Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:56 pmChrist is a son via a woman, while Christians are sons via adoption:

Also I am son of a woman, and baptized at the birth. Where is the contrast between me and the Son? It would be there if Jesus is the pre-existent Son of god, without no woman as mother.

The end times were imminent, about to happen any time. The exact thing denied by Mark 13:7: When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come Even if the abomination etc is Titus, the false Christs are Lukuas of Cyrene and Bar-Kokhba.

Because the implication is that at least some Gospel pericopes in a canonical gospel are, strange to say, affected by marcionism and/or anti-marcionism. Which implies that given the other known fact that the synoptical pericopes of different gospels are strictly connected between them, probably also...

My point here is different: Even assuming the more subtle concession a conservative reader may give to the storm called Marcion, i.e. that both Marcion and Luke are based on a proto-Luke (in turn based on Matthew), the result is still a strong shadow of doubt on the certainty that a first gospel (Ma...

My point is more sound: once a canonical synoptic gospel is placed around the time of Marcion (second century) there are no reasons to place the others (one or all) still in the first century.

Apart conservatives who think that not even Luke's priority is touched by Marcion (and not even partially), what is left after the passage of the storm called Marcion? Put simply, what is definitely collapsed is the certainty that some gospels can be still dated in the first century CE. This is corr...

It would be interesting to know the answer by the people who already consider 'called Christ' in 20:200 a Christian interpolation. Afterall, just as 'called Christ' breaks the context (the brother of Jesus ben Damneus being the victim of Ananus), a similar breaking of the context is in action in Gal...

My difficulty in accepting it (even if I may think of Jesus being human, but atemporal, for other reasons in Paul), is that if you think that "born by woman" is genuine, then accordingly you have to conclude that probably Marcion removed the birth from Luke (i.e. Luke precedes *Ev). But th...

JarekS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 6:23 am I believe this is the original text.

if I understand well, you believe that 'born from woman, born under the Law' (Gal 4:4) is the original text.

JarekS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 8:06 pm Paul's Jesus was a human

Do you think that 'born from woman, born under the Law' (Gal 4:4) is not an anti-marcionite interpolation?