Did Marcion invent Paul the ''apostle"?

a reply to: Seede

have you not noticed the MO of this person being like that of the one that first started n Dec 2015 under the name LastDays secondly as Gnosisisfaith and about 100 different names since.

Everything from the way the name is written, they types of names they choose, the way they post in succession, and the info that is found in everyone of their posts that are in threads they didn't start, seeing the thread from those now banned accounts were removed.

It is quite possible this is the resurrection of that person in a new account, best to leave him alone except to call his opinionated assumptions as such opinionated assumptions, that is all they ever were.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

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.

Except that other's have "added to and taken away from it". That is exactly why we have so many versions today.
SO.....which version do you use?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Seede

have you not noticed the MO of this person being like that of the one that first started n Dec 2015 under the name LastDays secondly as Gnosisisfaith and about 100 different names since.

Everything from the way the name is written, they types of names they choose, the way they post in succession, and the info that is found in everyone of their posts that are in threads they didn't start, seeing the thread from those now banned accounts were removed.

It is quite possible this is the resurrection of that person in a new account, best to leave him alone except to call his opinionated assumptions as such opinionated assumptions, that is all they ever were.

Seems the only recourse you have when given the inability to logically refute the things Seth points out...is to either resort to "that's merely your opinion and conjecture"...OR...."Seth is writing under another assumed name, where he's been banned already numerous times.".
Gee, guess you're running out of things to use as a diversion to keep yourself out of the hot seat.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Text 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.

You made a thread centered around a man [Marcion] of the second century who you now say is not a historian and credit this non historian as inventing Saul/Paul of Tarsus. So this second century writer [Marcion] invented Saul/Paul who many Greek MSS writers then put in their numerous manuscripts from all sorts of different locations and in various eras to be then forged as letters in a bible? Are you serious? The Greek MSS copies have even been discovered in contrast as in Egypt and Syria. A fragment of John has been dated in the first century before Marcion was even born. Ignatius was with John fifteen years before this Marcion was even thought of. Yet regardless of theological as well as secular historical facts you simply deny. That is insanity.

You also claim that the historical records of Christianity are not provable. You say that Ignatius being the third Bishop of Antioch and Saul/Paul is bogus and their existence is in dispute. You are actually more insane then I thought. You are not even in reality.

Even the Hebrew historians know more than you have postulated. Go to the on line "JewishEncyclopedia.com" by Kaufmann Kohler and read his eighteen page documentary on "Saul Of Tarsus" Even in his hatred of this Saul/Paul he never denied that Saul/Paul was one of their classics before he became a traitor to rabbinic Judaism. You can then Google Ignatius and become more aware of his importance in history.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

The only version that has all the verses in it. The only one that defines every English word in it by the context, the only one that cross references itself with itself to establish God's doctrines, the only version that has the English word equivalent to the broad meaning of the original languages, the only one that has led more people to Jesus than all other English versions together from 1830 to date. Then Only version that has God approval to be called the HOLY BIBLE.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Listen I have fought this successfully over many thread with this guy. This is not his first time expressing all this nonsense. I don't even address it any more, it is futile. Ask coomba and seed they know, I just wont waist time on it.

I tried with you but you will see I will say less and less about what the false claims you make about Paul and will only remind you of your failure to even follow one teaching of Jesus when directly challenged to do so. I as I did Malocchino took his words and compared them with what he teaches to the what the Bible teaches and they being proven wrong would not even admit it. Just like you. Pride keeps you all from even thinking for a moment you are wrong. You just argue and self justify but in the end you prove to us all who and what you really are Bible denying Jesus Haters.

a reply to: Seede

If you remember under one of his many ATS accounts, he said that Paul became a traitor to the church because he couldn't stop the followers of the way from continuing, so he infiltrated them by faking seeing Jesus, and he created Christianity to lead them away from Jesus and all this with the approval of the Rabbinic Judaism.

Yet history shows just the opposite.

And it is always a wonder to me that so many of these people all claim they came to this same conclusion on their very own. claiming never to have ever heard anyone teaching the lie about Paul. And they did so mainly by reading the Bible basically one time. The bible just couldn't pull the wool over their eyes and they know the truth and dismiss 1/3 of the NT.

Almost everyone of them attack Paul on his misogynistic views (which he never had) and other OT teachings about women. They all attack God for allowing the eating of meat, they all claim God is a evil war mongering person. That Israel is not a real nation nor was called to be Gods people. and in so doing dismiss 2/3rds if the OT. But came to the conclusion all on their own. I find that very unlikely.

They all claim to have great knowledge of the Bible and if you correct them they always say we are attacking them or we are being mean spirited, full of hatred and vitriolic anger. Even though not one thing written in the post would lead a normal person to even come to those conclusions.

There are so many topics in many threads with many here at ATS not just these Paul haters, that act in this same way.

Love ya seede.

a reply to: Seede

Just to be honest, you overestimate my concern or regard for your opinion of me or any of my thoughts.

I just see you clearly don't understand, and you have my sympathy, but I am just a guy with a theory on the internet and have explained myself enough, if you don't get it yet you aren't going to and I am not responsible for that.

If my answers are not to your liking I suggest not asking questions I have already answered and to you and if you don't like my criteria blame the deciders of what is history and what is Apocryphal as I didn't decide that.

My theory is plausible, I am not re re reiterating it but I started with Justin Martyr because he was the first historian.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Yes I have noted exactly as you have said but with ATS being as radicalized as it is it is very difficult to fairly determine the matter. By that I mean to say that at one time ATS had many brilliant posts of various religious matters on their respective threads and the exchange of knowledge was primarily examined by people who wanted knowledge. That has all changed in that today it has evolved into a controlling group of people who, it seems, are purposed to smear and tear down without just cause.
Just my opinion of course ==

a reply to: SethTsaddik

One more question of which I had not asked and which you offer no information.

What is your source of your claim that Iranaeus [Irenaeus] is the first Church Historian? Are you aware of the fact that this claim hinges on what you consider a Church Historian to be? In other words if you are Catholic you will naturally have a different perspective of what your church historian is than if you were a Lutheran. Both use the same NT and OT but both do not agree as to the understanding of much of the bible. The reason I cite this is that it is claimed that the forth century Eusebius is the first Church Historian. But by who is he accepted? Not by your standards if you accept Irenaeus.

Another interesting fact with historians is that a great amount of their historical literature has no existing proof. I urge you to look at that with all respect. That connects with your inference of the word Apocrypha. You also are not complete in your use of that word.

Quote Wikipedia
Apocrypha are works, usually written works, that are of unknown authorship, or of doubtful authenticity, or spurious, or not considered to be within a particular canon. The word is properly treated as a plural, but in common usage is often singular.[1] In the context of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, where most texts are of unknown authorship, Apocrypha usually is used by Protestants to refer to a set of texts included in the Septuagint and therefore included in the Catholic canon, but not in the Hebrew Bible.
Unquote

There are four circumstances of the meaning of apocryphal and when you said that the NT epistles are apocryphal what exactly did you mean? Were they all of unknown authorship? Were they forgeries? Were they simply lies? Did they not suite your doctrine or dogma? Perhaps several or all?

a reply to: Seede

I did not say Iranaeus was the first Church historian, to answer your question, I said first to mention the Gospels and Paul and his epistles.

I would appreciate it if you read clearly what I say so I don't have to keep answering redundant questions and questions based on misquotes of my actual comments, please.

I thank you in advance for complying.

a reply to: Seede

I also never said that the NT epistles were Apocryphal.

I said probably pseudepigraphal, and there is a big difference although something could theoretically be both they have been divided into distinct categories, by who I don't know.

I said I have a book of New Testament Apocrypha and Ignatius epistles are in it, along with 1 and 2 Clement, the Protevangelion, some pseudepigraphal letter of Paul and Seneca, Paul and Thecla.

So Paul didn't write everything with his name on it officially according to the Church and even several of his epistles are said by the majority of scholars to be pseudepigraphal, like the pastorals for instance and the once attributed to Paul, Hebrews is also no longer believed to be written by Paul. 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal as well as probably 1 Peter.

Pseudepigraphal is different than Apocrypha and means ''falsely attributed to" while Apocryphal means ''secret" or "hidden."

I repeat, I didn't say the NT epistles were Apocryphal, that would be ridiculous, I said pseudepigraphal.

Canonical though they are, the Church history records the belief that it doesn't matter if they are pseudepigraphal, I want to say Eusebius but I could be wrong about who.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SethTsaddik

One more question of which I had not asked and which you offer no information.

What is your source of your claim that Iranaeus [Irenaeus] is the first Church Historian? Are you aware of the fact that this claim hinges on what you consider a Church Historian to be? In other words if you are Catholic you will naturally have a different perspective of what your church historian is than if you were a Lutheran. Both use the same NT and OT but both do not agree as to the understanding of much of the bible. The reason I cite this is that it is claimed that the forth century Eusebius is the first Church Historian. But by who is he accepted? Not by your standards if you accept Irenaeus.

Another interesting fact with historians is that a great amount of their historical literature has no existing proof. I urge you to look at that with all respect. That connects with your inference of the word Apocrypha. You also are not complete in your use of that word.

Quote Wikipedia
Apocrypha are works, usually written works, that are of unknown authorship, or of doubtful authenticity, or spurious, or not considered to be within a particular canon. The word is properly treated as a plural, but in common usage is often singular.[1] In the context of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, where most texts are of unknown authorship, Apocrypha usually is used by Protestants to refer to a set of texts included in the Septuagint and therefore included in the Catholic canon, but not in the Hebrew Bible.
Unquote

There are four circumstances of the meaning of apocryphal and when you said that the NT epistles are apocryphal what exactly did you mean? Were they all of unknown authorship? Were they forgeries? Were they simply lies? Did they not suite your doctrine or dogma? Perhaps several or all?

I just want to reiterate that you need to read what I say clearly because you are barely talking about the same thing as me and asking questions about things I didn't say.

Twice in this message that I know of, I had to stop after addressing the second misquote.

Utilize the quote option when questioning something I said if you can't remember accurately.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Text 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.

You made a thread centered around a man [Marcion] of the second century who you now say is not a historian and credit this non historian as inventing Saul/Paul of Tarsus. So this second century writer [Marcion] invented Saul/Paul who many Greek MSS writers then put in their numerous manuscripts from all sorts of different locations and in various eras to be then forged as letters in a bible? Are you serious? The Greek MSS copies have even been discovered in contrast as in Egypt and Syria. A fragment of John has been dated in the first century before Marcion was even born. Ignatius was with John fifteen years before this Marcion was even thought of. Yet regardless of theological as well as secular historical facts you simply deny. That is insanity.

You also claim that the historical records of Christianity are not provable. You say that Ignatius being the third Bishop of Antioch and Saul/Paul is bogus and their existence is in dispute. You are actually more insane then I thought. You are not even in reality.

Even the Hebrew historians know more than you have postulated. Go to the on line "JewishEncyclopedia.com" by Kaufmann Kohler and read his eighteen page documentary on "Saul Of Tarsus" Even in his hatred of this Saul/Paul he never denied that Saul/Paul was one of their classics before he became a traitor to rabbinic Judaism. You can then Google Ignatius and become more aware of his importance in history.

Not for nothing but after sorting through your various insults like "Insane" and claiming I said more about Ignatius than I did in reality, forgive me for not wanting anything to do with you as you are clearly out to harass me for questioning the historical existence of certain people you believe existed.

I don't know if Ignatius was real or care because his works are, as I have explained, Apocrypha and therefore NOT history.

It's not calculus for crying out loud.


ETA: I also never said Marcion wasn't a historian, I said his writings haven't survived, the ones in his own name, except for some quotes.

Why are you so confused?

a reply to: Seede

Well it's good to know that when you are caught misquoting someone several times because of your religion being scrutinized you give up, but now that your errors have been addressed and corrected I see you have no more complaints, which is good.

Apparently all you wanted to do was complain because you have gone silent.

Chalk one up for logical theories.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

It would be my own humble opinion, but Luke wrote all of the Books attributed to Paul, including the missing portion of Acts, that somehow is lost in the New Testament.

Paul was after all Blind.

Ciao

Shane

Paul has been under a lot of scrutiny in recent years for different reasons. One big reason is that Paul/Saul seems to know almost nothing about Jesus' life, so either Paul lived much later, or was invented, or Jesus wasn't real.

originally posted by: CB328
Paul has been under a lot of scrutiny in recent years for different reasons. One big reason is that Paul/Saul seems to know almost nothing about Jesus' life, so either Paul lived much later, or was invented, or Jesus wasn't real.

All possibilities for sure.

I think Jesus was real and had a die hard zealous following like Josephus' Zealots they would die before calling a man Lord, endure torture.

Not because of a myth, something happened to someone and Jesus became the Messiah, probably the priestly as many were expecting several kinds of Messiah's like a warrior of Joshua's type and a priestly or Heavenly.

Whatever it was, was ruined by Rome and the Marcion ''found" epistles of Paul, that turned it into an obedient human sacrifice slave cult.

To the rejection of the tales of the apostles that may be fanciful like the Gospels but inspired and inspiring nonetheless.

At least we have so much Apocrypha today anyone could spend a lifetime reading extra biblical material and it's all ante Nicene.

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: SethTsaddik

It would be my own humble opinion, but Luke wrote all of the Books attributed to Paul, including the missing portion of Acts, that somehow is lost in the New Testament.

Paul was after all Blind.

Ciao

Shane

It's a possibility, but I find Acts to be the most useful book for displaying the lies of Paul and actually think the author was not a fan of Paul as he contradicts Paul several times making him look like a liar.

Paul also does that to himself though so you never know.

I would say whoever wrote Paul didn't like himself or the apostles but pretends he likes himself, not so with the apostles.

His hatred for the apostles is the most revealing thing to me as Marcion was said to feel they didn't understand Jesus.

An opinion prevalent in the Pauline epistles.