List of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus

Was not Einstein a man of science? Therefore Copernicus didn't exist! That means the earth is really the center of the universe too

Originally posted by Iasion
John
A late work which tells a very different story
- not by anyone who met Jesus.
Peter
Not written by Peter, but by someone who never met any Jesus.
James
Not written by James, but by someone who never met any Jesus.
These are the conclusions of modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown, Metzger etc.)

Well ... looks like the 'modern NT scholars' are wrong. How they can
come up with their conclusions is beyond me. Silly really. Looks like
they WANT the conclusion to be that these were written by people
who never met Jesus.

The Gospel of John is very deep and very spiritual. Of the three, his
is the most etherial and prayerful. The others are more of a recording
of events. The Gospel of John is different because the author is very
different. It's a spiritual thing.

Now .. Revelation is a different story ... highly questionable in it's
content and the sanity of the author is something I question.

The author of Peter and James never met Christ? Yeah, right.
Sorry but these NT 'scholars' are leaving me cold. Their
'evidence' and conclusions are ... what's the word ... agendacised.
(new word I made up just for this occasion)

Exactly FlyersFan - this is the game they play.

Josephus references him - they reply - no he didn't, somebody added that! The early christians wrote tomes on him - no they didn't! they were written by zealous oppressed Jewish/Christian Tibetan monks held hostage in India. Whatever

I think DaVinci wrote the Egyptian Book of the Dead...there - we don't have to discuss anything in that book anymore. **

Originally posted by Iasion
The letter of James is NOT by the brother of Jesus.
How could the alleged brother of Jesus -
* NOT mention ANYTHING about Jesus
* NOT mention he is the brother of Jesus
Is there anyone here prepared to actually READ the epistle
of James to see if he says anything about Jesus?

James wasn't Jesus brother. He was a blood relative, a cousin
perhaps, but not the son of Mary and Joseph. If Mary had children
other than Christ, then Christ wouldn't have left her to the care of
John when he died on the cross. Mary would have gone to the
care of one of her other sons, and Jesus wouldn't have had to
have given her into the care of John. If there had been other sons
then Christ doing this would have gone against every Jewish
sacred tradition and it would have insulted his family. He wouldn't
have done that. Therefore - no other children were born to Mary.

Also - This writing may not contain information about Christ. So
what? Who says this is his only writing? I'm sure James wrote
many things. This one was the one that got picked to be in the
bible. Other writings could have, and probably were, done. To
point to one writing and say that is all encompasing and therefore
it proves James didn't know Christ ... well ... that doesn't make
sense. It's like taking one picture out of your family photo album
and if it doesn't show you with your father ... then that means
you didn't have a father in your home and you were abandoned
in a one parent household. See? Silly conclusion based on just
one snippit.

Edited to add - oh ... and OTHER authors in the scripture talk about
James being there with Christ for important events. So although
James doesn't boast about being a 1st LT of Christ's in his writings,
other authors in the scriptures DO say that James was there for
the big events ... like the transfiguration and the rising of the dead.
Perhaps James' other writings were more self serving and boastful,
and perhaps that's why they were rejected by the Catholic council
that put the bible together. We will never know what, if anything,
James' other writings may have said. But that doesn't matter
because the gospels that were chosen all state very clearly that
James was indeed real, with Christ, and present for the big events.



[edit on 4/26/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by jake1997
Today we have the internet and the printing press...

How manywriters mention susan anthony?

There are 14,500 google hits for Susan Anthony, we did biography reports about her
in sixth grade, circa, 1982, so there have 70 kids.

Originally posted by jake1997Now many writers mention the starter of anything new?

Every single day in hundreds of thousands of trade journals and online reports about discoveries, theories and technologies.

Originally posted by jake1997
It seems that hardly anyone writes bout anything until its past tense.

What? . If you write about the future it is either speculation, science fiction, guesswork, mystical prophecy, a planned event without real detail of what will occur outside of the plans, or just some mundane thing on your personal calendar.


Religion is the biggest hoax ever.

Greetings Al,

Thanks for your kind words :-)

Originally posted by Al Davison
did you read an English translation?
do you know who did the translation(s) and when?

I typically start with a Greek/English interlinear,
then check the English,
not sure exactly which translation I quoted above.

The reason I'm asking is that the quotes you posted where "Jesus Christ" was mentioned seem like "drop-ins" - they don't seem to fit in with the text very well. I'm wondering if it's possible that even those scant references were really part of the original.

Indeed, this happens a lot in the NT.
But a check of my NA 27 shows no variations there.
Note - there are no "originals" -)


Iasion

Greetings Roger,

Originally posted by roger_pearse
The evidence (that James wrote the epistle) is otherwise. Your argument to the contrary?

Really?
What evidence have you that James was really written by the brother of Jesus?



Here are the reasons why scholars disagree (from Peter Kirby's)

Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.

3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?

4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).

Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386):

The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings: Buy at amazon.com! Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord's brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. In 1.1 the author designates himself douloV qeou kai kuriou Ihsou Xristou (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term douloV (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord's brother nor claims the title stuloV (cf. Gal. 2.9). By including himself in the large group of early Christian teachers (cf. Acts 13.1; 1 Cor. 12.28-29), he disclaims the special authority of the Lord's brother or the three 'pillars' of the Jerusalem mother church, which were used in the Antioch conflict. In addition, James 3.1ff. presupposes an attack on the teaching office and a critical situation associated with it, which again does not correspond to the exclusive position of James the Lord's brother in the history of early Christianity.

Iasion


EDITroviding link to the source:
The Epistle of James

Also cut down the size of your 'copy-n-paste' job. :shk:

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Any time you quote a source(s), Iasion, provide an active link to the source(s) please.
Your source link to the quotes above are?




seekerof

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Seekerof]

The NT scriptures are corrupt!

C170. Muratorian canon fragment accepted : Matt: Mark: Luke: John: Paul’s Corinthians 1&2; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; Galatians; 1&2 Thessalonians; Romans; Philemon: Titus, 1&2 Timothy; Jude; 1&2John; the book of Wisdom; Hermas the Shepard; apocalypses of John and Peter.

The Gospel of John: John 7:53-8:11 The story of the adulterous woman, is absent from the earliest known version of John; early Latin translations of the text; older versions used in the Jerusalem church.

Apocalypse of Peter: Found in the works of Clement and which claimed to be a letter from Peter to Clement on a vision of Jesus on the mount after he was already dead. Excerpted from same:

And my Lord Jesus Christ our King said unto me: Let us go unto the holy mountain. And his disciples went with him, praying. And behold there were two men there,… And when we saw them on a sudden, we marvelled. And I drew near unto the Lord (God) Jesus Christ and said unto him: O my Lord, who are these? And he said unto me: They are Moses and Elias….

These words are found also in Matt 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. MK 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. LK 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Apocalypse of Peter;

And I said unto him: O my Lord, wilt thou that I make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias?

Found in; MK 9:5 let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. LK 9:33 Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

A of P continues;

And behold, suddenly there came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased: keep my commandments. And then came a great and exceeding white cloud over our heads and bare away our Lord and Moses and Elias.

Matt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. MK 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. LK 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

A of P closes with this to Clement

Hearken, my son Clement…Our Lord showed at the transfiguration the apparel of the last days, of the day of resurrection, unto Peter, James and John the sons of Zebedee,

Matt 17:1:2-And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart And was transfigured before them... MK 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. LK 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.


Exactly how many transfigurations did he have, and why is it the same dead as it is alive? And how many times would they be afraid of seeing the same vision?

A of P

…and I trembled and was sore afraid…

Matt 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. MK 9:6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

Then we have this A of P:

and my Lord answered me and said to me:… but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.'

Matt 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. MK 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

A rather boldfaced misrepresentation of the timeline I would say.

So there can be no confusion as to the time surrounding this duplicated scene. Neither Matt, Mark nor Luke speak of Jesus ascending with Moses and Elias while he was alive. Matthew, Mark and Luke end with them ascending after his death, as does the A of P;

then came a great and exceeding white cloud over our heads and bare away our Lord and Moses and Elias. And I trembled and was afraid: and we looked up and the heaven opened and we beheld men in the flesh, and they came and greeted our Lord and Moses and Elias and went into another heaven. And the word of the scripture was fulfilled: This is the generation that seeketh him and seeketh the face of the God of Jacob. And great fear and commotion was there in heaven and the angels pressed one upon another that the word of the scripture might be fulfilled which saith: Open the gates, ye princes. Thereafter was the heaven shut, that had been open.

And we prayed and went down from the mountain, glorifying God, which hath written the names of the righteous in heaven in the book of life.

It is obvious that the Gospels attributed to 4 men have been heavily redacted by others, not just one, but all for the purpose of fooling the general public and more than likely to counter those who were in disagreement with the story of Jesus. These very redactors have you believing that the works thrown out by the church were heresies, while in fact they were busy creating their own which you Christians have fallen for. What they did was to take the A of P, section it off and attribute some to while he was alive and some to after his death making it appear as more than one visit to the mountain. In fact, a careful analysis of all of his visitations on the mount reflect one event and one event only. This editing is not only blasphemous, it is downright deceitful.

It is without a doubt that were those who argue that the NT is in fact truth have no inclination whatsoever to actually acquaint themselves with the chronological facts available to us relative to the all of the early church fathers and on what they supported their testimony. The evidence is clear in this regard starting with Clement of Rome who betrays a great deal of knowledge of the OT but very little of what is in the 4 gospels, and relies heavily on words now established as being attributable to Paul and then Peter, as his support for faith. It is this Clement whose possessions included the Apocalypse of Peter.

It does not matter how many ways Christians find to proclaim the validity of the gospels, this Apocalypse of Peter speaks for itself. It is either that the four were screwballs under the influence of some herb; that they purposely sought to mislead others; that the gospel according to Luke was nothing more than another bogus entry by someone claiming to know what transpired, or that all four are in fact the works of the likes of Clement and Paul who concocted an elaborate story for their own vile purposes. The latter has my vote, but whatever it is, it is clear that the church fathers had to toss the obvious previously accepted works which countered their attempts at manipulating the masses and to adapt certain ones to fit their sick tale. When something as important as the transfiguration presented as happening during Jesus’ life is found attributed to his afterlife, it is clear that where there is one lie told, there are likely many more.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Iasion
John
A late work which tells a very different story
- not by anyone who met Jesus.
Peter
Not written by Peter, but by someone who never met any Jesus.
James
Not written by James, but by someone who never met any Jesus.
These are the conclusions of modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown, Metzger etc.)

Well ... looks like the 'modern NT scholars' are wrong. How they can
come up with their conclusions is beyond me. Silly really. Looks like
they WANT the conclusion to be that these were written by people
who never met Jesus.

If this is really the consensus of secularised NT scholarship, then we need to get rid of what has then become a pseudo-discipline. The ancient evidence is otherwise.

But I don't find these statements in Metzger, tho. I notice that the more rabid sort of anti-Christian poster always attributes whatever he wants to believe to 'modern scholars', whom as a rule he hasn't read. It's a hangover from atheist writing of the 19th century when the debunkers were in control of the NT and atheists could rely on scholars to assert the daftest things. I'm afraid our friend may have been led astray by one of these.

That Iasion cited Peter Kirby's website (an atheist) as his source for NT studies is not a good sign.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[edit on 27/4/2005 by roger_pearse]

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings Roger,

Originally posted by roger_pearse
The evidence (that James wrote the epistle) is otherwise. Your argument to the contrary?

Really? What evidence have you that James was really written by the brother of Jesus?

The testimony of antiquity. We today have limited evidence; they were much better positioned.

Here are the reasons why scholars disagree (from Peter Kirby's)

Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian....

Arguments of this type, by their very nature, seem to involve people living 2000 years later making subjective judgements on style, and then making assumptions as to the process of composition. I don't see how such tenuous stuff can sensibly be opposed to the definite statements of Origen.

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.

This type of argument seems completely invalid from start to end. People do whatever they wish. Even people we know well can surprise us. One would not learn from this statement that the author of it had never met James and knew next to nothing about him.

Such imaginary ideas should never be treated as evidence. At most they are inferences from it.

3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit ...

Same problem with this.

4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).

A similar problem with this. How does the author know all these things about the development of doctrine? This too is a piece of imagination based on inference.

Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386):

The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings: Buy at amazon.com!

I somewhat resent being asked to deal with unread pastes of text.

Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James.

Hmm. These are?

Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter.

Same type of argument by expectation already dealt with above.

The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord's brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles.

Why? Again, this incredibly positive statement is merely imagination based on inference.

In 1.1 the author designates himself douloV qeou kai kuriou Ihsou Xristou (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term douloV (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord's brother nor claims the title stuloV (cf. Gal. 2.9). [etc]

But do we know that he did so introduce himself and claim authority based on it? If not, how is this evidence?

That said, I think that this is the one piece of actual evidence offered: that James does not call himself the Lord's brother. Of course Jude doesn't either: he calls himself the brother of James.

So we see that all but one of these 'reasons' amount to speculation. I think we need to be highly sceptical of this. The problem in any area of controversy is the propensity of the professionals to make claims of authority while peddling some contemporary political or religious agenda (not just in NT studies either -- anyone remember economists advocating marxism as 'scientific'?). We can only descope their bias and, worse, our own, but sticking close to the data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

What about a list of people who did mention Jesus?
It's a quite big list from what I understand, bigger than this one...

It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:

"We accept only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, although some of us do not want it (Peter) to be read in the Church".

Apocalypse of Peter: Found in the works of Clement and which claimed to be a letter from Peter to Clement on a vision of Jesus on the mount after he was already dead. ...

Exactly how many transfigurations did he have, and why is it the same dead as it is alive? And how many times would they be afraid of seeing the same vision?

The relevance of all this is unclear to me. No-one accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture. That some people might have done so -- and others thought otherwise -- at some undefined period in one church in the second century is neither here nor there. In those ancient days, the edges of the canon were unclear; but this is why we ended up with a written canon.

It is obvious that the Gospels attributed to 4 men have been heavily redacted by others, not just one, but all for the purpose of fooling the general public and more than likely to counter those who were in disagreement with the story of Jesus. These very redactors have you believing that the works thrown out by the church were heresies, while in fact they were busy creating their own which you Christians have fallen for.

None of this appears from the statements above, tho. Such wild talk suggests a theory pre-formed, onto which data has been stuck.

What they did was to take the A of P, section it off and attribute some to while he was alive and some to after his death making it appear as more than one visit to the mountain. In fact, a careful analysis of all of his visitations on the mount reflect one event and one event only. This editing is not only blasphemous, it is downright deceitful.

You have yet to demonstrate the dependency of the first century NT on the second century AP.

It is without a doubt that were those who argue that the NT is in fact truth have no inclination whatsoever to actually acquaint themselves with the chronological facts available to us relative to the all of the early church fathers and on what they supported their testimony....

I'm afraid we must reject this, based on the evidence offered, as merely a projection of the position of those afraid of the NT onto the evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Iasion
JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3

Here is what Photius actually wrote:

XXIII. Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.

From: J.H.Freese, The Library of Photius, vol. I, SPCK, London (1920).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

*shands hand vigorously* well met roger, glad to have you here. Can I get you a soda or something to eat? *hands over the remote control* mi casa es su casa. It's been a bit spammy around here lately and I'm getting a little tired trying to clean up when someone dumps their mess all over the place instead of taking things one at a time but you've been a really big help coming in and cleaning this place up. If there's anything I can help with, feel free to let me know. I'll do whatever I can.



[edit on 27-4-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
*shands hand vigorously* well met roger, glad to have you here.

Many thanks for your kind thought. Have a beer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by saint4God
*shands hand vigorously* well met roger, glad to have you here.

Many thanks for your kind thought. Have a beer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

*pops open* Cheers mate!

legalizer,

Now that you have looked all of those 14,600 up,

How many of them wrote about Susan Anthony as a contemporary?
It seems that she is no better off then Jesus when it comes to having stuff written about her like that.

The amazing thing about that is, she was accepted by half the population, Jesus was rejected by 99.9999999999999% .

...and yet...He still has the most popular books of all time.

Dismissing yourself relative to your analytic abilities within the very first sentence while responding to me, does not bode well for you.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:

For were the A of P to quote the 170CE Muratorian Canon, you would not find me posting it as a source of the recitations of the 3 gospels mentioned. I won't embarrass you though and ask how you came to the above assumption.

The relevance of all this is unclear to me. No-one accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture.

What you accept today is of no consequence to the thinking of yesterday in this theoetical matter, which does support the historical evidence of the doctrinal building blocks employed by the Catholic church of 1800 years ago. That is the debate that you may wish to follow.

None of this appears from the statements above, tho. Such wild talk suggests a theory pre-formed, onto which data has been stuck.

You have me convinced. It was the “such wild talk.” that did it. I am supposed to be swayed am I by your lack of knowledge of the provisional undertakings transpiring in the course of the first 500 years of the Christian doctrine?

You have yet to demonstrate the dependency of the first century NT on the second century AP.

Let me see now, Clement lived between the first and second centuries, and you naturally succumb to the notion that the four gospels were created before Clement received this letter from Peter. I presume then that Peter was either dead when he communicated with Clement, or that Clement forged the A of P to further his own agenda. Allow me to indulge you in your shallowness of thought therefore. Clement was highly revered for centuries, where his writings strongly influenced the politics of the church. Therefore, if he lied, that does not bode well for the church, and if Peter’s A of P was fraudulent, that too does not bode well for the church which not just accepted same well into the 2nd century, but well into the 3rd.

I suppose at this point I should advise you that the Catholic church was of the opinion even back then that it was divinely inspired, hence, all that was accepted 18-1900 years ago was done so by the grace of God. But please do keep arguing against yourself.

I'm afraid we must reject this, based on the evidence offered, as merely a projection of the position of those afraid of the NT onto the evidence.

Yes, you should be afraid, not just for the fact that you wish to reject same, but for the fact the forgers of your doctrine did accept it and then moved to incorporate it into what you conceive to be evidence today.

Care to try again?



[edit on 4/27/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Dismissing yourself relative to your analytic abilities within the very first sentence while responding to me, does not bode well for you.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:It is curious that this post about the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter does not actually quote the Muratorian canon on the subject. Here it is:

For were the A of P to quote the 170CE Muratorian Canon, you would not find me posting it as a source of the recitations of the 3 gospels mentioned. I won't embarrass you though and ask how you came to the above assumption.

I actually queried why your post did not cite the Muratorian canon.

The relevance of all this is unclear to me. No-one accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture.

What you accept today is of no consequence to the thinking of yesterday in this theoetical matter, which does support the historical evidence of the doctrinal building blocks employed by the Catholic church of 1800 years ago. That is the debate that you may wish to follow.

Should you wish to cite the sentence following in which I dealt with this matter, and which you omitted, we can talk. But not until then, surely.

None of this appears from the statements above, tho. Such wild talk suggests a theory pre-formed, onto which data has been stuck.

You have me convinced. It was the “such wild talk.” that did it. I am supposed to be swayed am I by your lack of knowledge of the provisional undertakings transpiring in the course of the first 500 years of the Christian doctrine?

I am glad you ask. Have a look at my web page, the Tertullian Project, and evaluate my familiarity with second century thought for yourself.

You have yet to demonstrate the dependency of the first century NT on the second century AP.

Let me see now, Clement lived between the first and second centuries, and you naturally succumb to the notion that the four gospels were created before Clement received this letter from Peter. I presume then that Peter was either dead when he communicated with Clement, or that Clement forged the A of P to further his own agenda. [etc]

This all sounds odd. There has been a cottage industry in creating pseudo-gospels from the second century to our own. If you assert that all of these are legitimate, then I'm afraid I can't help you. If you assert (as I do) that all of these are more or less bogus, then your comments have no meaning. But if you want to assert that the A of P really is a subapostolic document, you have to demonstrate this, not just presume it, surely?

You might start by explaining which Apocalypse of Peter you have in mind, and why you suggest that we should accept one (I take it you don't accept it as scripture yourself?), and not the other.

Incidentally, would you tell me why you are being deliberately rude throughout this post?

I'm afraid we must reject this, based on the evidence offered, as merely a projection of the position of those afraid of the NT onto the evidence.

Yes, you should be afraid, not just for the fact that you wish to reject same, but for the fact the forgers of your doctrine did accept it and then moved to incorporate it into what you conceive to be evidence today.

Care to try again?

But what do you offer in defence of your comments? Only rudeness, as far as I can see (no offence intended). I think that sort of does my work for me, doesn't it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[edit on 28/4/2005 by roger_pearse]

[edit on 28/4/2005 by roger_pearse]