Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2016, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 06:05 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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

What it actually tells you is that many gospels were destroyed, but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted. And those ones are the ones that have come down to us.

There were many Christian cults in possession of many pseudo gospels. We still have many of those today. Hundreds were written by the Gnostics, and these were primarily the ones that were rejected as not being authentic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 06:11 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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. 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..."

"we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up..."[/i]

Really! Please explain the following...

Tertullian was a teller of tall tales. He asserted,

“I know it that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation.” (De anima chapter 51.)

He denounced the sin of going to the theatre:

“We have the case of the woman—the Lord Himself is witness—who went to the theater, and came back possessed. In the outcasting (exorcism), accordingly, when the unclean creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly replied: ‘And in truth I did most righteously, for I found her in my domain” (De Spectaulis.)

He believed the hyena could change its sex every year (De Pallio, Chapter 3,) eclipses and comets were signs of god’s anger (To scapula, Chapter 3) and volcanoes were openings into hell (De Penitentia, 12.)

He advised Christians not to think critically, but to employ blind faith. To him, all kinds of rational thinking became superfluous compared to holy writings:

“For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.” (De Praescriptione, Chapter vii.)

He claimed, without evidence, that Pilate converted to Christianity:

“All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius” (The Apology, Chapter 21.)

He wrote:

“The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true--if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.v.html).

He obviously preferred faith to reason, and disliked complexity. In the same work he called Aristotle “wretched” and disparaged the tentative investigative nature of Greek science as

“self-stultifying…ever handling questions but never settling them.” This attitude was the antithesis of rational thought. Compare this to what his contemporary Celsus said:

“For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” (Excerpts from Contra Celsus by Origen, book 3 Chapter 59.) Celsus realized early Christians were irrational.

Tertullian lacked common sense, was a lazy thinker, justified his own ignorance using religion, and thought he could just invent facts to advertise an agenda.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 06:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Another reason I have for doubting Jesus, is the fact he was not married. All Jewish rabbis were married, and the one that wasn't (Ben Azzai) was so unusual, they they talked about it. The status of an unmarried man remained a "boy".

The first duty of a man was to marry and procreate, and his not doing so "is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel."

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, 06:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:01 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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

What it actually tells you is that many gospels were destroyed, but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted. And those ones are the ones that have come down to us.

There were many Christian cults in possession of many pseudo gospels. We still have many of those today. Hundreds were written by the Gnostics, and these were primarily the ones that were rejected as not being authentic.

"but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted. And those ones are the ones that have come down to us."


You are looking at history with rose coloured glasses. This is closer to the truth...

The men who compiled the canon wrote volumes attacking their opposition and arguing with their critics, so would have recorded solid facts to bolster the credibility of their books if they had them. They didn’t because they couldn’t.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there an explanation to vouch for the authenticity of any of the Jesus accounts that could convince an objective historian. Outside the bible, some church fathers, bishops, and academics pass fleeting commentary that has survived, yet it was written 100 or more years after Yeshua’s death, is very sparse, piecemeal, and always raises more questions than it answers. They wrote volumes about the early church’s followers and martyrs, but there is one thing conspicuously absent from their writings; bona-fide details about a flesh and blood historical Jesus.

There was much disagreement about what was or wasn’t the word of God, and it took 350 years after Jesus’ death for the canon to be definitively decided.

The criteria used to choose the canon were unscholarly and never strictly applied. The key case for inclusion in the canon was that the scripts were already popular in particular parishes. This standard is obviously flawed: firstly, popularity has little to do with historical truth. Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are popular books, but no one thinks they’re true history just because they’re well liked. Secondly, it ignored the accounts of Christians who weren’t card carriers in conformist churches. The Gnostics and numerous other Christian groups had writings that were labeled as heretical. Catholics took what they thought was useful from them, and then destroyed nearly all their writings. To destroy literature one doesn’t like isn’t the conduct of people interested in the truth, but the behavior of narrow-minded empire building bigots.

We find falsely signed letters throughout the bible; rarely in the writings of antiquity are the true identities of so many authors so hidden from the reader. Some of Paul’s epistles are the only works for which we know the author’s real identity, and even then his writings have been interfered with by unknown others. I suspect the real identities of the authors were never recorded, because that would have exposed how fabricated the writings were. Anonymous authors meant answers didn’t have to be given to difficult questions. It was easier to foster faith than facts.

The church fathers either presumed or pretended the Gospels were true, but couldn’t prove it. This leaves a massive hole in Christianity’s legitimacy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:"but the ones they canonized were the ones they all agreed upon as being the oldest and most widely accepted.

Today we call that argumentum ad populum. It is a logical fallacy.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 06:32 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2016 06:35 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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?

[i]The bold above is special pleading, and we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up. What would be the point?[/i]

Your answer....

"The church fathers were the more educated members of the early Christian churches. Yet they were narrow-minded, superstitious, and dishonest, and a few of them even admitted it. Some of them forged documents. They displayed very little critical faculty; no story was too silly, no falsehood too glaring, no argument too weak to prevent them teaching it with full confidence of its truth. They thought it was permissible, and even commendable, to assert falsehoods for the sake of selling faith. They were the tabloid journalists of their day. It’s on their testimony and others of their ilk that today’s Christian assumes the Gospels are truthful.

It’s obvious that these characters, and others with the same attitude, would have edited and interpolated the New Testament. Some altered quotations from the Septuagint to create phony prophecies concerning Jesus. Someone added Jesus’ resurrection appearance to the Gospel of Mark. Someone attributed the authorship of the Gospels to Jesus’ apostles. Someone probably inserted into Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus wanted to start a new church with Peter at its head. Someone probably inserted Jesus’ name into Paul’s writings. Some wrote literature in Paul’s name. Someone wrote Acts to try to link Yeshua’s disciples with Paul’s theology. Some incorporated traditions from other cults into the new one. There are countless other examples of their dishonesty. There was a corrupt culture in the early Christian church. There was also a patronizing attitude towards the common people; they were to be fooled and manipulated for the church’s benefit.

There are no excuses for this. Fiction touted as truth, uncritical scholarship, and appeals for faith are unacceptable to an educated audience.

They were using the types of arguments that some groups in that era considered acceptable. Yet there were men of their time and before them such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Celsus, Cicero, Philo, Seutonius, Tacitus and others, who employed much higher standards of scholarship. Their compositions are believable, consistent and still read well, whereas most of these Christian writings don’t.

None of these church fathers were honest enough to publicly admit what their peers such as Celsus pointed out; their faith was formed on a foundation of manufactured nonsense. How could anyone today be convinced of the divinity, the miracles, or the teachings of Jesus after considering what these characters had to contend?

It’s crystal clear to me why they concocted lies and denigrated other commentators such as the Gnostics and Marcion. Promoting their version of the dogma fortified their own power and status, and that of the institutions they represented.

Consider the writings attributed to Ignatius. He emphasized the importance of bishops to bolster the power of his church and counter all opponents. In the letter to the Ephesians he wrote:

“Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung.”

In his letter to the Trallians he paralleled the position of bishop with the position of Christ:
“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing,” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm) and
“...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself.” Ignatius was advocating an earthly monarchy with a bishop on the throne. Paul had said much the same thing 50+ years earlier, with himself as the equivalent of a king. The Vatican still runs a monarchy today, with the pope as God’s mouthpiece.

Tertullian too claimed bishops were at the top of the tree.
“The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop’s authority.” (http://www.therealchurch.com/articles/th...hers.html)

St. Augustine wrote,
“Neither in the confusion of paganism, nor in the defilement of heresy, nor yet in the blindness of Judaism, is religion to be sought, but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians.” (De Vera Religions, chapter v.) A heretic was any Christian who didn’t believe exactly what Augustine believed. He wrote,
“There is no salvation outside the church” (De Baptismo. IV, cxvii.24.) Anyone who didn’t go to his church was denied heaven.

These men were bishops buttressing their own positions and their church’s coffers. They were pompous priests who perched themselves in high places in pursuit of power, money and prestige. Elders or presbyters were beneath the bishop, deacons or servants below the elders, and the common plebs at the bottom of the pile. The people were poorly equipped to detect dishonesty, or to tell the difference between truth and fiction. Bishops had little real respect for them. They regularly referred to the public as “rabble” or “fools” or “the multitudes” or the “crowd,” yet it was the commoners who put cash in their collections.

It’s sad, wrong and ironic that generations of trusting Christians have wasted their time dissecting the New Testament, expecting to be enlightened, when the characters who created it were so cavalier with the truth. Priests have always insisted people believe the bible was divinely inspired. By forcing faith on children and adults too busy to carefully consider it, they’ve ruled over human reason.

Times have changed. We mustn’t let these writings and those who advocate them have an authority they don’t deserve. It’s time bibliolatry and theology were replaced with open-mindedness, pragmatic thought, and genuine empathy. The era in which uninformed people blindly believe Christian dogma and bow down to those promoting it should now be over."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-07-2016, 06:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 05:55 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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?

"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.
"

What "conspiracy theory" that is "mine" are you referring to?

I can find no connection between "Isu" and "Jesus." Marcion and his disciples did not believe in an historical Jesus. If you think they did, please provide a link to a scholar who agrees with you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:55 PM)GoingUp 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."


It's how Marcionites referred to Jesus Christ. Has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory regarding Paul.


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



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.




The bold above is special pleading, and we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up..."

"we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up..."[/i]

Really! Please explain the following...

Tertullian was a teller of tall tales. He asserted,

“I know it that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation.” (De anima chapter 51.)

He denounced the sin of going to the theatre:

“We have the case of the woman—the Lord Himself is witness—who went to the theater, and came back possessed. In the outcasting (exorcism), accordingly, when the unclean creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly replied: ‘And in truth I did most righteously, for I found her in my domain” (De Spectaulis.)

He believed the hyena could change its sex every year (De Pallio, Chapter 3,) eclipses and comets were signs of god’s anger (To scapula, Chapter 3) and volcanoes were openings into hell (De Penitentia, 12.)

He advised Christians not to think critically, but to employ blind faith. To him, all kinds of rational thinking became superfluous compared to holy writings:

“For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.” (De Praescriptione, Chapter vii.)

He claimed, without evidence, that Pilate converted to Christianity:

“All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius” (The Apology, Chapter 21.)

He wrote:

“The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true--if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.v.html).

He obviously preferred faith to reason, and disliked complexity. In the same work he called Aristotle “wretched” and disparaged the tentative investigative nature of Greek science as

“self-stultifying…ever handling questions but never settling them.” This attitude was the antithesis of rational thought. Compare this to what his contemporary Celsus said:

“For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” (Excerpts from Contra Celsus by Origen, book 3 Chapter 59.) Celsus realized early Christians were irrational.

Tertullian lacked common sense, was a lazy thinker, justified his own ignorance using religion, and thought he could just invent facts to advertise an agenda.

So ... another conspiracy theory? This one hatched up by Tertullian? Really? This is all so fantastic that I simply have to ask:

Has Hollywood called you yet?

Laugh out load

Mark, there are some pretty smart people here. They may not say anything against you to your face, but you can be certain they see in you what I am seeing.

All ... so ... fucking ... weird.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 05:55 PM)GoingUp 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."


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.


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



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.


The bold above is special pleading, and we have no reason whatsoever to think Tertullian made anything up. What would be the point?

"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.
"

What "conspiracy theory" that is "mine" are you referring to?

You know, the one where people supposedly conspired to interpolate all instances in Paul's letters where we see him mentioning Jesus being crucified, and James being his brother et al. Yeah, that one.

Quote:I can find no connection between "Isu" and "Jesus."

Aside from the fact that in classical Arabic Isu means "Jesus" exactly the same as Isa means Jesus in modern Arabic.

You can learn more from the Muslims HERE


Quote: Marcion and his disciples did not believe in an historical Jesus. If you think they did, please provide a link to a scholar who agrees with you.

You don't understand Gnosticism. Yes, they believed a flesh and blood man named Jesus existed and was crucified. They believed he rose from the dead. They believed he was a god.

But Gnosticism gives primacy to the spirit over the flesh. They don't care about "Jesus the Son of Man." They care about "Jesus the Son of God,' who was a spirit.

They split him in 2.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2016, 07:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(23-07-2016 07:21 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.
"

What "conspiracy theory" that is "mine" are you referring to?

You know, the one where people supposedly conspired to interpolate all instances in Paul's letters where we see him mentioning Jesus being crucified, and James being his brother et al. Yeah, that one.

Quote:I can find no connection between "Isu" and "Jesus."

Aside from the fact that in classical Arabic Isu means "Jesus" exactly the same as Isa means Jesus in modern Arabic.

You can learn more from the Muslims HERE


Quote: Marcion and his disciples did not believe in an historical Jesus. If you think they did, please provide a link to a scholar who agrees with you.

You don't understand Gnosticism. Yes, they believed a flesh and blood man named Jesus existed and was crucified. They believed he rose from the dead. They believed he was a god.

But Gnosticism gives primacy to the spirit over the flesh. They don't care about "Jesus the Son of Man." They care about "Jesus the Son of God,' who was a spirit.

They split him in 2.

This is so boring. Do you have any real proof other than what ancient men believed?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: