Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

Greetings Amadeus,

....Post in progress.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Logician]

So, the point is that the four �council approved� gospels feel no compunction at all in �doing a complete makeover� both of the seditonistic tendencies of the �Jesus Movement or of whitewashing Pilate�s role in the execution

You often relish the term "council approved" to suggest a "complete makeover" of the four Gospels (as we know them) by the Nicean Council of (325AD). You imply also a "whitwashing" of Pilate's role by this diabolical cabal . .....


But have you ever heard of P52, or the papyri known as P52? It contains fragments of St John's Gospel. It has been dated as 130 AD, which means that this copy of the Gospel was written hardly forty years after the original and about 200 years before the dreaded Nicean cabal.The original gospels, i.e. the autographs, have long been lost, and there is no record of anyone ever having seen them. The oldest authentic NT material thus far discovered consists of a few papyrus fragments dating to the second century. They are known as the John Rylands papyrus (P52), comprising five verses from the Gospel of John, and the Magdalen papyri (P64) comprising three fragments of the Gospel of Matthew. [ BTW, The earliest listing of the 'canonical gospels' by name, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, occurs in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon in his Against Heresies written around 180, but that's another story in itself.]

Its discovery in Egypt, so far from the site of its original composition (Ephesus or Antioch) may also be evidence that the Gospel had been around for quite a while, certainly enough time to have been disseminated among Christians in other parts of the Roman World. [recto (front) and verso (back) as being parts of the Gospel of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 respectively.] Point being it would be virtually impossible for the Nicean council to mutate Gospel of John significantly 200 years later as the whole known World would already have copies of it. [Besides it wasn't the mission of the "council " to alter the Gospels, but if i go down this road it will take us too far off course.]

Here are the words of the precious P52(130 AD) . CAPITAL words.:

Recto: It is not lawful FOR US to put to death
NO ONE;THAT THE W ord of Jesus might be fulfilled;
Which he spoke SIGNIFYING by what death
He was about to dIE. ENTered therefore into the
Praetorium again [P]ilate and called
Jesus and SAId to him, "Are you the King of
The JEWS?"

Verso: For THIS I hAVE BEEN BORN, and for this I have been born into
The WORLD THAT I MAY BEAR witness to the truth.
Everyone that IS OF THE TRUTH hears my voice.
SAYS TO HIM Pilate, "what is truth?"
AND THIS having said again, he went out
TO THE [J] ews and says to them;
I NOT ANY fault find in him.

5 complete & 9 part-words on one side, 6 complete & 7 partial words on the other.

Please check your modern, �council approved� bible, ( Gospel of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 respectively). You will find that P52 is identical to modern Gospel of John. If we consider Consider P52 a random mathematical sample, probability dictates that other random samples of the pre-Nicean Gospel of John would also be consistent with the post "council" approved Gospel of John . The Gospel of John is therefore reliable as far back as around 130AD.(at least)

The "Mr Nice Guy Pontius Pilate" we read so fondly about in the "council Approved" Gospels is NOT the same picture we receive from eyewitnesses or contempory sources who had access to eyewitnesses :� Here is what �Philo of Alexandria� (who lived c. BC 20 to c. AD 50) has to say about the personal style of Pontius Pilatus (and he came into contact with people who knew Pilatus personally)

Actually towards Jesus Pilate is somewhat sympathetic, according to P52 .-- And this having said again, he went out

TO THE [J] ews and says to them;
I NOT ANY fault find in him.



I�m personally inclined to belive Pilate comes across as �Mr. Nice Guy� in the Gospels because as compared to the High priest (and his corrupt �priests�), Pilate actually was. Case of the lesser of two evils, if you will. Caiaphas was far, far more vindictive than Pilate ever could be. In this regard then, he overshadows even Pilate.. This is what Josephus writes of these corrupt, perverted , Rome appointed charlatons.
"As for the high priest Ananias ... was a great hoarder up of money ... He also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that (some of the) priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food..."( Josephus, Ant., XX, 9, 2-4)
Even the Talmud says that these men were violent, and greedy who robbed both the common people and the common priests, and disregarded all appeals to restrain themselves.

(�so you ARE a King, are you?)

You attribute the above to Pilate .

But this is wrong. P52 quotes him thus:

ENTered therefore into the
Praetorium again [P]ilate and called
Jesus and SAId to him, "Are you the King of
The JEWS?"

So, the point is that the four �council approved� gospels feel no compunction at all in �doing a complete makeover� both of the seditonistic tendencies of the �Jesus Movement or of whitewashing Pilate�s role in the execution

Maybe you would like to reconsider in light of the evidence I presented you.

Notice for example how many of Iesous� disciuples had �Warrior-Zealot nicknames� like �The Rock� (ho Petros) or �The Two Sons of Thunder� (benei Regesh or �Boanerges� as �Mark� puts it in his baby-Greek) or �Shimeon, the Zealot� or �Cannannite� or (even �Ish Keryiota� which�who knows---may be linked with the knife wielding Sicarrii) .

What�s in a name?.......Amadeus, it�s difficult to fathom hardened �zealots� and �warriors� like the 12, who chickened out so quickly. Talk of chicken, Peter denied it when a LITTLE GIRL suggested he was Jesus� disciple, and a little while later the proverbial rooster crowed. These guys were neither warlike nor intrepid rebels, don�t kid yourself.

Mark 4:69-72
And the servant girl saw him (Peter) again, and began to say to those who stood by, "This is one of them". But he (Peter) denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it." Then began to curse and swer, "I do not know this Man of whom you speak!" A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times." And when he thought about it, he wept. (New King James Version)

Best










[edit on 21-11-2004 by Logician]

logician,

this fight with amadeus is fruitless, i stopped arguing with him a while ago... he claims that jesus taught defiance because he said if you are hit on the cheek turn your other one... what he fails to see is he is teaching humility. He SPECULATES that Jesus went and attacked guards based on how he interpreted the passage in the bible, and none of this is true. News flash Amadeus, Jesus didn't teach difiance, he stated that you SHOULD follow the law of the king in the present land, but not hold them greater than God. Remember when he asked whose face is upon the coin, when they asked about the tax collectors... yeah that is the passage, unfortunately i dont have these passage numbers or phrases memorized, but im sure if you actually read the bible you would know it was there. Why am i talking to you again, good bye sir.

Hi Ryan5555,

Thanks for your views� Easy.

Please feel free to discuss the NT /OT with me at your convenience�. BTW, I don�t view my dealing with Amadeus as a � fight� but a gentleman�s discordance. We can all disagree without being disagreeable. He has a right to his point of view just as we do.


Incidently, the John Rylands fragment (117-138 A.D.)[P52] I quoted last post, has been CONCLUSIVELY dated by mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating . As a result no one questions it�s date. It is the earliest official fragment of the NT at our disposal to date. Many scientists speculate for it a date of less than 100A.D. But we must be content with the official dating at this time.

On another note, a trio of fragments, called the Magdalen fragments(P62) are also showing great potential[ these I believe have the potential to surpass the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls]. In April of 1996 the following story appeared on the front cover of Time Magazine.

�EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS?
A GERMAN SCHOLAR ARGUES THAT THREE BITS OF PAPYRUS ARE THE OLDEST FRAGMENTS OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL�

Apr. 8, 1996


Charles B. Huleatt, an Egyptologist, acquired thesethree small fragments of papyrus that were unearthed in Upper egypt and subsequently bequeathed them to his Alma Mater, Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1901. These three segments contain the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 26, verses 23 and 31. There are a total of 24 lines, text on both sides. (This implies that they were part of a codex-a book with pages rathr than a traditional scroll, which was written on the smooth side only. These were beginning to make their appearance during the Gospel period. In his final letter, Paul requested Timothy to bring his notebooks to him.!


In 1953, Colin H. Roberts, a notable British pappyrologist, declared that these papyrus fragments were probably from the late second century A.D. In 1994, Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, Director of the Institute of Basic Epistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany, used a scanning laser microscope to more carefully examine these fragments, "P.Magdalen Greek 17/P64," as they are formally designated.He astounded the scholastic world by concluding that the Magdalen fragments were either an original from Matthew's Gospel, or an immediate copy, written while Matthew and the other disciples and other eye witnesses were still alive! Matthew's skills in shorthand (an essential requirement for a customs official in a society devoid of printing, copiers, and the like) are evident in his inclusion of the extensive discourses, which he apparently was able to record verbatim!

Research is still on going�. But even if we are left with a late second century A.D. date for 17/P64(highly unlikely!), still great. It can only get better�..


[edit on 22-11-2004 by Logician]

Hi Logician:

From one gentle-person to another then�continuing the general discussion of the accuracy/inaccuracy of Gospel transmission...as it impacts our understanding of the 2 conflicting Virgin Birth Narratives, of course !

Generally speaking, when comparing an �event� in a Gospel "narrative" or "pericope" with its sister-parallel in another Gospel, or when a single narrative only appears in one Gospel, it becomes obvious that the Evangelists who penned these Gospels had their own beliefs, emphases and attitudes.

A more detailed discussion of this would have to wait for another thread...but in the meantime...

we can see at a glance how the different authors of the Gospels shaped, remolded, selected and adapted the material available to them to suit their own theological purposes, often combining their own presuppositions with OT Hagaddic Midrash, that is, turning to various Messianic/Last Days OT writngs (usually the LXX) for inspiration and guidance of their narrative details.

We certainly see this process at work in Luke�s Infancy Narrrative as it compares and contrasts with Matthew�s own approach to addressing the problem of Mamzerism accusations etc.

We must remember that the narrative collections in the gospels had been joined at a fairly early date, perhaps while still in the oral stage of the tradition, with sayings collections into proto gospels and then read outloud weekly in the �churches� having been specially designed for the specific church or city in which their particular gospel was being read every week

(i.e. over a 52 week period throughout the year, paralleling the Jewish custom in Synagogue readings of the Torah over 3 year periods) . We know this to be a fact from various copies

(e.g. Mark) which have the material neatly divided by red markers into 52 discrete sections.

This kind of �tailor made reading material� for different sets of Christian audiences (replacing the earlier Torah readings of the Jews) may well be the driving force behind all the uncentralised (and unauthorized) scribal changes to these texts in the first 100 years or so of the gospel�s literary existence in Greek.

On examination of passages arising in the four Gospels, it can be seen that the narratives are composed to suit the theological viewpoints of each evangelist (whoever they were in real life)�they certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events they relate, since

e.g. Matthew and Luke borrow and soften (and grammatically adapt) long stretches of material from �Mark�, a non-Eyewitness who has very little first hand information about the geography of Palestine if we take a close look at his own gospel itineraries.

And don�t forget:

we must always be aware in the transmission of any material (oral or written) of the inherent �fluidity of the contents� of that tradition: and the greatest period of �fluidity� (especially in any written hand copied-text tradition, but also applies to oral tradition where there are less �controls�) is ALWAYS the first 75 years of its transmission, from which time the fluidity tapers off gradually over time like Aspic in a mould it begins to �gel� into a more or less set form, and changes in the text become rarer and rarer.

After 200 years or so, scribes start counting �middle letters� on columns of text or whole pages, to make sure the �set and approved text� doesn�t change much by re-copying (despite the odd marginalia of certain over zealous scribes)

Now this thread is not specifically about �textual accuracy� but rather about the aims of the gospel writers in their handling of the allegeden Mamzerism of R. Yehoshua, but textual mis-handling and scribal changes to texts does play into the arguments about the Virgin Birth pericopes in the Infancy Narratives and the Johanine Mamzer section, so I suppose a quick digression about text fragments would not be too out of line here:

Remember how way back as early as 1707 John Mill of Oxford listed 30,000 Greek variants in the different N.T texts and at the beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts, the scholar Herman von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the "NT" texts illustrating how they were deliberately altered.

Even in the 4th cent. Codex Sinaiticus, containing all the N.T, Professor Tishendorf, the discoverer, noted that it had been altered in content by at least THREE different scribes.

This demonstrates that the present-day Bible is not and cannot be an "inerrant copy" of the original writings.

On the limitations of p52 (the so-called Rylands Papyrus)

You�ll have to refrain from using p52 to bolster a case for textual accuracy, in view of what little material we are dealing with here even if we can posiut a date of around AD 125 or so.

The margin for "mass spectrogram" dating is plus or minus 25 years on average....and the jury is still somewhat out on this piece in terms of an absolutely PRECISE date.

Howbeit, as you know, this tiny piece of papyrus (2.5 inches by 3.4 inches) was found in Egypt in 1935 although the exact location of where it was found remains unknown.

It contains, unfortunately only fragments from about 5 verses of Greek text, ostensibly from the 4th gospel (or an earlier version of that book closely resembling our present Greek text of the 4th Gospel), and this fragment might well be dated anywhere from AD 130 to AD 170�but even if we accept an earlier date (c. 130 AD) unfortunately, it is FAR TOO SMALL A PIECE to assess the TOTAL accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the whole Greek codex from which it was taken (i.e. of the 4th gospel as a whole) .

As small as it is, the GREEK LETTERS THAT SURVIVE ON THIS FRAGMENT STILL DIFFER SOMEWHAT FROM THE "OFFICIAL" GREEK TEXT OF THE 4th GOSPEL used in most churches today.

Here�s an example (in English) of just how little material we are dealing with here (no complete sentences exist for this fragment in the Greek or even whole thoughts, just a few snatchets of words and half-words survive anyway)

Recto side (John 18:31-33

[TH] E IUDAEANS [DID] TO U[S] [H] AS ANYONE
THAT THE WOR [D] [A]ID SIGNIFYING
TO DIE ENTER[ED] [T] ORIUM PIL [ATE]
AND SAID [IU]DAEANS?

Verso side (John 18:37-38):

[FO] R THIS I HAVE BEEN BORN THE WORLD THAT I MAY TEST
OF THE TRUT[H] SAYING TO HIM AND THI[S]
THE IUDAEAN[S] [NO] THIN[G]

(followed by a small blank space =showing the end of a sentence).

You can see that this tiny fragment simply does NOT have enough physically inked Greek letters on the papyrus to ascertain an �original text�.

YET..as tiny a sample as this is it still shows a DIFFERENCE from the KJV in that it lacks the final clause �whatsoever� (or �at all�) in the last part of the final sentence�changing the emphasis of the sense of Iesous� �sinlessness.�

Most �English Speaking Christians� who today read the KJV will find �and Pilate said to them, I find no fault in him at all� (the KJV being a 1611 �translation� based on late and highly corrupted 10th and 11th century copies of the Greek "Byzantine" Text families) :

But the p52 fragment merely has room for the Greek letters to say, �I find nothing criminal in him�.

Notice how �I find nothing criminal in him� (in the p52 fragment) [or even �I have found no crime by him� ] is subtly yet [doctrinally] tellingly different from �I find no crime in him WHATSOEVER� (i.e. sinless) of the later Ephraemi type Greek copies of this text---the added words support the doctrine of the �sinlessness� of Iesous !!

This gives you a small example of to what lengths these texts have been �doctored� over time.

The early 3rd century Christian writer Origen in Caesarea (Palestine) no stranger to text comparison (as the author of the HEXAPLA) condemned Christian copyists for "their depraved audacity" in changing the texts in front of them to conform to later doctrine.

And even a very early dating for the Rylands fragment does not erase this fact. It's right there on the page.

In view of the deliberate change in the text we already see between this early fragment and the later versions of John-- there�s no way of telling if the REST of the papyrus codex (alas, now lost) from which it was once a part was in anyway like our present Gospel �of John� .

Even if we could argue a date �of composition� for the 4th Gospel around 100 AD (as its internal style suggests) it would merely represent a gospel which was circulating MORE THAN 65 years AFTER the �events� it purports to relate�

.i.e. not an �exact contemporary writing� of the 2nd Temple �Jesus� Period, but one reflecting a somewhat later period in early Christian history and one moreover written by a newly emerging group with different situations and problems than the ones faced during their Founder's time period.

(i.e. in having to deal with mainly post 75 AD issues which were patently NOT the same issues facing the Nazorean Messianists during the pre-Destruction period in which R. Yehoshua was living (the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Caves 1, 4 and 11 at Qumran would be more contemporary with R. Yehoshua and the events of his life.)

I�ll address some of your other points in another post, this one is already getting too long�!

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Amadeus]

dbrandt, thanks for addressing geneology. I learned a lot from it, got my question answered and thought it was entertaining with the analogy to boot!

Logician - If you ever start a magazine publication, put me on your subscription list please. I can't wait for you next issue so please keep it up!

Amadeus,


Greetings.

I�m delighted the phrase �council approved Gospels� apparently no longer passes muster with you with the same zeal (and credulity) as it did not one post ago..Instead now say stuff like this, �We must remember that the narrative collections in the gospels had been joined at a fairly EARLY date, perhaps while still in the oral stage of the tradition,�.� Very good! �And this, �And don�t forget: we must always be aware in the transmission of any material (oral or written) of the inherent �fluidity of the contents� of that tradition: and the greatest period of �fluidity� (especially in any written hand copied-text tradition, but also applies to oral tradition where there are less �controls�) is ALWAYS the FIRST 75 years of its transmission, from which time the fluidity tapers off gradually over time like Aspic in a mould it begins to �gel� into a more or less set form, and changes in the text become rarer and rarer.� . Definately a step in the right direction, Amadeus. Logic has a way of [imperceptibly] driving us towards the truth.

Generally speaking, when comparing an �event� in a Gospel "narrative" or "pericope" with its sister parallel in another Gospel, or when a single narrative only appears in one Gospel, it becomes obvious that the Evangelists who penned these gospels had their own beliefs, emphases and attitudes.

You've made this comment a few times now, I wish you could prove it.

we can see at a glance how the different authors of the Gospels shaped, remolded, selected and adapted the material available to them to suit their own theological purposes, often combining their own presuppositions with OT Hagaddic Midrash, that is,

I though we have been down this road before!? I think it's been made abandantly clear that the authors of the Synoptics were not independent entitites, but relied HEAVILY upon one another to pen their thoughts? What percentage of Mark�s Gospel appears in Matthew, and Luke? Recap my old post, or I can elaborate if you insist.

often combining their own presuppositions with OT Hagaddic Midrash, that is, turning to various Messianic/Last Days OT writngs (usually the LXX) for inspiration and guidance of their narrative details.

Implicit in the supposition of Jesus as Christ is the inevitiable recourse to OT prophecies(or as you term it, �Hagaddic Midrash). Absloutely. Examples at the top of my head are Gen. 3:15(�The proto-Evangelium�), Deut. 18;15, Ps.40,ps. 102, Ps. 118,Isa. 8:17,, Isa. 53,Mal. 4:5, et al. Christ commanded his followers to �search the scriptures, for they testify regarding me.� And what's wrong with the LXX, or the Alexandrian. Remember it was compiled by Greek Jews(or Greek speaking Jews), BC(260?!). The LXX was found also in fragmentary form at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls, proving its use by the Jewish people. The Assemblies used the LXX for many more centuries, even after the Jewish authorities had banned the original LXX at about the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. But Amadeus dislikes it . Why?

This kind of �tailor made reading material� for different sets of Christian audiences (replacing the earlier Torah readings of the Jews) may well be the driving force behind all the uncentralised (and unauthorized) scribal changes to these texts in the first 100 years or so of the gospel�s literary existence in Greek.

Most scholars would beg to differ with you here. The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. , as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated m their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a firstcentury date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900! ...Your new claim is that the Gospels were �changed�[substantially, otherwise it doesn�t matter] in the first hundred years....

So what am I getting at?

"When could it[the Gospel] have been changed?" Would the disciples of Jesus have changed it while they were alive until 90 or 95 AD? No living Christian believer would have accepted this. No Muslim would accept it about Abu Bakr and Omar. Was the Gospel changed between 90 and 150 AD? [Have you heard of the writings of independent sources like Clement of Rome---96 AD, Polycarp's letter to Philippi---107 AD, etc., who quote biblical passages extensively , making this a virtual impossibility] There were now 10's of thousands and perhaps 100's of thousands of believers spread over the whole Roman world. Hundreds, even thousands of these believers had heard the Gospel message from Jesus' own disciples. Could it really have been altered in any fundamental point during this period? Was it changed between 150 and 200 AD? There are translations, quotations, and important papyrus copies from this period, all testifying to essentially the same text and containing the same Doctrinal Gospel.

If as you now claim[shifting thesis], fundamental changes to Christian theology were fermented within the first 75 years of the birth of Christianity, then apparently such "un-Jewish" concepts as the �virgin birth�, Jesus as 'Son of God' etc. must have been concorted out of thin air by 'Zealot' Jews(in your own words!) who followed Jesus, specifically John etc., even Paul. You CANNOT then turn around and attribute these 'blasphemous' concepts to the influence of European paganism of the fourth century, or blame the Nicean or some other council for them. Jesus as 'Son of God' was a Jewish concept perpetuated by ardent Jews!!.... Do you know how large of a hole you�re digging for yourself here?

It contains, unfortunately only fragments from about 5 verses of Greek text, ostensibly from the 4th gospel (or an earlier version of that book closely resembling our present Greek text of the 4th Gospel), and this fragment might well be dated anywhere from AD 130 to AD 170�but even if we accept an earlier date (c. 130 AD) unfortunately, it is FAR TOO SMALL A PIECE to assess the TOTAL accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the whole Greek codex from which it was taken (i.e. of the 4th gospel as a whole) .

I knew you would come up with something like this. That�s why I deliberately neglected to mention p75. Do you know what it is? It is now in the Bodmer Library of World Literature at Cologny, a suburb of Geneva, Switzerland. It originally contained Luke and John on 144 pages, of which 102 pages, or about 70%, remain. It is the oldest known copy of the Gospel according to Luke, and one of the earliest copies of the Gospel according to John. It is dated around 200AD. the middle of the codex with the last three chapters of Luke and the first 13 chapters of John are intact. The first chapter of John includes the preexistence of the divine "Word" which became flesh. The last three chapters of Luke include Jesus' death on the cross and three of his resurrection appearances.. I should warn you that there are OTHER , very early, officially authenticated papari documents .

Notice how �I find nothing criminal in him� (in the p52 fragment) [or even �I have found no crime by him� ] is subtly yet [doctrinally] tellingly different from �I find no crime in him WHATSOEVER� (i.e. sinless) of the later Ephraemi type Greek copies of this text---the added words support the doctrine of the �sinlessness� of Iesous !!

The NIV I have reads;


Luke 23:4, �I find no basis for a charge against this man.�


Here's John 18:38, literal translation

www.biblegateway.com...

All match P52.


note: NIV, uses an 'eclectic' text and there are good reasons why..

Don't argue from the extreme because you make no point..

(i.e. in having to deal with mainly post 75 AD issues which were patently NOT the same issues facing the Nazorean Messianists during the pre-Destruction period in which R. Yehoshua was living (the Dead Sea Scrolls found in Caves 1, 4 and 11 at Qumran would be more contemporary with R. Yehoshua and the events of his life.)

You're ,missing the point, for one.I though we were discussing issues surrounding the continuity/reliability of the written Gospel, hence the revelancy to post 75AD......... Also what 'issues' was Jesus facing as a 'Nazorean Messianist' ? What relevance 'Nazorean Messianists' to Jesus or his "Galilean" apostles if ,as you claim, he was a bastard and they virtual outcastes. "Can anything good come out of Galilee"? Remember Jesus was a revolutionary 'teacher', he did not fit any of your conventional moulds, to begin with.



No offense, . Best.
















































[edit on 23-11-2004 by Logician]

Hi,

Originally posted by saint4God
dbrandt, thanks for addressing geneology. I learned a lot from it, got my question answered and thought it was entertaining with the analogy to boot!

Logician - If you ever start a magazine publication, put me on your subscription list please. I can't wait for you next issue so please keep it up!

Thanks for the kind words.




[edit on 23-11-2004 by Logician]

Greetings again, Logician:

Thanks for your post: (and thanks to all who sent me their fulsome compliments to my U2U this week !)

This is going to be fun� but I�m going to have to divide my posts into 3 parts today, sorry !!

You raise some issues that require some detailed discussion which cannot simply be brushed aside with a few words.

You have certainly mis understood a great deal of what I have been posting over the past 4 months, and I will have to spend some time re-explaining myself (not an easy task on these threadlets)

Also you seem to claim (contrary to all available evidence) that the NT was substantially �complete� by AD 100 which is patently false, and then claim to bolster this ridiculous notion by dragging in Clement of Rome, whose quotations (by the way) OFTEN DO NOT IN ANY WAY MATCH the material in the gospels you now read in English translation.

So you are (consciously or un-consciously) misrepresenting basic facts.

I will give you some notorious examples of Clement of Rome�s quotation of �scripture� a little later today---enough at any rate to show how INCORRECT your wild assumption that the gospel and oracular material contained what Christians today call NT (especially the gospel material) was in any way �fixed� or �set for good� in written Greek form before AD 180.

From the earliest patristic quotations of the NT, the text was CLEARLY NOT SET BUT VERY FLUID for the first 75 years of its existence (i.e. AD 80 to AD 155) as is the case with most manuscript traditions where the greatest changes to the text occur in the earliest stages�but more of this later...

I do hope people on this thread are reading both ends of our �discussion� very carefully since I hope to clarify some points which seems to have left you a little muddled on a few things (which happens a lot on these threads where there just isn�t enough room to post every single nuance�).

Here�s what Robert Funk had to say about these topics being not widely discussed by the masses:

"The public is poorly informed of the assured results of critical scholarship, although those results are commonly taught in colleges, universities and seminaries. In this vacuum, drugstore books and slick magazines play on the fears and ignorance of the uniformed."

Unfortunately some of your comments (though not all--I'll be fair !) fall into this category of mis-information and possibly even dis-information (i.e. some people within Church organizations have deliberately tried to deceive �the masses� with half-truths, which I hope some of these will be dispelled on these threads--and you've been repeating this disinformation for a while now, which you may not even be aware of...i.e. parotting half-truths from what others repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat until people start to accept them as facts etc.)

You might want to read some of my earlier posts again, since half of your comments in your last thread shows that you did not fully understand what I was trying to say�or its import....for example, when I said the narratives were joined early on in the formation of the gospel tradition my point was that LOGIA found in the 4 approved gospels (i.e. specific Greek words or oracles translated out of their original Galilean Aramaic utterances and placed into the mouth of Iesous) were JOINED to haggadic midrashic narratives fairly early on in the formation of the later tradition, as part of a more primitive gospel tradition derived from Messianic proof texts etc. (first orally then in their later written forms in Greek)---

My comments had nothing whatsoever to do with positing a belief that the modern council approved 4 canonical gospels in Greek now being read represent the earlier 1st century �Didache� (or �the original Nazorean preaching of the 12�) at all--the evidence all points away from that premise.

What we recognise as "gospel material" did not gel into its present form until the later half of the 2nd century AD---before that it was "open season" as far as a fixed canonocal text is concerned...and this is one thing most bible believing Christians simply cannot deal with (mainly emotionally) since they want to think their texts came down in one piece from heaven on a platter.

Notice what the discoverer of 4th century AD Codex Sinaiticus said:

�I have found that this MS was edited and redacted by at least three different and consecutive scribal hands��

This evaluation (and impression) from the discoverer of the text should give you a clue as to what we are dealing with here.

The Fourth �Canonically Approved Gospel� ("John") gives ample evidence of 2nd century--and not 1st century--- ideology which was far removed from the 2nd temple period of the time of the �Iesous� of his Nazorean Gospel message (oral, not written) where it is assumed in the text that �Jews� are somehow divorced from his group in time and place and are regarded in some strange way as a wholly separate group-�almost as if the Iesous of the 4th Gospel was living in the 2nd century after the breaking away of the Christian movement after Israel was ground to powder by Rome, and the depiction is at times is almost as if he wasn�t even a Jew himself

(e.g. �According to YOUR Law�� etc.) . But alas, another thread, another time�

Suffice it to say that what �Christians� read today as �gospel material� in the Greek texts (worked roughly into modern English etc.) are in fact 2nd and 3rd century �heavily edited constructs of orthodoxy� which derive from late manuscripts mainly from the 4th century AD (post Nicaea) and the earlier fragments already show that the texts were not uniform in their later stages compared to their earlier ones.

Why would you try to (deliberately?) mis-construe my meaning like you did on the last posting?

I believe you have confused a lot of people on this thread by this kind of thing, so please re-read my comments again before posting answers back.

Moreover, in general, you�re also going to have to try and not read too much into my language on these �abbreviated� discussions which by their very nature lend themselves to shortcuts and sometimes even technical jargon.

For example, the reason I didn�t happen to use the phrase �Council approved Gospels� every single time I was referring to the 4 canonical �gospels�in my last post was not because I did not feel the description apt (it is) but simply because I was trying to type in a hurry�in other words, I certainly did not mean to suggest that I have backed off that phrase in the least, since it should be manifestly obvious to anyone familiar with the material (even in English) that we are dealing with �official Roman Catholic Church documents� and not purely historical writings of outsiders.

I use the term only to remind people on this thread that the gospels that they read �as holy scripture� are the product of a few bishops voting at some very raucous councils (who spent most of their time �anathemising� other rival councils)�but that�s another thread, I�m afraid.

What did not conform to later 2nd and 3rd century �orthodoxy� was knifed out of the text.

The more heavily used (�read�) texts in the major cities in which they were �read in churches� (i.e. as part of a LITURGICAL FUNCTION) were gradually adjusted over time accordingly�not all at the same time, but whenever later orthodox officials had the political clout to carry out manuscript copy changes.

This was particularly the case after Iranaeus the Bishoip of Lyon around AD 160 (who reacted so strongly against Marcion�s theologies)

But don�t think for a moment that I am in anyway backing off this nickname for the �gospels�, I certainly am not, and I hope you do not read too much into my shorthand.

However, I will re-instate the phrase back into the discussion, since you insist !

And don�t forget the 4 �Council approved canonical Gospels� were just the representatives of 4 of the largest and most powerful political church centres in the early Church (Ephesus, Rome, Antioch and possibly Alexandria etc.)

However all 4 �council approved-canonical� gospels in all the watered down English translations today are ipso facto �council approved (�canon� means �rule� or �guide�, �canonical� means �that which follows the Rule or Guideline (i.e. of the prevailing Orthodoxy of whatever councils met and argued and which the majority eventually �approved� them for practical �reading in the Churches�)

Try to remember the purpose of the �4 council approved Gospels� was �midrashically functional and liturgical� in scope, not �purely historical� renderings of �history� in the modern sense of the word------although all four �council approved Gospels� contain some kernels of history, albeit very muddled and politically-whitewashed as well as heavilly kaleidescoped into liturgical framing

(e.g. the synoptic habit of placing the Cleasning of the Temple into �holy week� during Passover in March/April, much like the 5 day Spring Feast of Attis in Rome ---rather than in Sept/Oct at Tabernacles, or all those curious 3-hour segmentations of Mark�s Passion narrative which seems to have grown out of a long cycle of dramatic liturgy divided into near 3 hour segments:

e.g.
�And it was the 3rd hour and they crucified him�at the 6th hour darkness covered the land�and the 9th hour Iesous cried with a loud voice�� etc. All this three-hour time divisions seems the product of the evangelist working in a liturgical kaleidoscoping framework , not the "historian" writing facts of a case�and we can see other examples of this in all four of the �canonical and council-approved� gospels. Again, another thread, I'm afraid.

The dozens of other �non-council approved Gospels� that also were believed as holy scriptures by various churches all floating around the Empire between AD 120 and AD 400

(e.g. the gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, the Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Judas Didumos Thomas etc.) many of which were based on traditions (oral and written) which actually predate the �approved� 4 gospels (although unfortunately the copies and fragments of these documents are often much later period and often translated out of the Greek into other languages such as Coptic, thereby watering down the language a further step in the chain) simply did not have the political backing of major cult centers as say, Ephesus or Alexandria or Antioch or Rome, and after Nicaea (one of several �councils�) were rejected in the West mainly on purely doctrinal (and political) grounds.

Sometimes all a modern day scholar has at his disposal (thanks for Christian Book Burnings) are hypothetical reconstructions of parts of these earlier (than Nicea) �non council approved gospels� from the sometimes mangled quotations of their detractors (e.g. Clement of Alexandria who quotes a passage from the �Secret Gospel of Mark� which circulated among the Carpocratians in the 230s AD), and included a passage which was knifed out of our present Gospel of Mark.

Other discoveries since Nag Hammadi in the future may well clarify the contents of some of these rival �non council approved� gospels, especially in these post Dead Sea Scroll era where people might be more willing to publish any new found material e.g. on the Internet for sharing with qualified experts�we can only hope.

Here is anexample of an excised portion of the originally longer text of the Secret Gospel of Mark (written in Mark�s peculiar style of baby-Greek, bad grammar and all, and which seems to have the ring of authenticity, despite it being pasted into the back leaf of a 16th century library book):

You�ll perhaps recall the fragmented story in Mark�s gospel (among so many fragmented stories in Mark�s gospel !) about a �naked young man� who ran away without his baptismal sheet at the Arrest on the Hill when Iesous had armed his disciples during The Pesach Insurrection of AD 36.

This fragmentary naked-male character in Mark chapter 14 originally must have had more material about him in the Gospel of Mark at one time in its history (but subsequently knifed out by Church authorities or perhaps fell out as the result of damaged copies, as with the ending of Mark at 16:8) judging from his mysterious appearance in the council approved and cleansed version you read today in Mark

(notice that he has an equally mysterious dis-appearance in Mark 14 as well or as Dorothy Gail in Munchkinland said, �My !! People come and go so quickly here�!!�)

From the an 18th century Greek Shorthand account of a fragment of a Letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore (found at the Monastery of Mar Saba east of Jerusalem by Morton Smith in 1958)

"Immediately after the section which begins And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem and continues to after three days he will rise [Mk 10:32-34], there follows, as their text of Mark�s Gospel goes like this:

QUOTE (from the non-Council Approved Portion of The Secret Gospel of Mark)

�And they come to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother had died. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son of David, have mercy on me.

But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger iesous goes away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Iesous went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb.

And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand. But the young man looked upon Iesous and loved him, and began to entreat him that he might be with him.(cf: Moses and his 70 elders who �were to be with him�)

And when they had gone out from the tomb, they went into the young man's house; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus instructed him; and in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in a linen cloth upon his naked [body].

And he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And from there he went away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan."

Clement�s letter to his prot�g� was to show that the Carpocratian belief in homosexual baptism was not based on the Secret Gospel of Mark (�For I find even in their own gospel scriptures that is no passages which state naked man on top of naked man�,etc. he writes)

There is another (much shorter) snippet of this same longer version of Mark that Clement came across again quoted by Clement of Alexandria as well.

After the words And he comes to Jericho [Mk 10:46a] the Carpocrations have only the following phrase:

'And there was the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome; and Jesus did not receive them'

In this copy in 18th century Greek Shorthand of an old tattered Greek MSS now apparently lost (or suppressed by authorities!), Clement in the main body of his letter to Theodore states the following belief system, which kind of tells you the way the early church handled �facts� i.e. that the �historical-truth of certain matters must never be disclosed to the masses..even under oath��!!!

"For even if some should state something absolutely true, as I have said already, lovers of the Truth should not, even so, ever agree with them...

To those who would argue with us, one must never give way in the slightest.

Nor, when they put forward their false doctrines, should one ever concede that there ever existed a Secret Gospel of Mark � or that it was written by Mark at all---but should vehemently deny it even under Oath.

For the truth of certain matters must never be disclosed to the masses of men."

This from a Bishop--!!!!!------i.e. one in �ecclesiastical� authority, you know, the kind of people who take to knifing things out of texts they feel are not quite in line with their own orthodoxy.

Bart Erhman has a couple of new books out you would do well to read (you can get them on Amazon.com) entitled Lost Scriptures (Bart D. Erhman ) 2003 Oxford U. Press ISBN: 0195141822 also another book by the same author entitled �Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew�.

These shed some helpful light on the subject for the layman who cannot read Greek or Hebrew and you would do well to read both books to get some more background on this complex subject which you insist on oversimplifying.

It might help you avoid �jumping to fundamentalist conclusions� or make unsupported and clich�d statements of blatant factual errors like stating as factual that Clement of Rome in any way quoted the same Greek texts of the gospels in AD 100 in the same form you are reading them in your KJV---when the gospel material he himself quotes are wildly different in wording and content

(especially when he handles and quotes words and phrases placed into the mouth of Iesous which are in fact very different in dozens of instances from anything in your bibles today, giving us clues that what �passed for gospel material� at the beginning of the 2nd century (i.e. around AD 110)WAS VASTLY DIFFERENT from what passed for �more proto-orthodox� (post Iranaeus) gospel material at the END of the 2nd century (e.g. after 180 AD).
e.g.

The homily known as 2 Clement also contains variations in quotations of the scriptures.

Consider the following passage, which comes from a gospel but is not found in any of the gospels known to us:

Ye shall be as sheep in the midst of wolves. And Peter answering, said to him: What if: the wolves should scatter the sheep?

Jesus saith to Peter: The sheep shall not fear the wolves after they kill them; ye also shall not fear those who shall kill you and cannot do anything against you, but ye shall fear him who hath power after your death to cast soul and body into the hell of fire.

The sentiments are generally found in gospels but not as they are here.

2 Clement attributes the following saying to Jesus also:

"If ye are gathered to me in my bosom and do not my commandments, I shall cast you out and shall say to you: Depart from me, workers of iniquity; I know not whence ye are.

Of course, this passage resembles the Sermon on the Mount, but if the passage is from Matthew, it is a different form of Matthew than what we now have.

What happened in the middle of all that time between AD 110 and 180 AD (say around 155 AD) was the appearance of Marcion�s Canon of Inspired Scripture [and Iraeneus� refutation of Marcion�s Canon] and the solidification of �proto-Orthodox� canon and pre-Nicene doctrinal niceities�which meant written and circulating books had to be �adjusted� to conform to the new doctrine �or else�.

[By the way, ref: mixing apples and oranges, something you tend to do on these threads] the tiny p52 fragment is a random piece from the Fourth gospel (�John�) and not a piece of �Luke� �

So why did you even bring up �Luke�s wording� in a discussion of p52 (�John�s wording�) which has no direct relevance one way or the other ?

Mixing and matching gospel material willy nilly will only cloud the issues, but we�ll talk a little bit more about that subject later�]

Stay tuned for the 2nd part�lots more to come !


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Amadeus]

Hi Amadeus,

Greetings. How are you today?


The mark of a good expositior is an ability to be precise, clear ,unambiguous, unrepetitious and , short. Experience has taught me that the true value of a person�s scholarship lies in his ability to furnish details for their claims (one claim at a time ) with supporting evidences(footnotes, boibliography) --- not irresolute conjectures to countless , thinly defended and imperceptibly shifting , dubious thesises.


So let's tackle one question at a time, that I may understand where you're coming from. Nex post I will ask you another and so on...

To aid you in this process, I will querry you . Remember, I do the best I can with what I get. Here goes:

Claim:

Suffice it to say that what �Christians� read today as �gospel material� in the Greek texts (worked roughly into modern English etc.) are in fact 2nd and 3rd century �heavily edited constructs of orthodoxy� which derive from late manuscripts mainly from the 4th century AD (post Nicaea)

Are you saying the Gospel as we know it today, is in essence FUNDAMENTALLY different in content from what we had pre "2nd and 3rd century" written and/or oral Gospel ? Yes or No.

How different was the "2nd century gospel" from the "3rd century gospel", and how different were both these from the "1st century gospel"?, or are you just guessing '2nd' or '3rd' century vs. 1st?

*supporting notes please.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------




You REPEAT variants of this same line of thought(with shifting thesises) many times in just the last post, but never once come close to even properly supporting or explaining yourself . For instance, was the final 'council approved' gospel 'jelled' by 100AD, 150AD or 200AD.?Perhaps 325 AD?. Which 'council' 'jelled' it? Who was involved? When it was 'open season' what kinds of revolutionary new ideas crept into the Gospel? etc. [Don't worry about 'answering' these questions for now]


Variant of the the claim:

From the earliest patristic quotations of the NT, the text was CLEARLY NOT SET BUT VERY FLUID for the first 75 years of its existence (i.e. AD 80 to AD 155) as is the case with most manuscript traditions where the greatest changes to the text occur in the earliest stages

Another variant of the claim:

What we recognise as "gospel material" did not gel into its present form until the later half of the 2nd century AD---before that it was "open season" as far as a fixed canonocal text is concerned...

Another variant of claim:

enough at any rate to show how INCORRECT your wild assumption that the gospel and oracular material contained what Christians today call NT (especially the gospel material) was in any way �fixed� or �set for good� in written Greek form before AD 180.

Variant of the claim:

I use the term only to remind people on this thread that the gospels that they read �as holy scripture� are the product of a few bishops voting at some very raucous councils (who spent most of their time �anathemising� other rival councils)�

Another variant of the claim:

However all 4 �council approved-canonical� gospels in all the watered down English translations today are ipso facto �council approved (�canon� means �rule� or �guide�, �canonical� means �that which follows the Rule or Guideline (i.e. of the prevailing Orthodoxy of whatever councils met and argued and which the majority eventually �approved� them for practical �reading in the Churches�)

ed infinitum. ...






Regards,




























































[edit on 23-11-2004 by Logician]

Hello once again, Logician---

I�m sorry you seem so befuddled by my last post which seems to have caused you some consternation (perhaps you should read some of my previous posts over a few times and let them sink in�that method seems to have helped a great number of others on these threads in the past who later write to me to say they �finally got it!!�)

I�ll put down your evident confusion to �too much NEW information� (but�dare I say it---- not enough Greek and Hebrew�!)

I will certainly try and break down some of the more complex arguments about the evolution of the �gospel tradition� into smaller, more discrete sections so you won�t get so muddled---if you really want me to.

(By the way, I was glancing over some of your earlier complaints�.and I never said I disliked the Greek Septuaginta LXX, only that the presupposed Hebrew Vorlage Underlay to the Greek OT of the Septuaginta-LXX (some of which was found at Qumran) is textually DIFFERENT by 23% on average with the later Masoretic (�Jamnia-Javneh AD 90 Council approved�) Hebrew text read by �Jews� and �Christians� today:

In other words, the early Greek speaking Christians were PRE-SUPPOSING A WHOLLY DIFFERENT OLD TESTAMENT TEXT TYPE than the one modern Christians use (more aligned with the Qumran types)

If you want some textual examples I can furnish some of these for you in English on another post: in the meantime, check out the Book of Jeremiah in the Greek Septuaginta LXX----- it is 13 chapters SHORTER than the �Javneh Jamnia AD 90 council approved� Masoretic Text (only one small example) so please do not think for a moment the LXX and the MT are different translations of the same text---- they are not).

Again, I was under the impression that you would have been aware of these major scribal-textual family differences in the Old Testament Hebrew traditions

(quite shockingly brought to light when the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered at Qumran beginning in December 1946, especially when they started to examine in detail everything the Bedouin found in Caves 1, 4 and 11)�but then again it would help if you could read Greek and Hebrew�!)

Your evident confusion of the basic facts of the transmission of this material might explain some of your apparent exasperation�which by the way is something quite common for people who only have a superficial knowledge of the texts of the �4 council approved� gospels (or the whole NT for that matter) and who can only tackle them in English translation�and who are deluded enough into thinking that Clement of Rome was miraculously somehow able to quote the �New Testament� in the form in which you now read it.

Now�.from what you seem to be saying in your last post:

You would like me to �prove� the widely held scholarly contention that the contents of the �4 canonical and council approved� Gospels did not achieve their recogniseable form until after 170 AD

(i.e. until after the time of Iranaeus� condemnation of Marcion) and the emergence of �proto orthodoxy� which culminated in the year 325 in the �official� council of Nicaea and the voting procedure to approve the 4 �canonical� gospels�

Imagine a PRE IRANAEUS PERIOD (pre 140 AD) and then a POST IRANAEUS PERIOD (say anything after 160 AD) : What passed for "gospel" texts in the PRE period was quite different from the changes that took place during and after the Post IRANAEUS period, the main impetus being the Marcionite churches and their "knifing of scripture" which was not acted upon, but REACTED upon by the proto-Orthodox biships of the 2nd and 3rd century AD

So if we want to see what a PRE-IRANAEUS gospel looked like, we can take a quick look at �Gospel citations� by the socalled Apostolic "fathers" e.g. Clement of Rome (active from around AD 88 to c. AD 100) , or Ignatius of Antioch (active c. 71 AD to c.110 AD) and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (c. AD 69 - c. AD 155) --all of these persons were active between AD 90 and AD 130---i.e. in the �dark tunnel period� before Iranaeus and his cronies got their sticky proto-orthodox fingers on the material to �refute the arch-heretic Marcion�: so their so-called �gospel� citations will prove (or disprove) whether or not a firm �canonically fixed� gospel tradition in the Greek was set or still �fluid� before AD 160.

Let�s start with Clement of Rome to see if his curious citations of �Gospel material� will tell us what the Gospels looked like in his day�
Here�s a quick quote from Metzger, no mean authority on the texts of the NT:

�There was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century."

[Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development pp. 72-73.]

We can see at a glance some clear evidence of the fluidity of the tradition of this New Testament gospel material (and don't forget ORALITY, which is the process of transmission of teaching by word of mouth, see the end of this thread)...

Suffice to to say that it doesn�t exactly take a rocket scientist to see the difference between the PRE IRANAEUS citations and the POST IRANAEUS citations---that is, unless one is living in a perpetual state of denial like so many �Christians� on these threads seem to be at times...!!

EXAMPLE ONE (from around AD 95) 1 Clem 13:1b-2 which kind of reminds one of Matthew 7:1-2

'For thus He spake: saying, show mercy, that ye may be shown mercy unto you: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye behave to others, so also will they behave to you. As ye give, so shall ye get. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you.'

Not exactly verbatim Gospel Greek is it?

If Clement was aware of the later 4 canonical gospels, why does he not quote from them as an existing text tradition rather than from loose paraphrases or even from oral tradition?

Why is he not eager to quote from the �canonical� gospels and the NT letters of Paul? (NB: nearly all his citations are from the Old Testament and more specifically, the Greek LXX)

Although the words may sound familiar, no single sentence in the passage is an exact quotation from any known Gospel canonical or otherwise�

�It is very difficult to believe that Clement in calling for his readers to 'remember the words of our Lord Jesus'--thus apparently words with which the Corinthians were expected to be very familiar----has in mind sayings found in the Synoptics when two of the sayings are expressed in words which find no parallel in the canonical gospels at all��

(Joseph Linehard, The Bible, the Church, and Authority pp 31-32).

Donald Hagner summarizes this fact in his 'The Use of Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome' p. 332 (1973):

'While it seems difficult to deny that Clement of Rome, writing in AD 95, was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels, his epistle (I Clement) provides us with little positive indication of a direct acquaintance with the familiar versions.'

Of the remaining five maxims listed in the Clement �citation�, none agrees verbatim with any of the known Synoptics in the �council approved� gospels, and two are in fact very different in form from their Synoptic parallels.

Only three of the maxims look as though they could have come from anything like the �canonically approved� �Synoptic� Gospels.

So to make the spurious claim that this early quote comes from a knowledge of what Christians read in their �council approved� gospels is totally without foundation. The gospel material was still in the gelling phase until well into the 140s AD

EXAMPLE TWO : 1 Clement�s Citation of something like Matthew (18:3-4 and 26:24)

"Remember the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how he said,

"Woe to that man [by whom offences come]: For it were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my Elect Ones. Yea, it were better for him that a Millstone should be hung about [ him?] and he should be sunk into the depths of the sea, than if he should cast a stumbling-block before any one of my Little Ones.�

Notice all the extra words Clement quotes here (e.g. �elect ones�, �little ones� ) and the absence of the referenece to �the Son of Man�---all happily placed into the mouth of Iesous---and Clement�s citation may well reflect a more primitive version of these logia than what appears in the �canonical� and council approved gospels-------in other words, the tradition had not yet jelled into firm and widely accepted writing format around AD 100. Ands yet you seem to think the NT was "substantially completed" by AD 100:

To which I must add, "well, maybe the boilerplate for perhaps 70% of the material that was later used in the "council approved" NT was almost ready in overall substance by AD 100, but the sauce had not been very much by that time in terms of actual firm Greek texts: they still had to undergo some massive changes in wording before they begin to resemble what you are reading today in your council approved NT..."

For example, compare the above citation from about AD 95 or so with the later �council approved� version of Matt 18: 3-4 and 26:24

"Woe to the world because of offences! For it is inevitable that offences come; but woe to that man through whom the offences comes! For whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a great millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born��

Clement could hardly have had direct textual access to what was later a �canonical� gospel when he wrote those citations :

All Clement could have had had in front of him at the time were sayings collections, since the �canonical� gospels had not yet gelled into any recogniseable form during Clement�s lifetime (i.e. in any form which we read today, that is.)

His Sayings of Iesous book might well have resembled something like the Greek Gospel of Thomas (some fragments exist of this early logia handbook collection of Saying (The Gospel �of Judas Didumos Thomas�) but the longer version was translated out of Greek into Coptic, and found at Nag Hammadi in 1945)

In fact, the import of what later was poured into the 4th century council approved gospels� can be seen to be quoted or referred to by these persons-------but their quotations (introduced by such phrases as �as our Lord said� rather than �even as it is written in the gospel of Mattthew etc.) are not word for word following any Greek canonical gospel currently read today but in different recensions of the sayings of Iesous which are moreover often expressed in oblique terms as if the final wording of the sayings in the �council approved� 4 Canonical Gospels had not yet been decided upon.

EXAMPLE THREE (from 2 Clement 5:2-4 which seems to be taken from a stranger version of �Matthew�):

�For the Lord said, �You will be like lambs among wolves,� But Peter replied by saying, �What if the wolves tear the lambs to pieces?� Jesus said to Peter, �After death the lambs should not fear the wolves, nor should you fear those who kill you and can do nothing more to you. But fear him who, when you are dead, has power over soul and body to cast them into the flames of hell.�

Clement rather than using the customary formula for citing a writing, uses the the phrase "remember the words of the Lord Jesus" instead. This is because around AD 100 there were no written gospels in wide circulation that he could use authoritatively.

Clement even sometimes quotes from unknown sources as �inspired scripture� in citations from around AD 95

(1 Clement 17) "for it has been written, Cleave to the saints, for they that cleave to them shall be sanctified."

Remember, this is less than 1% of the total bishopric citations of �gospel material� in the pre IRANAEUS period (prior to AD 160) and as you should be able to see, most of which does not align very closely with what is considered part of the 4 modern �canonical� and "council approved" gospels.

What all this suggests of course is that in AD 100 what passed for �gospel material� and what passed in AD 180 for gospel material (resembling more towards the �canonical 4�) were quite different animals in terms of an exact text as recognised as authoritative scripture in any way, shape or form.

Generally we can see that there are fragments of some canonical Epistles which lie embedded in the citations of pre 160 AD persons like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin Martyr etal. but their language with respect to the words of Iesous is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction and they may be quoting the earlier oral sources of the gospels rather than the �council approved canonical� gospels themselves.

Sometime the words of Iesous are given, but rarely do these words match the �canonical� and council approved gospel utterances for Iesous: and there is no decisive evidence that these people recognized a fixed canon of scripture outside of the NT as a distinctly defined body of writings;

The language of the Canonical Gospels is frequently quoted but not word for word following any Greek canonical gospel currently read today but in different recensions of the sayings often expressedin oblique terms as if the final wording of the sayings in the �council approved� 4 Canonical Gospels had not yet been decided upon.

Papias (�a man of tiny intellect� to quote Eusebeius) is said to have preferred the oral method of learning material that was later worked up into �gospels�, rather than the written word:

�For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the Truth; nor in those who utter strange commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. . .
For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice..� (24. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3,39.)

Are you "getting" any of this, or do you need more? There's so much evidence on these "non canonical" citations it could easily cover 10 postings or more....!

Originally posted by Amadeus
---that is, unless one is living in a perpetual state of denial like so many �Christians� on these threads seem to be at times...!!

See? Now that was a respectful criticism. I knew you could do it!

Some take-aways I've gotten from your side of the discussion:
1) Christians don't spend enough time or have interest in exploring their own doctrine. I think that's a fair assessment.
2) The Bible underwent council review and this is something you feel should have never happened.

Some questions I had based on the above were:
1) What are your expectations of a Christian who knows their doctrine? Please be realistic in consideration of jobs & family life.
2) Where are the massive changes from the 'knifed out' edition? The verses you've quoted seem to confirm Christianity rather than denounce it. Again, I'm missing the parts that say there are contradictions.

Sorry to interrupt, back to you two.

[edit on 24-11-2004 by saint4God]

Hi Amadeus,

Your last post was a definite improvement, though work still needs to be done . Here's what you did right; you furnished direct quotes with full source notes and very importantly, tried to limit yourself to just one topic(at least in the second stage of your post). Thank you. You also implicitly furnished a clearer summation of your thesis(s)/theory(ies), but alas it(they) still shift(s) somewhat. Well done nevertheless..




You use Clement of Rome(96AD) and others [yet we will limit ourselves to Clement this post] but instead of bolstering your theorie(s) he seriously jeopardises them .
In addition to I Corinthians, he paraphrases from the Gospel of Matthew, and five other New Testament books: I Peter, James, Hebrews, Paul's letters to the Romans, and Ephesians. (It must be observed that, having lived in Rome, Clement was thus personally acquainted with Paul and Peter whose deaths he mentions ).

Clement rather than using the customary formula for citing a writing, uses the the phrase "remember the words of the Lord Jesus" instead. This is because around AD 100 there were no written gospels in wide circulation that he could use authoritatively.

A huge claim supported by flimsy 'evidence'. Here we have another theory from you --because there were "no written Gospels in wide circulation before 100AD" Clement uses the phrase "remember the words of Lord Jesus". In serious academic parlance you will be laughed out of town, I fear ...At least you're now admitting there was a written Gospel in circulation before 100AD! Well done.

Basically you're holding the wrong end of the stick. Clement considers the words of Jesus to be on a par with the OT writings, thats why he introduces them with a similar formula (Clem 13:1b-2 & Clem 46:8): Clem 13:1b-2, "Especially we should remember the words which the Lord Jesus spoke, when He taught clemency and long-suffering. For thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you."




Infact even as severe a detractor as
Donald Hagner, 'The Use of Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome' (1973) says: 'While it seems DIFFICULT TO DENY that Clement, writing from Rome in AD95, was acquainted with the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, his epistle provides us with little positive indication of this acquaintance.' (p.332).

EXAMPLE ONE (from around AD 95) 1 Clem 13:1b-2 which kind of reminds one of Matthew 7:1-2 'For thus He spake: saying, show mercy, that ye may be shown mercy unto you: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye behave to others, so also will they behave to you. As ye give, so shall ye get. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you.'
Not exactly verbatim Gospel Greek is it?Although the words may sound familiar, no single sentence in the passage is an exact quotation from any known Gospel canonical or otherwise�

Clement was PARAPHRASING Matthew. The point is not whether he quotes the Gospel verbatim , the more pertinent issue is that he�s remarkably consistent with the Gospel as we know it today. Even you're forced to acknowledge, "Although the words may sound familiar". It is therefore becoming apparent even to you (perhaps subconsciously), that there were no FUNDAMENTAL doctrinal changes taking place between the time of the Apostles and the time of Clement of Rome. All the vital 'concepts' of Christianity, if you will, were already firmly in place. Infact Clement says the Apostles received the Gospel from Jesus Christ .


42:1 "The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God. "

"Woe to that man [by whom offences come]: For it were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my Elect Ones. Yea, it were better for him that a Millstone should be hung about [ him?] and he should be sunk into the depths of the sea, than if he should cast a stumbling-block before any one of my Little Ones.� Notice all the extra words Clement quotes here (e.g. �elect ones�, �little ones� ) and the absence of the referenece to �the Son of Man�---all happily placed into the mouth of Iesous---and Clement�s citation may well reflect a more primitive version of these logia than what appears in the �canonical� and council approved gospels-------in other words, the tradition had not yet jelled into firm and widely accepted writing format around AD 100. Ands yet you seem to think the NT was "substantially completed" by AD 100:

Amadeus, your gripe with the above is that it doesn�t incorporate the phrase �Son of Man� so in your opinion Jesus as 'Son of Man' must have either been a later invention of the �church� or a later addition to the Gospel. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Do you know how many times Clement refers to Jesus as the Son of God?(that will be your homework for today).

"..For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit 59:4 ... let all the nations know that you are God alone and Jesus Christ your Son ... 64:1 Finally, my God [the Father] ... who has chosen our Lord Jesus Christ ... ... give to every soul ... faith, fear, peace, patience ... through our high priest and protector, Jesus Christ ...� (Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians)

Which is a more revolutionary/�blasphemous� concept, Jesus as 'Son of God 'or Jesus as 'Son of Man'? If Jesus was already known as 'Son of God 'by Clement before AD96, then Jesus as 'Son of Man' poses absolutely no difficulty. Besides the phrase 'Son of Man' is found in Daniel and is older than Christianity. Jesus frequently used this title for himself; no serious person dare suggest all verses in the Gospel where the phrase �Son of Man� appears are later day "council approved" inventions or additions to the Gospel..

**But more importantly, where is the 'massive' evolution to FUNDAMENTAL Christian doctrine and 'wording' you imagine between the time of Clement and the apostles. ? I'm still waiting for ONE instance of it ..



And finally Amadeus you boldly state, " they still had to undergo some massive changes in wording before they begin to resemble what you are reading today in your council approved NT..."


I sincerely ask,where are the "massive changes" up to now Amadeus?


Here are samples just from Clement�s First Epistle to show how developed Christian doctrine already was at this stage:

7:4 "Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious in the sight of God is his blood, which having been poured out for our salvation, brought to the whole world the grace of repentance. "


--Jesus as Saviour. Jesus as redeemer of the World. The cleansing power his blood .

8:1 "The ministers of the grace of God spake by the Holy Spirit concerning repentance; "

--The concept of the Holy Spirit.

13:1 "Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:.."

--Another refrence to the Holy Spirit.

16:2 "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the sceptre of the majesty of God, came not in the arrogance of boasting and pride, though he was able to do so; but in humility, even as the Holy Spirit spake concerning him."

--Jesus as Lord,as Scepter(power,ruler) with God. Jesus as more than a man, since he could have chosen the manner of his own birth. In this regard, we have already seen his refrences to jesus as Son of God.

36:1 "This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation; even Jesus Christ, the high priest of our oblations, the champion and defender of our weakness. "

--Jesus as High Priest.



THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
CHAPTER 42

42:3 "They, therefore, having received the promises, having been fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having been confirmed by the word of God, with the full persuasion of the Holy Spirit, went forth preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand. "


--Jesus resurrected.




note: "I Corinthians was written in 55 AD. One reason why we can assume that is because forty years later in about 96 AD, Clement wrote a letter to the church at Corinth just as Paul had done. In that letter he writes,"Read your letter from the blessed Apostle Paul again." What letter is Clement referring to? He is referring to I Corinthians, the very letter in which the Doctrinal Gospel was written down for the first time, and he quotes from I Corinthians 15:20 talking about the resurrection", (Epistle of Clement to Corinth, Early Christian Writings, op. Cit., p 36, section 24)




etc. etc, etc.

It becomes immediately apparent to any fair minded person that the fundaments of Christ's nature , purpose and identity were already substantially in place by 100AD . It humors me when an hapless detractor, starving for morsels, cries foul because Clement of Rome does not include the phrase 'Son of Man' in his paraphrase of Matthew ! This omission is somehow to be construed as a fundamental lack/shift in Christian thought from the 1st to the 2nd centuries AD. Such desperation speaks for itself .

Best Wishes to Everyone,






















































[edit on 25-11-2004 by Logician]

Addendum:

(a) Remember, this is less than 1% of the total bishopric citations of �gospel material� in the pre IRANAEUS period (prior to AD 160) (b) and as you should be able to see, most of which does not align very closely with what is considered part of the 4 modern �canonical� and "council approved" gospels.

(a) Writer shows a profound lack of understanding of the science of statistical analysis / probability ...
For example, to cipher who's doing how well in pre -election campaigning for President of the United States, pollsters like Zogby,Gallop typically take random samples of just under 2000 likely voters each test , out of a total population of about 200 million eligible voters. That's far far less than 1% of the total population, but the results are consistently quite reliable. Consequently Presidental candidates base their campaign strategies on these daily/ or weekly projections. A one percent sample to them would be humongous , a dream come true, and would certainly be very very accurate.... A random sample by it's very nature is usually representative of the whole.

Or consider a large pot of soup. In order to get a GENERAL FEEL of it, a chef need only taste a spoon full.
In the same way, scholars can get a pretty good FEEL of what the 'pre 160AD' Gospel was like by analyzing the random 1% , unbiased, sample from the writings of the church fathers.

(b) Contrary to what Amadeus says, most of it does indeed align very well with the modern Gospel.





Regards,







[edit on 24-11-2004 by Logician]

Logician tries to impart as fact supposition which is not supported by facts, I am grieved by this, for while s/he adds flavour to the theological threads, they are incomplete in history.

Most scholars would beg to differ with you here. The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this.

There is no basis in fact to make this claim, since, the earliest known writings available to us from the various diocese recount mostly Matthew and Luke. It is no secret to those informed on where the Christian theological strength was based; Egypt, as supported by the discoveries of fragments and manuscripts, and as well the historical import of Egypt for the Jews right up to the century of Christ's existence. One only comes to understand the critical role Alexandria played with the infancy of the church, and it is these two gospels which gives pause to the most fractious debate on plagiarism 2000 years later. The ancient texts at our disposal from 70 to 150 years after Christ died, shows the church fathers basically knew diddly about all four gospels themselves, relying heavily on the OT as their basis for belief. The irony of which is that as the gospels and epistles surfaced, the OT was being thrown to the wolves by the denunciation of the Jews. That is a fact which cannot be disputed.

I am even going to submit here that thanks to Flavius Josephus, aka Joseph ben Mattathias, his characters are like a who�s who of �Acts.� Toss in I Maccabees and you have a Shakespearean play of all characters contained within the NT, including Jesus, the judge. Josephus himself fits nicely with the Gnostic Christians of that day at that. I made the comment some time ago that everyone seems to be named either, Mary, Joseph, Ananias, or Matthias, and it was more than just an aside.

So why don�t we delve into what we actually know, and separate that from what we think we know which (the latter) is based on what so and said about so and so? Starting with�

Ignateus: martyred by the lions 130-140, wrote 7 epistles and was the first to use the term �catholic Church.� For those Christians who cannot understand Muslem martyrs, he wrote as his wound his way in chains to the amphitheatre: "I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beast, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ."

It was he who endorsed the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ, cementing that pagan tradition.

Letter to Smyrnaeans At resurrection he quotes Jesus supposedly: He said to them: "Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost." Immediately they touched Him and, through this contact with His Flesh and Spirit, believed" Now only in Luke is such an occurrence accounted for, but not anywhere near this or that they touched him.

Now what is most interesting about this little passage, is John�s recounting of Jesus' visit to the women who tells them not touch him as he has not ascended to the father. John then says later that day he appears to the disciples and all he did was breath the Holy Ghost unto them. So where exactly did Ignateus get his facts? What caused the disappearance of that piece of news or, was it scrubbed so as to show a dead and once buried body is not defiled by touching same? So as tobe thorough, John continues that eight days later, not immediately, per Ignateus, Jesus allowed doubting Thomas to touch his wounds. This story does not quite mesh, so what exactly is Ignaeteus quoting? unknown apochrypha?

Jerome attests Ignaeteus� words belong to; The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius claims: � who wrote the letter? God only knows.�. Origen says: The Teaching of Peter.

The importance of this is not to be lightly sloughed off, because the really big issue in the early days of the church surrounded the kerfuffle between the �Catholics� and the Gnostics as they battled out the true meaning of the scriptures, particularly, was Jesus also God the father(RCC)as well as his human form? I can�t think of any better way to pen some piece and have it canonized to shut up the opposition. Maybe it was one of those gospels deemed heretical later and used for heat because as the decades of arguments wore on, so to did the methodical excising and crafting of the words for plausibility.

To the Ephesians Ignaeteus wrote: God resists the proud. (IPeter 5;5 James 4:6 ) These are two apostles quoting each other, not Christ, but each other.

And who exactly does Ignaeteus revere? �You are fellow initiates with Paul, a man sanctified.� The answer is Paul. The man from whom all teachings were taken as gospel truth. Paul, a man who despised and slaughtered Christians, who claims to have been spoken to by Christ, who held no compunction to overrule Peter, the elect, and determine new laws in Jesus� name. And who does Ignaeteus wish to be most like? Paul!, and I quote: �in whose footsteps I wish to be found when I come to meet God,� He wants to follow in Paul's footsteps, this man of such fath in Jesus. Not the desciples, not Jesus himself, but Paul. I have seen on ATSN, Christians claim that Paul did not forge Christianity, but what an excellent job he and his initiated did on the patriarchs as you can see.

Quoth Ignaeteus; �The Lord permitted myrrh to be poured on His head that He might breathe incorruption upon the Church.�

I have read the scriptures countless time, but I cannot for the life of me think of where Christ agreed to such an anointment, unless of course they count his death. Perhaps someone can provide the verse from one of the �four.�

Quoth Ignaeteus :�The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God's dispensation of the seed of David�

Here again, I am at a loss. Mary was not of the house of David. But the Church has gone to great pains from during the mid second century to the sixth century, declaring that Jesus is of the father and is the father. What this proves is that Ignaeteus� teachings were quite foreign to the doctrines surrounding the various Nicene Councils to follow, which, without doubt, moved to solidify their own theories of Christ as they saw fit. They became downright beligerent defending his triad of God/father/ghost and presented nothing but mumbo jumbo to keep the Davidian lineage just to claim the 77.

To The Romans, he wrote: �Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you.�

That one, is a most interesting statement, as he speaks about his impending date with the king of the beasts. The Vatican has made sure we know just about nothing concerning the deaths of Peter and Paul. So what orders did the two issue as they were facing martyrdom?

To The Philadelphians, he decreed: �But should anyone expound Judaism, do not listen to him. It is preferable, surely, to listen to a circumcised man preaching Christianity than to an uncircumcised man preaching Judaism. But if neither of them preaches Jesus Christ, they are to me tombstones and graves of the dead, on which only the names of the dead are inscribed."

When one reads this man�s letters before this, one can only feel empathy for him, then on encountering this abject hatred and spite cloaked in superior faith, empathy quickly turns to enmity. For such as he exalts his belief in the Christ, he finds no remorse for his condemnation of his �saviour's� chosen people, not even to wish them as a good Christian might see fit: redemption. How hateful must have been the catholic teachings of that day, the name of his church which he himself coined into existence. The progenitor of all of Christianity today.

The above is just another of the doctrines which forged the Christian belief. One which supposedly speaks to the wisdom of �his� words: �Love thy neighbour as thyself� yet simultaneously in practice, excludes all not so imbued of cathecism, as neighbour.

Ignaeteus, one of the earliest of record which we have, knew basically nothing of the four who supposedly walked with and learned from Christ. This goes to the conniving conduct employed by the elders as the decades and centuries progressed to show just how they arrested the spiritual numbers and assumed the throne of one of the most despicable and murderous times in the name of religion.

The fragments are important, but they have no sway on the downright nasty deeds and un-Godly conduct forever captured by the grace of himself.

Did you ever wonder why people go to such great legnths to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ or the Accuracy of the Bible, but not any other religion? Its because there is no truth in the others, they are only dead works of men. Secondly, the Scripture angers most non believers because it shines light on our true nature, but we love darkness more.

You can offer expert after expert all day long until you are blue in the face. It won't matter, because you can't contain the truth nor can you destoy it.

And finally, you can't ever accept it because you are a slave to this nature.

SomewhereinBetween,

How are you? First impression: you have the propensity for the flamboyant, volumous post, just like Amadeus. A true sign of the exhibitionist.

Have you filtered through the Epistles of Clement yet ? Even a cursory read will instantly educate you that by 96AD ALL the fundamental ideas about the nature, mission and character of Jesus were already firmly in place; Jesus as Redeemer, Jesus as propitiation of our Sins, Jesus as High Priest, the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus as Son of God and consequently virgin born, Jesus as Lord, the concept of the Holy Spirit, etc. etc., etc. It is a fair comment therefore that the bible was foundationally complete by 100AD.


Or are you planning to follow Amadeus's road, and operate on the fringes; claim Christian thought in this period(AD 100) was 'massively' deficient and in tremendious flux(in need of profound 'jelling') because Clement omits the phrase 'Son of Man' in one of his paraphrases of Matthew (and other such frivilous reason(s)?) That seems to have been the jist of his argument last post. For all the volume in his post, he furnished no substance for his theory that Christian thought about the nature of Jesus at this time was substantially underdeveloped.

In anycase, keep on tuning in, whether for good or for no-good.


Blessings,









[edit on 25-11-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Well that was a nicely laid out work Dbrandt, put purely from a subjective position and not one that addresses the number of errors or historical misrepresentations noticeable within the contexts of all of Luke's and Paul's writings.

Blah Blah Blah
Its simple you don't have or know the truth. It is completely hidden from you. "Always Learning but never able to acknowledg the truth." 2 tim 3:7.

--To show Christian doctrine was FULLY developed before 100AD. --

If concepts of the �Virgin Birth�,of �Jesus as Son of God�, of �Jesus as Word made Flesh�, of �Jesus� death,burial and resurrection� etc. etc. can be shown to have been routinely and authoratitevly preached even before 100AD, then such ideas were already fully developed, widely accepted and 'very old news' by this juncture(�fully jelled� if you may); and therefore quite likely owe their genesis directly to Jesus and the Apostles.


I shall limit myself to the works of Ignatius this post. Note that Ignatius often quotes NT books(and especially the Gospel) verbatim.

Ignatius is also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. It is believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle John. If we include Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Here are some quotes from his sermons:


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS

TO THE EPHESIANS SHORTER AND LONGER VERSIONS

Ignatius, who is also called Theopharus, to the Church which is at Ephesus,
in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness
of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning[1] of time, that
it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united[2]
and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus
Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled
grace.


For our God, Jesus
Christ, was, according to the appointment(3) of God, conceived in the womb
by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and
baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.



The cross of Christ is indeed a stumbling-block to those that do not
believe, but to the believing it is salvation and life eternal. "Where is
the wise man? where the disputer?"(13) Where is the boasting of those who
are called mighty? For the Son of God, who was begotten before time
began(2), and established all things according to the will of the Father,
He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God,
of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For says [the Scripture],
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He
shall be called Immanuel."(4) He was born and was baptized by John, that He
might ratify the institution committed to that prophet.
Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as
was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of
renown,(5) which were wrought in silence by(6) God. How, then, was He
manifested to the world?(7) A star shone forth in heaven above all the
other stars,�. Hence every
kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared;
ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being
manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took
a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a
state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.



CHAP. XX.--EXHORTATIONS TO STEDFASTNESS AND UNITY.

Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in
His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common,
and individually,(15) through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of
Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and "the first-born of every
creature,"(16) but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under
the guidance of the Comforter,



But our Physician is the only
true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father
and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord
our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time
began,[8] but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the
Word was made flesh."[9]


For, says He, "the word which ye hear is not
Mine, but the Father's, who sent Me."[3] And says He of the Holy Spirit,
"He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from
Me."[4] And He says of Himself to the Father, "I have," says He, "glorified
Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have
manifested Thy name to men."[5] And of the Holy Ghost, "He shall glorify
Me, for He receives of Mine."[6]


so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining[1] a perfect
unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the
Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord. For, says He, "Grant
unto them, Holy Father, that as I and Thou are one, they also may be one in
us."[2] It is therefore profitable that you, being joined together with God
in an unblameable unity, should be the followers of the example of Christ,
of whom also ye are members.


And "he that obeyeth not[8] the Son shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him."


For He is my hope; He is my boast; He is my never-failing riches, on whose
account I bear about with me these bonds from Syria to Rome, these
spiritual jewels, in which may I be perfected through your prayers, and
become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him
in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life.[17]

Nothing is better than that
peace which is according to Christ, by which all war, both of a�rial and
terrestrial spirits, is brought to an end. "For we wrestle not against
blood and flesh, but against principalities and powers, and against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
heavenly places."(9)

4) And if those that corrupt mere human
families are condemned to death, how much more shall those suffer
everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for
which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and
submitted to death!


In like manner, every one
that has received from God the power of distinguishing, and yet follows an
unskilful shepherd, and receives a false opinion for the truth, shall be
punished. "What communion hath light with darkness? or Christ with Belial?
Or what portion hath he that believeth with an infidel? or the temple of
God with idols?"(6)


THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS SHORTER AND LONGER VERSIONS.

He, being begotten by the Father before the
beginning of time,[5] was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains
the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there shall be no end,"[6] says
Daniel the prophet. Let us all therefore love one another in harmony, and
let no one look upon his neighbour according to the flesh, but in Christ
Jesus. Let nothing exist among you which may divide you;


CHAP, VIII.--CAUTION AGAINST FALSE DOCTRINES.




I desire to guard
you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that
you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by
the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary
without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed
every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and
wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error
of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and
underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-
killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also
died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him,
and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world,
with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to
every one according to his works.[2] He who knows these things with a full
assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of
God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one
of us[3] ever be turned aside!




CHAP. VI.--ABSTAIN FROM THE POISON OF HERETICS.

For they alienate Christ from the
Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the
Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do
not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they
suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit
that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation
is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.


Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the
case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union
with(17) Jesus Christ our God,



Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance
with(18) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David, and
was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin, but not
after the same manner. For indeed God and man are not the same. He truly
assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh,"(1) and lived upon earth
without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicteth me of sin?"(2) He did in
reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate.
He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the
sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth�..He also rose again in three
days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the
apostles, He was received up to the Father, and "sat down at His right
hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet."� During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in
which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord's day
He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah
was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of
man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."(7)



CHAP. X.--THE REALITY OF CHRIST'S PASSION.

And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin,
having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who
forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for
Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of
man. He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of
time; and was really born, as we also are; and was in reality nourished
with milk, and partook of common meat and drink, even as we do. And when He
had lived among men for thirty years, He was baptized by John, really and
not in appearance; and when He had preached the Gospel three years, and
done signs and wonders, He who was Himself the Judge was judged by the
Jews, falsely so called, and by Pilate the governor; was scourged, was
smitten on the cheek, was spit upon; He wore a crown of thorns and a purple
robe; He was condemned: He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance,
not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose
from the dead,� For says He, "I am
the life; he that believeth in me, even though he die, shall live: and
every one that liveth and believeth in me, even though he die, shall live
for ever."(4)


And this is just skimming the surface.



Best Wishes to All,










[edit on 25-11-2004 by Logician]

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Logician]

The use of " Bastard " in the same sentence as Jesus is in itself deeply reprehensible. you might find this sort of thing to be humorously reprobate but that just shows your immoral propensity!
Why can't you use something more decent like "illegitimate" or "love- child" or " misborn" or "unfathered"? Do you have to use language so profane when you speak of the Lord !
I am sure you will continue to use words such as " bastard" ,"mongrel" and "whoreson" when you take the lords name just to rile the religious with your profanic sense of humor!
Such type of blasphemy will only seal your own perdition!

[edit on 25-11-2004 by IAF101]