Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by DBT


There is a clear and undeniable divide between the nature of the OT god in comparison to the Gospel version. One describes the willingness to kill and condemn generations, the other to forgive and keep no record of wrongs. Which is an undeniable contradiction


Even Marion, the first person to assemble a NT (and who Dr. Robert Price believe was the actual author of many of "Pauls" works) cannon could see that. It's exactly why he rejected the OT as relating to a god completely different and distinct from Jesus.


LOL this is humorous. The epistles of Paul were being quoted by Ignatius before the times of Marcion. Where do these people come up with this drivel?



Did he??

Ever since the Protestant Reformation, the authenticity of all the Ignatian epistles has come under intense scrutiny. John Calvin called the epistles "rubbish published under Ignatius’ name."[4]:119 Protestants have tended to want to deny the authenticity of the epistles because they seem to attest to the existence of a monarchical episcopate in the second century.

In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published an essay extensively arguing that none of the epistles attributed to Ignatius are authentic. Instead, he argued that Callixtus, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around AD 220 to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling the renowned Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[30]:137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[30]:127



Oh boy and what do you think those same guys would say about Marcion? They certainly would not consider him the author of the Pauline epistles. The Protestants as a whole, when laying aside their polemics, have recognized 7 of them as legitimate as have most other scholars. They were right to question them because others were forged under his name.
"The following seven epistles preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic, since they were mentioned by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

But this still does not solve your dilemma, because Polycarp who also lived before Marcion quotes Paul.
Polycarp 1:3
though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of
glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know
that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of
God through Jesus Christ.

You won't find any early writer of note who considers Marcion the author of the Pauline epistles.


Polycarp was only a few years younger than Marcion and did most of his writing at the end of his life.

Besides, it's not my delima, I just provided an alternative hypothesis of a current Biblical Scholar. If you want his detailed 600 page defense of the hypothesis, buy the book.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell