Detering, etc.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Duvduv »

So go ahead and believe that Marcion's papa was "a bishop" because someone said so. Go ahead and say he had a "gospel of Luke" because someone said so. And that he had "the epistles" because someone said so, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the collection of epistles was "collected" by anyone from anywhere, by sea, land or air. But "Justin" never even refers to these matters despite allegedly living in Rome at the same time as MARCION. Go figure.......
Last edited by Duvduv on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by stephan happy huller »

But it's not the point here to 'believe.' Certain statements are made in any historical text. Some are true and others are false. But you are the one who goes beyond the pale and argues for a conspiracy of unconnected witnesses to invent a man (Marcion) and a tradition (Marcionitism) merely because you don't like what it says about your own ideosyncratic beliefs about Christianity (it never existed before Nicaea).

Some of what was said about Marcion must be true. Some of what the rabbinical texts says about the Marcionite-like heretics must also be true. The fact that both sources - separated by religion - seem to be attesting to a similar if not the same tradition makes the question of a completely fabricated 'Marcionitism' unlikely. Did the Borborites call themselves 'the filthy'? Probably not. Did the 'antinomian heresy' common to the fathers of Christianity and Judaism call themselves Marcionites? Maybe in some - yet to be decided - language or form. But the beliefs common to these ma'aminim recorded in Christian and Jewish sources are undoubtedly related.
Last edited by stephan happy huller on Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

It's not about belief or faith. This is the egregious misunderstanding from which the rest of your rhetoric flows, Duvduv.

You came closer to the truth when you recognized the category of speculation, and you would come closer still if you recognized the shades of gray there.

But I suspect that is not as much fun for you as tweaking people as being "believers" when they are just trying to understand a historical phenomenon.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Duvduv »

It's not a matter of rhetoric, Peter. It's a matter of context and facts. All the discussion about Marcion is based purely on speculation but often expressed as if there were some evidence for the existence of this man in the 2nd century (or even "Justin" for that matter). That's why it's a sand castle theory.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by stephan happy huller »

It is not "purely" based on speculation. Once you go beyond what any of our written historical sources say there is some degree of speculation. Did God give the 10 commandments? The text says so. Anything beyond what is literally stated in the text is "speculation." But God did not give Moses the ten commandments. Therefore to have an intelligent conversation about Biblical origins some degree of speculation and speculating is necessary
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Duvduv wrote:It's not a matter of rhetoric, Peter. It's a matter of context and facts. All the discussion about Marcion is based purely on speculation but often expressed as if there were some evidence for the existence of this man in the 2nd century (or even "Justin" for that matter). That's why it's a sand castle theory.
It is trivial to demonstrate that most of ancient history is based on similar evidence (or, indeed, less). If you don't like dealing with historical evidence like a document written by an ancient author surviving in later copies, whether by Diogenes Laertius or Justin Martyr, why do you focus your rhetoric against ancient Christian history specifically? If you don't like history in general, why are you here on a "history" forum?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Duvduv »

Well, you have to have a starting point somewhere. And the likelihood of the non-existence of such a person is greater because there are no independent sources of information even from mutually antagonistic sources as to his existence. And the bottom line comes down to FAITH in the claims of certain ancient writings attributed to certain individuals even despite problems of context. The case from the writings (actually the lack thereof) attributed to "Justin" concerning "Marcion" is but one example. Another example is the incessant obsession with the case of one "Simon Magus" for whom there is no actual evidence to his existence at all.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Yawn. Same paragraph with the same empty rhetoric as every other Duvduv post. You're a drone and a bore.

... again, why are you here on a history forum? You show nothing but absolute indifference to the reality of historical-critical method and seething antipathy to achieving real understanding of the historical subject under study here.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by stephan happy huller »

Throw him off the ship. He's a nuisance and a bore. Or at least ban him from the Christianity forum.
Everyone loves the happy times
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Duvduv »

Peter, there is a tremendous flaw in the theory of critical analysis that ignores the context and relies on claims that cannot be empirically proven. We both knowthat, so why pretend otherwise? Regarding Huller, he is extremely intolerant in his advocacy of censorship. He should have worked for Pravda.
Post Reply