Top Ten Early Christian Questions

[mlinssen]

I am sure that Giuseppe would only have questions to the degree to which the answers would or could support his pre-existent gnostic-mysticism.

your judgement is correct. I question more about the consensus's reluctance to date the gospels after Bar-Bokhba, or to accept that the gospels are a reaction against "gnostic-mysticism" (I would call it 'anti-demiurgism').

my 10 questions about the Christian origins I fear will be forever without answer in saecula saeculorum:

1. who was John the Baptist?
2. who was John the Baptist?
3. who was John the Baptist?
4. who was John the Baptist?
5. who was John the Baptist?
6. who was John the Baptist?
7. who was John the Baptist?
8. who was John the Baptist?
9. who was John the Baptist?
10. who was John the Baptist?

I told you, and it lured me out here even. John B was a figment of Thomas's imagination.
Not even 2 dozen verses in the entire Bible on John, Giuseppe. It can't be that hard to lign them all up and judge them

You can always use my ATP for double checking

I mean, really - even Malachi is old skool impressive as a prophet. John B, on his second tour in Luke and Matthew?
Pathetically pathetic, what a goofball

[Secret Alias]

Let me try it with a modern parallel:

1. Irenaeus says the heretics forged their NT; Trump says the Democrats falsified the vote
2. Irenaeus has a NT which supports his rejection of heretical doctrine; Trump wants to have an election result which supports his victory
3. I suggest Irenaeus falsified his NT to arrive at (2); Trump's allies attempted (2) https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/ ... 731775.php

Why if in the modern age with minute by minute news updates these sorts of 'fixes' were attempted how an earth is it unthinkable they were perpetrated in antiquity?

[Charles Wilson]

Did Paul exist?

No.

[Ben C. Smith]

Let me try it with a modern parallel:

1. Irenaeus says the heretics forged their NT; Trump says the Democrats falsified the vote
2. Irenaeus has a NT which supports his rejection of heretical doctrine; Trump wants to have an election result which supports his victory
3. I suggest Irenaeus falsified his NT to arrive at (2); Trump's allies attempted (2) https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/ ... 731775.php

I suggest that what Irenaeus has is a curated NT, a selection at least partly designed to unite friends against foes. Nobody forged the contradictions we find in the NT; those were obviously inherited.

[Secret Alias]

What about the Antitheses? Does Matthew preserve the original radicalism of the gospel known to Marcion? Irenaeus falsified it and placed it in his "Jewish gospel" for obvious reasons.

[Ben C. Smith]

What about the Antitheses? Does Matthew preserve the original radicalism of the gospel known to Marcion? Irenaeus falsified it and placed it in his "Jewish gospel" for obvious reasons.

I do not think that Irenaeus put the Antitheses in Matthew 5. (Or, at least, I have yet to be persuaded of the point.)

[Secret Alias]

But there are questions raised about Irenaeus:

1. He knew the Marcion gospel had the Antitheses
2. He relentlessly promotes Luke are ur-gospelMarcion

How is that reconciled? IMHO constructing Matthew with something from gospelMarcion can't be accidental. Like "discovering" - oops! - gay celebrity with a married woman. Context is everything. Matthew was falsely created as "the Jewish gospel" to recontextualize "You have heard ... but I say ..."

[Secret Alias]

By having Jews preserve Paul's gospel's antinomianisms GAME OVER . It (falsely) reinforces =whether I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

[Ben C. Smith]

But there are questions raised about Irenaeus:

1. He knew the Marcion gospel had the Antitheses

I am not sure that Irenaeus suggests that the Marcionite gospel had the Antitheses. I know you are super sure about that, but I am not. Not at all.

2. He relentlessly promotes Luke are ur-gospelMarcion

How is that reconciled? IMHO constructing Matthew with something from gospelMarcion can't be accidental. Like "discovering" - oops! - gay celebrity with a married woman. Context is everything. Matthew was falsely created as "the Jewish gospel" to recontextualize "You have heard ... but I say ..."

If the six "you have heard it said" statements in the Sermon on the Mount are part of the Antitheses, then Marcion did not create them from scratch. The payloads of the final two statements, Matthew 5.38-42 and Matthew 5.43-48, for example, are contained in a different format in Didache 1.3b-5a, and I have a hard time believing that Marcion has anything to do with that. Maybe I am wrong, but I would need something to go on. If this observation holds true, then Marcion constructed his Antitheses out of existing materials. And does that not sound like exactly what the Antitheses really were? Not a comparison of statements in the Hebrew scriptures with principles off the top of Marcion's head, but rather a comparison of statements in the Hebrew scriptures with statements that Marcion knew the church fathers would accept, thus hanging them on their own gallows by demonstrating that Old and New are incompatible. Same basic strategy as that of Stephen Gobar and of modern critics of Christianity: both sides of the contradiction have to be considered authoritative by the target readership. Does that not make sense? Again, maybe I am wrong; I am still trying to piece it all together, but I have nothing anywhere near enough to place Irenaeus at the scene of the crime yet, whatever the exact nature of that crime may be.

[Secret Alias]

1. I am not sure about anything. I think it is highly likely. Also supporting this is the reference to 'Antitheses' throughout Tertullian Against Marcion Books 3, 4, 5 with the added dementia of citing Matthew 5:18 at least 5 teams against Marcion repeatedly saying this was removed from Marcion's gospel. The implicit understanding is that the rest of Matthew 5 was in Marcion's gospel but not removed.
2.

If the six "you have heard it said" statements in the Sermon on the Mount are part of the Antitheses, then Marcion did not create them from scratch.

Clearly Tertullian's many statements make clear the Marcionite contention was that Paul wrote the gospel which contained these statements not Marcion. The bit about Marcion is a later orthodox invention/distraction.

The payloads of the final two statements, Matthew 5.38-42 and Matthew 5.43-48, for example, are contained in a different format in Didache 1.3b-5a, and I have a hard time believing that Marcion has anything to do with that.

You believe in many Judeo-Christian traditions/myths. Everyone is entitled to their presuppositions. I am only advocating we see the Marcionite understanding clearly and fairly and not according to orthodox BS. Again, the Marcionite understanding is that Paul wrote the gospel that had the antitheses. Then the BS from Galatians 1, 2 is read by Tertullian (= Irenaeus) to say that Paul wrote a gospel which agreed with a written gospel held by the Jerusalem church. They approved of his WRITTEN gospel and sent him on his way. With respect to your Didache business the original orthodoxy of Irenaeus's reading of Galatians 1, 2 would imply the existence of two parallel gospels with presumably two antitheses. Just stating the original or close to original orthodox understanding - at least before the denial that Paul wrote a gospel started.

Maybe I am wrong, but I would need something to go on. If this observation holds true, then Marcion constructed his Antitheses out of existing materials.

See above. Tertullian (Irenaeus) makes clear TWO gospels written independently of one another one which was at Jerusalem among the pillars and another written by Paul which he humbled himself for an hour to allow them to read and approve.