Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[Desert Snake]

Seriously, even if it was a 'widely' held view, so what?
Fact is, it makes absolutely no sense, why would outright
heretics be going against their own position?...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Seriously, even if it was a 'widely' held view, so what?
Fact is, it makes absolutely no sense, why would outright
heretics be going against their own position?...

That strikes me as funny but I'm afraid to laugh. :yes:

 

[Shermana]

Seriously, even if it was a 'widely' held view, so what?
Fact is, it makes absolutely no sense, why would outright
heretics be going against their own position?...

Your response makes no sense.

The Marcionites were the ones who were ANTI Torah. They were the ones saying "Hey Christians, stop following Moses, the God of Israel is evil." The Later Church didn't so much criticize him for this but for just his overall view of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Israelite God.

So then, are you saying that the original Christians were not Torah obedient? Are you saying that Matthew 5:17-20 and 1 John 3 were interpolations?

What evidence is there that the early church did NOT obey the Torah?

I Don't think you understand the significance of Marcion or the concept of his opposition, he obviously showed there was a Schism at the time, and he was pushing the REBEL idea. He was the one who was modifying the scripture to make it look anti-Torah. Why?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I Don't think you understand the significance of Marcion or the concept of his opposition, he obviously showed there was a Schism at the time, and he was pushing the REBEL idea. He was the one who was modifying the scripture to make it look anti-Torah. Why?

I guess you didn't pay attention to Baur.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your response makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because of your excessively odd understanding of early church history.:yes:

 

[Shermana]

I guess you didn't pay attention to Baur.

What are you talking about, Baur says the same thing I did, that Marcion represented the early opposition to Torah following Jews, where do you get that he says he was the original? What do you base your face palm on?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What are you talking about, Baur says the same thing I did, that Marcion represented the early opposition to Torah following Jews, where do you get that he says he was the original? What do you base your face palm on?

Disappointment in your reading.

I'll give you two -

 

[Shermana]

It doesn't make sense to you because of your excessively odd understanding of early church history.:yes:

Explain in detail why you think my understanding of Church History is odd, as well as why you think my interpretation of Marcion's rebellion as at odds with Baur.

 

[Shermana]

Disappointment in your reading.

I'll give you two -

Okay, so that's an absolute refusal to actually back up your criticism.

Thank you!

I seriously want to know why you'd think Baur wrote that Marcion was the one with the original.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your response makes no sense.

So then, are you saying that the original Christians were not Torah obedient? Are you saying that Matthew 5:17-20 and 1 John 3 were interpolations?

What evidence is there that the early church did NOT obey the Torah?

I Don't think you understand the significance of Marcion or the concept of his opposition, he obviously showed there was a Schism at the time, and he was pushing the REBEL idea. He was the one who was modifying the scripture to make it look anti-Torah. Why?

Many Christians have been 'Torah obedient' in varying degrees, although that
term is not clear... anyways, the fact that we're dealing with Jews in the sense
of the early church makes this concept of little importance. Christianity grew
outside of Judaism, so it was inevitable that all the laws you're implying
simply wouldn't be follwed. It's just a matter of practicality, culture, etc.
Like I stated earlier, I'm not arguing that nobody held these views, I'm
arguing against the importance of these opinions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay, so that's an absolute refusal to actually back up your criticism.

Thank you!

I seriously want to know why you'd think Baur wrote that Marcion was the one with the original.

Sheesh

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Explain in detail why you think my understanding of Church History is odd, as well as why you think my interpretation of Marcion's rebellion as at odds with Baur.

o-d-d

I hate being Captain Obvious.

I would encourage you to re-read Baur slowly and carefully, because you can't hit the broad side of a barn with his ideas.

 

[Shermana]

Many Christians have been 'Torah obedient' in varying degrees, although that
term is not clear... anyways, the fact that we're dealing with Jews in the sense
of the early church makes this concept of little importance. Christianity grew
outside of Judaism, so it was inevitable that all the laws you're implying
simply wouldn't be follwed. It's just a matter of practicality, culture, etc.
Like I stated earlier, I'm not arguing that nobody held these views, I'm
arguing against the importance of these opinions.

So you're saying that Christianity's doctrines and laws changed to suit the gentiles? Was that legit to Jesus? Are you saying that what once was binding was no longer because Jesus just decided to let the majority have their way? Matthew 5:17-20 was clear unless you think its an interpolation, he says EVERY law is binding, and anyone preaching to break the least shall be called the least.

Jesus even said to pray that you don't have to flee on the Sabbath.

 

[Shermana]

o-d-d

I hate being Captain Obvious.

I would encourage you to re-read Baur slowly and carefully, because you can't hit the broad side of a barn with his ideas.

Baur didn't think that Marcion had the original Luke, he thought he had a version of it, and that the later Luke was meant to counter him. What other conclusion do you draw? Did he specifically say that he thought Marcion was the keeper of the Original idea?

Roth: Baur admitted that Marcion had altered Luke 8:19; 10:21, 25; 12:8–9; 11:29, 32, 49–52; 13:31–35; 18:31–34; 20:37–38; 21:21–22; 22:30; 22:35–38; 24:25, ...

 

[Desert Snake]

So you're saying that Christianity's doctrines and laws changed to suit the gentiles? Was that legit to Jesus? Are you saying that what once was binding was no longer because Jesus just decided to let the majority have their way?

I wouldn't put it that way, and I don't believe that to
be the case. I think that Christianity
became what it is in regard to these rules for various
reasons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Baur didn't think that Marcion had the original Luke, he thought he had a version of it, and that the later Luke was meant to counter him. What other conclusion do you draw?

I didn't say that Marcion had the original Luke.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

O, I see about Baur.

Everything you know about him comes from Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle by Joseph B. Tyson.

Not reading Baur and misreading Tyson is a setup for failure.

 

[Desert Snake]

Reading from Matthew 5:17 onwards, it becomes clear that the
"laws" being referred to are the Ten Commandments, reading
further, there are direct instructions in what manner Christians
should 'break' certain traditional laws.
Add to this the many other NT references to the way in which
Christians should either adhere or not adhere to various laws,
the logical conclusion is that the 'strict following of OT law'
argument is not credible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't say that Marcion had the original Luke.

You're a patient man, angellous. :yes:

 

[sojourner]

So you're saying that Christianity's doctrines and laws changed to suit the gentiles? Was that legit to Jesus? Are you saying that what once was binding was no longer because Jesus just decided to let the majority have their way? Matthew 5:17-20 was clear unless you think its an interpolation, he says EVERY law is binding, and anyone preaching to break the least shall be called the least.

Jesus even said to pray that you don't have to flee on the Sabbath.

No, Matthew had Jesus say that for his own reasons. Are you calling yourself a Matthean now?