth, or to even say the Gospels (Luke in particular) were not named before AD 140. Both existed long before AD 140, obviously.

"So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144."

No we don't. We know that church fathers claimed WHAT LATER BECAME "LUKE" was edited by Marcion. There is no mention of the gospel author Luke until c 180 CE.

Read again, closely:

"For if the Gospel said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Tertullian is very clear. He states that Marcion was arguing in Marcion's work known as the Antithesis that the Gospel of Luke was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism.

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us ... is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Think: How could Tertullian determine that the Gospel of Luke is what Marcion butchered unless Marcion referred to it as the Gospel of Luke?

Consider

Tertullian literally tells you that the Gospel of Luke that Tertullian had at the time was the same Gospel of Luke that Marcion had.

Quote:Pause for a minute. It is possible it was someone else who did the interpolating of the Jewish bits into Marcion's gospel to create "the gospel of Luke." Big Grin

That wouldn't make sense since Marcion is complaining that it had already been done with the Gospel of Luke that he had, which is why he "butchered" it to make his own version of it. He was removing anything to do with Judaism because he thought that it had been interpolated by the Jews.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 05:58 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 04:00 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "So we know that the Gospel of Luke was known as "The Gospel of Luke" long before Marcion was excommunicated in circa AD 144."

No we don't. We know that church fathers claimed WHAT LATER BECAME "LUKE" was edited by Marcion. There is no mention of the gospel author Luke until c 180 CE.

Read again, closely:

"For if the Gospel said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Tertullian is very clear. He states that Marcion was arguing in Marcion's work known as the Antithesis that the Gospel of Luke was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism.

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us ... is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Think: How could Tertullian determine that the Gospel of Luke is what Marcion butchered unless Marcion referred to it as the Gospel of Luke?

Consider

Tertullian literally tells you that the Gospel of Luke that Tertullian had at the time was the same Gospel of Luke that Marcion had.

Quote:Pause for a minute. It is possible it was someone else who did the interpolating of the Jewish bits into Marcion's gospel to create "the gospel of Luke." Big Grin

That wouldn't make sense since Marcion is complaining that it had already been done with the Gospel of Luke that he had, which is why he "butchered" it to make his own version of it. He was removing anything to do with Judaism because he thought that it had been interpolated by the Jews.

Ok. I have read it again, slowly. You have not changed my mind. Tertullian is writing in the early 3rd century. By then "Luke" had been named "Luke." Marcion (c140) did not call his gospel "Luke," he called it the "Euangelion"—the “Good News,” not "Luke." This is why Tertullian wrote

"For if the Gospel said to be Luke's which is current among us-"

"Think: How could Tertullian determine that the Gospel of Luke is what Marcion butchered unless Marcion referred to it as the Gospel of Luke?"

Tertullian would have access to Marcion's "Euangelion" and would have recognised some of the similarities with his current version of Luke.

Here is some info on Marcion for anyone interested...

"Marcion (110–160 CE) was a key figure in Christianity’s history. He may have been the son of a bishop, and hailed from Pontus, a region on the southern coast of the Black Sea in modern Turkey. He was a ship owner and financially well off. He travelled to Rome about 142–143 CE, and soon attracted a large following, as his wealth allowed him influence and position. (http://www.gnosis.org/library/meadmarcion.htm, http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/fff/fff38.htm).

Some sources claim that Marcion was the first person to promote the Pauline Epistles, as prior to his emergence in Rome, we don’t directly hear of Paul, (other than in Ignatius’ letters, and they’re of doubtful authenticity.) No one knows how Marcion came across Paul’s letters, yet it’s possible that without Marcion, they might never have been published. Some commentators have hypothesized that Paul was, in fact, Marcion himself. I think that highly unlikely, as it would take a literary genius to invent Paul’s character.

The hero of Marcion’s canon was named Isu Chrestos - not “Jesus” or Yeshua. This is one of the reasons I suspect when “Paul” mentions “Jesus,” “Lord Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” such references are interpolations.

Marcion was a Docetist; someone who believed Christ was a spirit, an entity who sprung full-grown from the mind of God. Marcion’s (and Paul’s) Christ rescued people from the unattractive God of the Old Testament and the obligations of the Torah. He wasn’t the Messiah of Israel, the hero of Jewish expectations, but the savior of mankind.

Marcion thought that only Paul had understood the message of salvation facilitated by belief in Christ, which was precisely what the narcissistic Paul claimed too.
Marcion’s Pauline Epistles were Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Laodiceans (Ephesians,) Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Marcion was an anti-Semite, and believed that people had inserted the Judaic elements of Paul’s writings after Paul’s death. He completely ignored the Old Testament and any other references to Judaism. His followers were the first Christians to completely break away from Judaism. He (correctly) regarded Yahweh as a primitive god: jealous, envious, vindictive, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He didn’t deny Yahweh’s existence, and even acknowledged that he was the creator of the universe, but claimed that an entirely different, previously unknown, god had sent Isu Chrestos. This new god was one of love and benevolence, and had sent Isu Chrestos to replace Judaism’s legalism with mercy and tolerance.

Marcion’s Gospel is very similar to the canonical Luke, although about one third shorter. He called it the Euangelion—the “Good News”—and it wasn’t attributed to an author. The first three chapters of today’s Luke weren’t in it, so it lacked any genealogy, family, or birth story for Isu Chrestos. It’s commonly stated that Marcion shortened the original Luke; however, given that Marcion’s version probably appeared long before today’s “Luke,” it’s more likely that Marcion’s version was closer to the original.

He was the first commentator, in 140 CE, to propose the existence of a new canon, and therefore that a totally new religion, separate from Judaism, had come into being. His canon consisted only of the Euangelion and Paul’s ten letters. Marcion was, therefore, in one sense, the founder of New Testament Christianity.

His complete break with the Jewish epic was a direct challenge to emerging Catholic Christian orthodoxy. He was excommunicated from the Catholic Church around 144 CE, and labeled as a heretic. Polycarp, who couldn’t cope with competition, called him
“the first born of Satan,” and other church fathers denounced him. That didn’t stop him. He returned to Asia Minor and continued to spread his ideas. His church expanded throughout much of the known world within his lifetime and remained very influential throughout the second century, when it was more successful than Catholicism. It continued to expand for more than a century, persevering alongside Catholic Christianity, and was its equal well into the fourth century, at which time the Catholics gained political power and forced the rejection and disbanding of most, but not all, Marcionite churches.

One of the oldest Christian churches ever found is Marcionite, dates from 318 CE, and is located in Syria. The inscription on a wall is dedicated to
“The Lord and Savior Isu Chrestos.”

In its opposition to Marcion, the Roman Catholic Church would identify itself as the heir to Jewish tradition, and even claimed itself to be the new “true Israel.” So the fact that Marcion was opposed to Judaism meant he had enormous influence on the evolution of Catholic Christianity.

Tertullian, (160 – 220 CE) an influential theologian and a member of the Catholic Church, was highly critical of Marcion, and wrote five books criticizing him. Considering how things turned out, it’s eye-opening that he denigrated Marcion’s guru Paul as not being Jesus’ true apostle:

“I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostles…since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles. Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions. Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler’s cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. He professes himself to be ‘an apostle,’ to use his own words, ‘not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ.’ Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs, another countersigns; one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records. No one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt, that ‘many shall come, saying, I am Christ.’ Now if anyone can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ! But still, for my own part, I appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus both refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and confound your shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing them.” (Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 1, translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.)

How interesting! Tertullian, one of the founding fathers of Catholic Christianity, quite rightly questioned Paul’s legitimacy. His comments are just as pertinent today as they were nearly 2000 years ago. He was stating the obvious; Paul was only a self-appointed apostle and had no valid authority, because he never met Jesus. Paul’s status in Christian Churches has obviously grown since the time Tertullian wrote this.

The Roman Church eventually pinched many of Marcion’s patrons, and Paul’s teachings became the essence of Catholic Christianity. Hence Marcion’s ghost is very much alive in Christian churches today.
(http://messianicpublications.com/daniel-...marcion/).

His anti-Jewish, anti-Old Testament, pro-Paul heresy lives on, but it was dogma that would have dismayed Jesus."

Re...

"That wouldn't make sense since Marcion is complaining that it had already been done with the Gospel of Luke that he had, which is why he "butchered" it to make his own version of it. He was removing anything to do with Judaism because he thought that it had been interpolated by the Jews."

You have a point. Bear in mind, though, none of Marcion's original writings survived (funny that!) Tertullian was accusing Marcion of butchering the text, and claiming Marcion admitted doing it, but it would not be beyond Tertullian to make that up. He didn't like Marcion...the Marcionites were in direct competition with what became Catholicism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 05:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 08:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So Mark, have you ever read the proceedings of the Council Of Nicea ?
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt
There are some who claim there was a vote taken there, to "deify" Jesus. and 'combine (at Constantine's command) two brothers into one Jesus.


"By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory.

When Emperor Constantine conquered the East in 324, he sent his Spanish religious advisor, Osius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several Biscops exhorting them to make peace among their own. But the mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestions of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all Presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithymia, the country of Asia. The Presbyters were instructed by the Emperor to bring with them the manuscripts from which they orated to the rabble (that's us!) "wrapped and bound in leather".

Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325.

On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God.

Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god.

After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161votes for and 157 votes against). The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation. The doctrine of the Celtic / British church of the west was democratically attached to the Presbyters stories of the east.

A deification ceremony was then performed 'Apotheosis'. Thus the deified ones were then called 'saviours' and looked upon as gods. Temples, altars, and images with attributes of divinity were then erected and public holidays proclaimed on their birthdays.

Following the original example set by the deification of Caesar, their funerals were dramatized as the scene of their resurrection and immortality. All these godly attributes passed as a legal right to Emperor Constantine's new deity, Jesus Christ.

The Emperor then instructed Bishop Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings "bound together as one" using the stories from the large collection of Presbyters as his reference source. Eusebius was to arrange for the production of "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in the art". This was the first mention of finished copies of a Christian 'New Testament' in the history of mankind."


http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm

So what do you think of this ? I'm looking to see if I can verify that Theodoret knew about 200 + gospels.

No, I haven't read them yet. I will try to do it today. Nice to hear directly from you.

[i]There are some who claim there was a vote taken there, to "deify" Jesus. and 'combine (at Constantine's command) two brothers into one Jesus.[/i]

I didn't know this.

I did know that there were many many versions of the gospels floating around in Constantine had them all destroyed and replaced with his versions.

Ray Hagins has an interesting take on the council of Nicea too.

I'll write more soon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 06:09 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Read again, closely:

"For if the Gospel said to be Luke's which is current among us- we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion- is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Tertullian is very clear. He states that Marcion was arguing in Marcion's work known as the Antithesis that the Gospel of Luke was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism.

"For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current among us ... is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism,"

Think: How could Tertullian determine that the Gospel of Luke is what Marcion butchered unless Marcion referred to it as the Gospel of Luke?

Consider

Tertullian literally tells you that the Gospel of Luke that Tertullian had at the time was the same Gospel of Luke that Marcion had.


That wouldn't make sense since Marcion is complaining that it had already been done with the Gospel of Luke that he had, which is why he "butchered" it to make his own version of it. He was removing anything to do with Judaism because he thought that it had been interpolated by the Jews.

Ok. I have read it again, slowly. You have not changed my mind. Tertullian is writing in the early 3rd century. By then "Luke" had been named "Luke." Marcion (c140) did not call his gospel "Luke," he called it the "Euangelion"—the “Good News,” not "Luke." This is why Tertullian wrote

It is correct that Marcion did not named HIS gospel "Luke," but that has nothing to do with the fact that Terullian tells us that Marcion used the Gospel of Luke as the theses for his own gospel which he named "Euangelion"—the “Good News.”

That is what you need to understand. Marcion butchered the existing Gospel of Luke and from it he created "Euangelion"—the “Good News."

Quote:The hero of Marcion’s canon was named Isu Chrestos - not “Jesus” or Yeshua. This is one of the reasons I suspect when “Paul” mentions “Jesus,” “Lord Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” such references are interpolations.

It's how Marcionites referred to Jesus Christ. It is the Syrian (Arabic) language. Even today, Arabic speaking Muslims say "Isa" and not Jesus or Yeshua.

Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory regarding Paul.

Quote:Marcion was a Docetist; someone who believed Christ was a spirit, an entity who sprung full-grown from the mind of God. Marcion’s (and Paul’s) Christ rescued people from the unattractive God of the Old Testament and the obligations of the Torah. He wasn’t the Messiah of Israel, the hero of Jewish expectations, but the savior of mankind.

It is early Gnosticism, if you want to lean about it.


Quote:Marcion’s Gospel is very similar to the canonical Luke, although about one third shorter. He called it the Euangelion—the “Good News”—and it wasn’t attributed to an author. The first three chapters of today’s Luke weren’t in it, so it lacked any genealogy, family, or birth story for Isu Chrestos. It’s commonly stated that Marcion shortened the original Luke; however, given that Marcion’s version probably appeared long before today’s “Luke,” it’s more likely that Marcion’s version was closer to the original.
He was the first commentator, in 140 CE, to propose the existence of a new canon, and therefore that a totally new religion, separate from Judaism, had come into being. His canon consisted only of the Euangelion and Paul’s ten letters. Marcion was, therefore, in one sense, the founder of New Testament Christianity.

It only stands to reason that Marcion never attributed it to an author because it was no longer the Gospel of Luke because he butchered it and took about 1/3 of it out to create his own version of a gospel.

Dude, this is not rocket science.

Quote:"That wouldn't make sense since Marcion is complaining that it had already been done with the Gospel of Luke that he had, which is why he "butchered" it to make his own version of it. He was removing anything to do with Judaism because he thought that it had been interpolated by the Jews."

You have a point. Bear in mind, though, none of Marcion's original writings survived (funny that!) Tertullian was accusing Marcion of butchering the text, and claiming Marcion admitted doing it. It would not be beyond Tertullian to make that up. He didn't like Marcion...the Marcionites were in direct competition with what became Catholicism.

The bold above is special pleading, and we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up. What would be the point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: