The start of the Jesus story

[robert j]

to robert j,

Do you think that Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians? If so, what makes you think that?

Of course, Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians.
The commentators on Marcion's Apostolikon (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius) criticised the composite form of the Corinthians letters of Marcion.

to robert j,

Would you provide the citations please.

I already gave you a quote from Irenaeus.
Irenaeus and Tertullian might not be very direct about answering your question, but you cannot blame them not to foresee that kind of inquiry some eighteen centuries after their time.

...

None of the citations that you have provided support your claims highlighted above that Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians. I'm not sure if he did, or didn't, I'm just interested in relevant information.

[Bernard Muller]

to Jax,

Some of your quotes validate hakeem's position that the church fathers were wrong to attribute 1 and 2 Thimothy, Titus, and Hebrews to Paul.

Of course they were wrong. They saw Paul as author of the Pastorals within their text and went by that. These church fathers were certainly not the ones to declare the Pastorals as not written by Paul.
As for Hebrews, they gave an author for it: Paul. But early on, that was disputed by church fathers Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Hippolitus (each proposing a different author). They could not keep that letter anonymous, as it was done for the gospels for a long time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... he_Hebrews)
But, relative to Paul's epistles (Marcion's version), Irenaeus and Epiphanius wrote a lot about them, with many details (more true for Epiphanius) showing they had a copy of Marcion's Corpus at their disposal. I don't think they could be wrong on that issue (Marcion had ten Pauline epistles in his Apostolicon).
BTW, I don't think these church fathers were always right, far from that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to robert j,

None of the citations that you have provided support your claims highlighted above that Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians. I'm not sure if he did, or didn't, I'm just interested in relevant information.

Well, that's all I could find. If you want more, ask Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius

Just a reminder:

This is Marcion’s corrupt compilation, containing a version and
form of the Gospel according to Luke, and an incomplete one of the
apostle Paul—not of all his epistles (10) but simply of Romans, Ephesians,
Colossians, Laodiceans, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, First and
Second Thessalonians, Philemon and Philippians.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

The evidence is clear that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the writings of the self proclaimed apostle called Paul are all very late writings composed after gMark, gMatthew and gJohn. No Christian writer outside of Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles make mention of any known Christian who spoke in tongues or that they themselves spoke in tongues.

I don't think it matters if Christian writings have different "special effects," because I think the concepts of resurrection and speaking in tongues are ridiculous, so any attempts to describe them as happening to Jesus or his followers are ridiculous and I don't expect all accounts to match or for everyone to have had the same level of interest in them.

What you say is quite bizarre. Religion is not about "special effects". The teachings of the resurrection of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the gift of talking in tongues after being filled with the Holy Ghost are fundamental doctrines in the so-called Pauline Epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

Without the resurrection and talking in tongues there could have been no preaching of the Christian faith and no forgiveness of sins.

As can be seen in the NT, the story about the apostles waiting in Jerusalem to get power from the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel in other tongues is very late and after gMark, gMatthew, gJohn and gLuke.

In Acts, the twelve apostles received the Power and was filled with the Holy Ghost and began preaching in tongues before Saul/Paul.

The story that the Apostles preached the Gospel in other tongues on the day of Pentecost predates the story in the Epistles that an apostle called Paul talked in tongues.

And I think the fact that NT letters do not say where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers indicates that they are earlier than the gospels and Acts and that as time went on more details about it were imagined.

Your reasoning is hopelessly flawed.

It is in fact the opposite.

Epistles, in and out the NT, are written to believers who have already converted and know post-resurrection stories of Jesus found in the Gospels.

No NT Epistle states where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers. All the hundreds of Epistles, in and out the NT, hardly have any details of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances.

Look at the six Epistles of Ignatius which are claimed to have been written as late as the 2nd century --there is nothing about where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers.
Look at 1st Clement, supposedly written c 95 CE, it does not say where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers.

Epistles deal primarily with doctrines of the Christian cult not with post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

You will neve find any apologetic writer of antiquity who mentioned the so-called Pauline Epistles and knew nothing of the Gospel but you will find many apologetic writers of antiquity who knew of the Gospel but nothing, nothing at all of Saul or Paul.

The Gospel were composed before the so-called Pauline Epistles.

[Textus Unreceptus]

"All the hundreds of Epistles, in and out the NT, hardly have any details of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances."

I heard a rumor that Matthew might have mentioned it a time or two though.

[John2]

The evidence is clear that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the writings of the self proclaimed apostle called Paul are all very late writings composed after gMark, gMatthew and gJohn. No Christian writer outside of Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles make mention of any known Christian who spoke in tongues or that they themselves spoke in tongues.

I don't think it matters if Christian writings have different "special effects," because I think the concepts of resurrection and speaking in tongues are ridiculous, so any attempts to describe them as happening to Jesus or his followers are ridiculous and I don't expect all accounts to match or for everyone to have had the same level of interest in them.

What you say is quite bizarre. Religion is not about "special effects". The teachings of the resurrection of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the gift of talking in tongues after being filled with the Holy Ghost are fundamental doctrines in the so-called Pauline Epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

Without the resurrection and talking in tongues there could have been no preaching of the Christian faith and no forgiveness of sins.

Holy men and deities were expected to have "super powers" in antiquity. This is why both Jesus and Vespasian are said to have healed a blind man with their spittle, for example, and I call things like that ancient "special effects."

And I think the fact that NT letters do not say where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers indicates that they are earlier than the gospels and Acts and that as time went on more details about it were imagined.

Your reasoning is hopelessly flawed.

It is in fact the opposite.

Epistles, in and out the NT, are written to believers who have already converted and know post-resurrection stories of Jesus found in the Gospels.

It doesn't seem that way to me, given that Paul and 1 Peter say that the resurrected Jesus had a spiritual body and the gospels present him as having a physical body.


1 Cor. 15:42-44:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

1 Peter 3:18:

He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit ...

Cf. Lk. 24:38-29:

“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

If the NT letters come after the gospels, why don't they likewise say that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body?

No NT Epistle states where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers. All the hundreds of Epistles, in and out the NT, hardly have any details of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances.

Right, which is why I think those details came later.

[hakeem]

Holy men and deities were expected to have "super powers" in antiquity. This is why both Jesus and Vespasian are said to have healed a blind man with their spittle, for example, and I call things like that ancient "special effects."

Well, I don't see the "special effects" of Jesus and Paul in the writings of Suetonius. Stories that Vespasian healed people in Suetonius "Lives of the Twelves Caesars" must have predated stories of the "special effects" of Jesus and Paul.

It doesn't seem that way to me, given that Paul and 1 Peter say that the resurrected Jesus had a spiritual body and the gospels present him as having a physical body.

In the Gospels, Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin or was walking on water long before he was crucified. A physical body cannot walk on water for miles.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Galatians 4:4

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

NT Jesus was both God and man.

If the NT letters come after the gospels, why don't they likewise say that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body?

If the resurrected Jesus did not have a physical body why did they say over 500 people and Paul saw him after he was raised from the dead?

No NT Epistle states where the resurrected Jesus appeared to his followers. All the hundreds of Epistles, in and out the NT, hardly have any details of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances.

Right, which is why I think those details came later.

That is precisely why your reasoning is flawed. If NT Paul claimed NT Jesus lived and died then stories of NT Jesus must predate the writings of the Epistles.

1. NT Jesus was said to be God's son and made of a woman before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

2. NT Jesus had apostles before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

3. NT Jesus was crucified before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

4. NT Jesus resurrected and appeared to the twelve before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

5. Believers in NT Jesus were persecuted by NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

6. NT Paul preached the same Gospel of Jesus as those he persecuted before he wrote his Epistles.

7. There were Pillars of the Church before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

8. NT Paul was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus before he wrote his Epistles.

9. NT Jesus carried out the ritual of the Eucharist before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

10. NT Jesus stories were known to NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

The Gospels, stories of Jesus, predate the writing of Epistles by NT Paul.

[robert j]

Of course, Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians.

The commentators on Marcion's Apostolikon (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius) criticised the composite form of the Corinthians letters of Marcion.

None of the citations that you have provided support your claims highlighted above that Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians.

Well, that's all I could find. If you want more, ask Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius

If it was possible to consult with those 3 long returned to dust; it seems you might benefit, having jumped to conclusions that you are unable to support using their surviving texts.

This is what I wrote as part of my methodology (stated in http://historical-jesus.info/author.html):

p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.

Perhaps you could add "Consult with dead people" to your vaunted list of methodologies.

[Jax]

Of course, Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians.

The commentators on Marcion's Apostolikon (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius) criticised the composite form of the Corinthians letters of Marcion.

None of the citations that you have provided support your claims highlighted above that Marcion used the composite form of 2 Corinthians.

Well, that's all I could find. If you want more, ask Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius

If it was possible to consult with those 3 long returned to dust; it seems you might benefit, having jumped to conclusions that you are unable to support using their surviving texts.

This is what I wrote as part of my methodology (stated in http://historical-jesus.info/author.html):

p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.

Perhaps you could add "Consult with dead people" to your vaunted list of methodologies.

Whenever anyone starts out with "Of course" on this subject I know that their premise is probably flawed.

[Ben C. Smith]

Whenever anyone starts out with "Of course" on this subject I know that their premise is probably flawed.

Of course it is.