picking up at 2:08.31 / 2:21.35

Dr. Marcus Vinzent

I cannot rule out that Christianity could be a reaction to AD70 but I think it is a reaction to the Second Jewish-Roman War. Why? We had Josephus as a reporter for the First Jewish-Roman War. In 135 CE, Hadrian

1) had a temple to Jupiter built on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem
2) founded the city of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem
3) renamed Judea to Syria Palaestina
4a) Prohibited Jews from living in Aelia Capitolina
4b) exiles all circumcised men from Jerusalem. This goes on for more than 100 years.

How long did Aelia Capitolina last?

Aelia Capitolina, the Roman name for Jerusalem, lasted for approximately 250 years, from around 70 CE to 325 CE. It was established after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and remained under Roman control until the city was renamed Jerusalem in the 4th century CE during the reign of Emperor Constantine I.

Wikipedia:
Bishops of Aelia Capitolina
Marcus (135–???)
Cassianus (???–???)
Poplius (???–???)
Maximus I (???–???)
Julian I (???–???)
Gaius I (???–???)
Symmachus (???)
Gaius II (???–162)
Julian II (162–???)
Capion (???–???)
Maximus II (???–???)
Antoninus (???–???)
Valens (???–???)
Dolichianus (???–185)
Narcissus (185–???)
Dius (???–???)
Germanion (???–???)
Gordius (???–211)
Narcissus (restored) (???–231)
Alexander (231–249)
Mazabanis (249–260)
Imeneus (260–276)
Zamudas (276–283)
Ermon (283–314)
Macarius I (314–333), since 325 Bishop of Jerusalem

Scores up until the beginning of Comment 55

A Score: 4
Paul’s letters should be reclassified as pseudonymous. 4

B Score: 1
These pseudonymous letters follow the writing of Acts. 1

C Score: 4
The gospels were not attractive to Ancient Romans of the first century. The letters
of Paul were needed to boost the gospels into an Hellenistic empire.

D Score: 5
What came first, the letters in Revelation or the letters of Paul?
Answer: the letters of Revelation.
So, the Pauline letters were written after Revelation was written in 96 CE.

E Score 5
People wrote fake dialogues and fake letters in ancient times. The authentic letters of Paul are another example of fictive letters (Letter of Aristeas about the Septuagint) and pseudonymous, fictive letter collections were popular (Dr. Owen Hodkinson, Univ of Leeds), the Paul and Seneca letters, etc.

F Score 4
Writers of pseudonymous letter collections take the person they say they are in a different direction.
So, instead of Acts correcting the relationship between Paul and Peter in the letters, the letters came later a created the drama between Paul and Peter. Ancient readers expected authority of the letter writer to correct what was written. They wanted that correction. Livesey goes on to say there are no letter co-senders in Marcion’s Pauline letters (example: Paul and Timothy write to you, or something to that effect).

G Score: 4
The Pauline Letters do not appear until the mid-second century.
The Pauline letters do not appear until Aelia Capitolina replaced Jerusalem (129/130 CE).
The Pauline Letters do not appear until after Marcion’s collection was published 135-150 CE

H Score: 4
Moving the Pauline letters after 100 CE causes one to question why Paul does not know much about the Jesus of the gospels written before 100 CE.

I score 5
Josephus doesn’t say his Paul figure had churches in Philippi, Galatia, Corinth. He does not say he wrote them one or more letters.
Paul had to write some of the churches only once? None of the churches replied to Paul? No, because they were fictive pseudonymous letters.

J Score 4
Timothy is not known in Marcion’s collection of Pauline’s letters. The redactors introduced Timothy.

K Score: 5
Christianity was a reaction not to AD 70 but to 135 CE because the Jerusalem Church could not exist in Aelia Capitolina, Syria Palaestina.

TRADITION
The authentic Pauline letters were not pseudonymous.
Paul in Acts was written after the authentic Pauline letters.
Some think for the biography of Paul, only the authentic Pauline letters were more authoritative than Luke’s biography

Steefen
Josephus gives us an historical John the Baptist and an historical Paul.
Pseudonymous Gospel of Luke, Acts, and the Pseudonymous Pauline Letters were written after the death of historical Paul.
The pseudonymous Pauline letters do not appear until Marcion’s collection.
Paul says he was the apostle to the Gentiles but he wasn’t the first to plant a flag of Christianity in Rome.
Only Gentile Christianity survived in Aelia Capitolina.
Once Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina, any churches from Pella would not be successful in their return to Jerusalem.
The Last Supper in the Pauline Letters was an interpolation.

Author of Historical Accuracy, March 2021
Jesus is Decius Mundus (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
which alludes to Decius Mus, 295 BCE, History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy

This calms the mind about, where were these letters 68 CE to say 100 CE and who copied the originals and sent the copies to Marcion?

Steefen:
Litwa says there is too much TANAK theology in the Pauline letters for the letters to have been written by a Marcionite school.
His Antithesis should prevent this. Those against Marcion did not like the God of the TANAK vs God of the New Testament. I would say even though Jesus had a problem with the God of Moses.

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)

I’m a Marcion mythicist. Marcion was obviously invented by early Christian heresiologists to provide a easy to dismiss foil for Paul.

Comment 71 and 74

the video talked about Marcion’s Antithesis which spoke of the God of the Old Testament being different from the God of the New Testament.

@Collin Milton

Is
The God of the Old Testament the Demiurge
and
The God of the New Testament the Father?

Is the God of Moses, Psalms, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel all the Demiurge?

= = = = =

In the Bible, the concept of Demiurge, an inferior creator god separate from the supreme God, is primarily found in Gnostic texts and not within the canonical scriptures. Gnosticism, a diverse set of religious and philosophical beliefs, posits a distinction between the true, unknowable God and the Demiurge, who is often identified with the Old Testament God, Yahweh. Gnostics viewed the Demiurge as either ignorant, malicious, or simply incompetent in creating the material world, which they saw as flawed and separate from the spiritual realm.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:

Gnostic View:
.

Gnostics believed that the true God was transcendent and unknowable, distinct from the creator of the physical world. This creator, the Demiurge, was often identified with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh.
Demiurge’s Role:
.
In Gnostic cosmology, the Demiurge is responsible for creating the material world, which is seen as inferior and flawed compared to the spiritual realm. Some Gnostic texts portray the Demiurge as malicious or ignorant, while others see him as simply misguided or limited in his understanding.
Contrasting with Biblical Theology:
.
The biblical account of creation, particularly in Genesis, presents God as the sole, supreme creator of all things, and the creation is described as originally good. The imperfections of the world are attributed to the fall of man and the introduction of sin, not to a flawed creator.
Gnostic Names for the Demiurge:
.
In Gnostic texts, the Demiurge is given various names, including Yaldabaoth, Samael, and Saklas.
Yaldabaoth:
.
This name, meaning “son of chaos,” is one of the most common names for the Demiurge in Gnostic texts.
Samael:
.
Meaning “Blind God” or “God of the Blind,” this name emphasizes the Demiurge’s perceived ignorance.
Saklas:
.
Meaning “fool” in Aramaic, this name also highlights the Demiurge’s perceived lack of wisdom.

In essence, the concept of the Demiurge as a flawed creator is a distinct feature of Gnostic thought, not a concept found within the core teachings of the Bible.

= = = = =

Comment 70

Litwa didn’t say Marcion was a Gnostic.

= = = = =

Google, was Marcion a Gnostic?
Google: There are key differences.

While some scholars consider Marcion a Gnostic, or at least influenced by Gnosticism, others argue against it, highlighting key differences in their theological systems. Marcionism shares some commonalities with Gnosticism, such as the rejection of the material world and the belief in a transcendent, purely good God, but also differs significantly, particularly in Marcion’s view of the creator God and his understanding of Jesus’s role and the nature of salvation, according to Wikipedia.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Similarities with Gnosticism:

Dualism:
Both Marcionism and Gnosticism feature a dualistic worldview, where the material world is seen as inferior or even evil, and a higher, spiritual realm is considered the true reality.
Transcendental God:
Both systems posit a God who is separate from and superior to the creator of the material world.
Docetism:
Marcion, like some Gnostic schools, held a docetic view of Christ, believing that Jesus only appeared to be human but was not truly incarnated.
Rejection of the Material World:
Both Marcionites and Gnostics tended to view the physical world with suspicion or even hostility, seeing it as an obstacle to spiritual enlightenment.
Special Revelation:
While Marcion rejected the idea of secret knowledge, he did believe that Paul possessed a unique understanding of the “true” gospel that was not fully grasped by other Christians.

Key Differences / Key Differences / Key Differences:

Creator God:
.

Marcion’s most significant departure from Gnosticism was his view of the creator God. Gnostics often saw the creator god as an inferior or even evil being. Marcion, while distinguishing him from the “true” God, did not see him as inherently evil, but rather as just and powerful, but not merciful.
Nature of Salvation:
.
Gnostics often emphasized self-knowledge and the awakening of the divine spark within, while Marcion focused on God’s mercy and grace as the source of salvation.
Creation Myths:
.
Marcion rejected elaborate creation myths, which were central to many Gnostic systems.
Role of Paul:
.
While Marcion believed Paul had a special insight, he did not see him as the sole source of truth like some Gnostics did regarding their own figures according to Wikipedia.

What?
There are differences between the Pauline letters. Besides, not all of them were judge authentic. So, I disagree with you: I say, it was not accomplished by a sole author; and, you know the letters deemed not authentic was accomplished not by the author of the authentic letters.