Did Marcion invent Paul the ''apostle"?

a reply to: SethTsaddik

So you mean religion is a scam?

Who woulda thunk?

a reply to: Lysergic

That question is universal, I can't judge all religions, but it is a fact many are scams.

Tax free money you don't work for attracts that type. The con man.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

They aren't, but I am questioning the very existence of Paul, not debating theology. Paul never knew Jesus or what he taught though so I don't see how he could have expanded on his teachings, they weren't even written yet and he knows nothing of them in his letters.

You are not using all of the other accounts that are given in the scriptures. Of course they are somewhat dated by estimations of various accounts. Some is historical and some is tradition and most all is theological. That is the same with all ancient literature. Philo Judaeus is accepted in academia and the same can be said of his literature but in all reality there is not one shred of proof in much of what he wrote.

Saul/Paul is related to have studied under the Nasi Gamaliel as a youngster and is also believed to have been selected as a member of the Sanhedrin. Pontius Pilate was recalled by the Emperor to Rome and in his absence his office was left unattended in the Jerusalem area. That was when the house of Annas made the move to kill Stephen the Greek disciple of Jesus. The Jews were not permitted to carry out a death sentence unless by Roman authority and this was the reason that Annas and Caiaphus moved so quickly.

Saul/Paul was the younger member of the Sanhedrin and Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin on blasphemy charges, found guilty and sentenced to death. How do we know this? We know this by Nazarene records and tradition. It was necessary that any one sentenced to death was to be witnessed by the court that the penalty be carried out and verified by the court.

This is when the biblical records tell us that Saul/Paul was that witness of the court to verify that sentence.

Act 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

Now tradition of James the Nazarene tells us that Saul/Paul had this authority only as a member of the court of the Sanhedrin and no other authority at this time could have had consenting authority in a death sentence. This was before the conversion of Saul Paul and a short time after the death of Jesus. [32 CE. to 34 CE.] ---

Paul had to have known Jesus if he were on the Council of Sanhedrin. His teacher [Gamaliel] was the Nasi of the 71 member council and Saul/Paul being Gamaliel's student had to have knowledge and even perhaps sat in council of both Jesus and Stephen. Yes this is traditional conjecture but not without evidence of other literature by various study groups.

You cannot simply state that if it is not detailed and explained in the historical letters of the bible that it is not true.
You must include outside literature to paint the entire picture and present feasible traditions. That is true theology.

a reply to: Seede

I am not trying to determine if Paul was real using the New Testament, so I am not obligated to include all of the New Testament or any.

I am trying to shed light on the first historical mention of Paul or his epistles and it doesn't occur until Iranaeus, and as I mentioned with 1 Clement I am not talking about Apocrypha not deemed Canonical like Ignatius and such.

Strictly a historical mention of Paul or his epistles and that starts at Iranaeus and is completely absent in Justin Martyr who does mention Marcion. No epistles of Paul or a Paul until Iranaeus the heresiologist.

So it's plausible to theorize that Marcion was the source of Paul's epistles, that Justin had never heard of Paul, and everything was written after Justin, who doesn't know of anything other than Memoirs of the apostles as he calls it.

Perfectly plausible to believe that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles that he used, the so called genuine epistles.

And if even 1 Pauline epistle is acknowledged to be pseudepigraphal by the early church and modern scholars, true in both cases, it's not hard to believe that Marcion forged the so called genuine epistles.

a reply to: Seede

In fact the Bible is unusable as a historical document, so to establish the historical existence of a person it is useless.

I don't know what you are getting at, but I know what the Bible says and it is not proof that Paul existed, the topic of discussion, and I have sound reason to suspect Marcion created Paul himself.

You don't have to like it, but it makes sense to me. And once again the Bible is not evidence of actual existence as anyone could have written it and nobody knows for sure.

It's healthy to speculate when you don't have answers, as long as you don't believe anything without proof.

It's not a big deal, if you like reading them who cares if he didn't write them or exist?

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am not trying to determine if Paul was real using the New Testament, so I am not obligated to include all of the New Testament or any.

Why are you not obligated to include the literature of the Greek MSS? Imagine for a moment that a NT did not exist and the letters of the disciples were not yet assembled as codex. Would they not be considered just as genuine as Ignatius Theophorus? Ignatius was born in 35 CE which was estimated to be within 3 to 4 years of Jesus. After he matured, he became a disciple of the apostle John and outlived his master to 108 CE.

Now using logic, where do you suppose Ignatius learned much of his so called church history? Was he not the third bishop of Antioch and being a disciple of John he most certainly had to have had first hand contact with his master John. It would be silly to imagine that a disciple did not sit at the feet of his master and be taught.

Now the apostle John was second in authority to the very first synagogue of James for well over thirty years and being so there was no NT as you have today. Those outside books that you seem to ignore were the mainstay of the liturgy of James and John with the written and oral Torah being the meat of the Prophets MSS.

Prior to Ignatius being born we have many numerous men who wrote of Saul/Paul. Not regarded in academia as historians but nevertheless just as important. Stephannas was one of many examples as it was Saul/Paul who in 52 CE baptized his family. What does this mean? It means that Ignatius was but a 17 year old youth as Saul/Paul was evangelizing and more than likely was with the apostle John back in Jerusalem.

I could deliver a paper on this with more names and historicity of the apostle Paul but most here on ATS would not even consider the theological facts [if it exists] on Saul/Paul. I believe you must consider the MSS of the NT as important as any other literature to be fair with understanding.

a reply to: Seede

I'm not worried about the New Testament itself because it isn't a legitimate historical document.

Using pure history is my goal.

Which leads to Justin Martyr who doesn't know Paul then Iranaeus pops up with new information, Gospels and the epistles.

So Iranaeus is the first historical reference of Paul.

Very interesting theory. What's even more interesting is what has been realized in recent years that Paul, or whoever wrote his writings, never describes anything from Jesus' life as if he didn't exist (things that make you go hmmm).

It sounds crazy, but if you think of all the things "Paul" wrote about Jesus it was always the same thing over and over, Jesus died for our sins, etc etc. He never mentioned Nazareth, or the babe in a manger, or the sermon on the mount or any of the alleged details of jesus' life. The movie the God who wasn't there describes this in detail.

a reply to: CB328

Yes, Paul knows nothing about Jesus because whoever wrote under that name never knew him or his life and made up a bunch of crap to denounce Judaism.

Sounds like Marcion to me.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: CB328

Yes, Paul knows nothing about Jesus because whoever wrote under that name never knew him or his life and made up a bunch of crap to denounce Judaism.

Sounds like Marcion to me.

All one big assumption and personal opinion backed by no Biblical proof.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Good evidence, you can never prove such things, true, but you can can reasonably conclude based on evidence.

I can reasonibly conclude based by your posts that you are afraid of Christianity, and will make strong assumptions about history to prove to yourself that it's all made up.

Forgive me for assuming, but am I right?

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Good evidence, you can never prove such things, true, but you can can reasonably conclude based on evidence.

I can reasonibly conclude based by your posts that you are afraid of Christianity, and will make strong assumptions about history to prove to yourself that it's all made up.

Forgive me for assuming, but am I right?

You got me, I'm soooo scared of Christianity, even though it could never hurt me and makes no sense to be afraid of.

Oh, wait, that's right I forgot. I'm actually NOT afraid of a religion, have no reason to be, and you are just mad and talking isht.

My mistake.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

One big assumption with no proof?

That quote of yours could just as easily apply to your entire religion and it's historicity.

So we are not so different I guess.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Except in one way I believe the Bible is preserved, whole, complete, without corruption, inspired of God, and I do not add to it or take away from it.

But as you have said over and over you have so much more knowledge of the bible that many of us. But yet you never quote a single verse in context to support any of your assumptuous opinions.

My opinions of your posts are based on all your previous words you have posted. Not hard but fully prove you are just assuming and opinionated.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That's just fascinating, thanks for sharing and have a nice day!😂

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Good evidence, you can never prove such things, true, but you can can reasonably conclude based on evidence.

I can reasonibly conclude based by your posts that you are afraid of Christianity, and will make strong assumptions about history to prove to yourself that it's all made up.

Forgive me for assuming, but am I right?

You got me, I'm soooo scared of Christianity, even though it could never hurt me and makes no sense to be afraid of.

Oh, wait, that's right I forgot. I'm actually NOT afraid of a religion, have no reason to be, and you are just mad and talking isht.

My mistake.

Thanks for the sarcasm glad you can have fun.

But seriously, with this thread and the other thread there is nothing convincing from the anti Paul posters.
To me there seems to be more of a need for Paul to be made up, hence the assumptions and an out of context quilt of biblical and historical quotes that you can curl up with and stay warm.

I have been following both threads from the beginning and I guess I'm tired of this circular reasoning part of this conversation. To me ChesterJohn has provided the most level and straight forward information, and has shown great patience along the way.

Goinng back to just reading now.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I'm not worried about the New Testament itself because it isn't a legitimate historical document. Using pure history is my goal. Which leads to Justin Martyr who doesn't know Paul then Iranaeus pops up with new information, Gospels and the epistles. So Iranaeus is the first historical reference of Paul.

I am totally taken aback at your reasoning. You pick and choose who is a historian and who is not a historian and that is absolutely disingenuous. Are you trying to tell me that Marcion 85 -160 CE and Irenaeus ?? -202 CE are qualified history and yet Ignatius 35-108 is not qualified history? Ignatius whose letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops, the very same man that first taught the title of "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" and wrote many letters of the very foundation of the Church which is the liturgy of Christianity today is not history? The very same Ignatius who walked and talked with the apostle John and lived over fifty years before before Marcion or Irenaeus was even thought of is not history?

If this is your perspective of reasoning then I give you no hope of ever understanding truth. There is absolutely no truth in any of this of which you have threaded. You have no idea of historicity nor how to evaluate or divide the words of truth whatsoever. You are without a doubt biased without knowledge and very ignorant of the first century Nazarene movement of the synagogue of Jesus and His brother James.

a reply to: Seede

My reasoning is solid and should not take you aback, but whatever. You can have your opinion.

When did I say Marcion was qualified history?

His writings didn't survive, the ones under his name that is, but his existence is not in dispute.

Paul's is, Ignatius' is.

a reply to: Seede

Ignatius epistles are Apocryphal, not historical. I actually have them in a book of Apocrypha.

I am talking about pure history, which Ignatius is not, it's theological like any epistle in the Canon.


Justin Martyr was the first person who wrote about Christianity from a historical perspective as a historian and not anything ever considered for canonicity, Ignatius was not and can't be considered historical, they aren't and are of no value here.

Was Ignatius even real? Nobody knows because he was from a time not historically documented, that is the activities of the apostles and the beginning of the Church. They could be forgeries and don't prove the historical existence of Paul or that his epistles were written by him even if he did exist. They are actually anti Judaizing propaganda.

Sorry if you don't like logic but I told you already that Ignatius is categorized as Apocryphal and therefore is unreliable.

a reply to: Observationalist

The only reason you are not convinced is because you don't want to be.

The thread about Paul has more than enough evidence in its 70 + pages and is more than convincing.

This here is a different subject and it's theoretical.

That Paul was a fraud can be determined with just the New Testament.