New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

reply to post by adjensen


I would suggest that the late dating comes from those who seek not to prove their faith correct, but from those who simply seek historical truth. It is apparent that you do have a horse in this race, therefore it is almost impossible for you to approach this subject from a standpoint of methodological agnosticism, which is necessary in order to objectively view the evidence without bias or preconceptions.

Merely speculation.
Several hundred years from now, there will be a similar report claiming Lincoln was a vampire slayer.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen

 

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century.

Source

Seems that is up to debate...

... later in your Wikipedia article:

A few scholars have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Bruce Metzger has advocated the traditional dating.

Doesn't sound like much of a debate, does it? I'm sure that you can go find some scholars who claim that we didn't land on the moon, does that mean that we didn't? Metzger was the best known "textual critic" of the New Testament, so if he thinks it's bunk, it's pretty likely bunk.

It is apparent that you do have a horse in this race, therefore it is almost impossible for you to approach this subject from a standpoint of methodological agnosticism, which is necessary in order to objectively view the evidence without bias or preconceptions.

Well, then present your evidence and let's evaluate it. I've given you some of mine, and all you've done to address it is to say that "Wikipedia lists two methods of dating, and yours is the minority opinion."

The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century.

A 7th century fragment that "contains internal cues" hardly counts as firm dating of the canon. It is guess work and speculation at best. Only one thing is for certain, the list predates the 7th century. Since Christianity was still a very underground religion during the 2nd century, this would cast doubt on any official cannon being decided upon prior to the 3rd century.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
A 7th century fragment that "contains internal cues" hardly counts as firm dating of the canon. It is guess work and speculation at best. Only one thing is for certain, the list predates the 7th century. Since Christianity was still a very underground religion during the 2nd century, this would cast doubt on any official cannon being decided upon prior to the 3rd century.

Even if you think "contains internal cues" isn't good enough to date it then, what's your refutation of Origen, then? He lived from 185AD-254AD and wrote and preached on the Gospels, as well as the other books considered to be canon. Here is his commentary on John, for example. Earlier, there was Clement of Alexandria (150AD-215AD), who, in his writings, cited all books in the New Testament, with the exception of Philemon, James, II Peter, II John, and III John.

There is sufficient evidence in the writings of the early church fathers to support my claim that the four Gospels were considered canonical prior to your fourth century assertion.

reply to post by adjensen


Since I am not contesting their existance in the second century, it is feasable that someone would write about them, but this does not in any way prove that they were official 'canon'. Also, I did not assert that the canon did not come about until the fourth century, just that it remains a possibility.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by prevenge

Originally posted by Destinyone
Great find. Goes to further prove my theory that the wife of Jesus, was none other than Mary Magdalene...

It also pushes further in the direction that actual spiritual physical ascendance and evolution towards the divine realm lies in intimate sexuality between lovers... something that will be among the great revelations.. something many people will be uncomfortable with. that Jesus ascended through sexuality.

No he didn't.

um... YA he did.
You just don't know it yet.
And it's also how YOU ascend.

Christ's message was STO, not his sexual life.

so you're obviously 100% completely unaware of the gnostic interpretation of sexual alchemy, the great work, rising the kundalini, which Christ did... well there's always something more to learn in life, and this seems to be a subject you have a lot more to learn about.. have fun learning!

i would suggest you watch this to begin -

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen

 

Since I am not contesting their existance in the second century, it is feasable that someone would write about them, but this does not in any way prove that they were official 'canon'. Also, I did not assert that the canon did not come about until the fourth century, just that it remains a possibility.

In this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

your words to me are "I was wrong, but you are also", with a cite to a Wikipedia entry saying that "by the Fifth Century", canon had been set. I agree that the canon was not declared complete (and closed) until the 400s, but that was never my argument -- rather that the four Gospels were considered canonical much earlier, as I demonstrated with the Muratorian fragment, and when you complained about that, by pointing out that church fathers contemporary to it were also accepting the same Gospels.

The Orthodox canon was developed in response to Marcion's canon (which consisted of Paul's letters and a heavily redacted version of Luke,) dated to the middle of the Second Century. In light of that, it is unreasonable to think that they would wait for a couple of hundred years to get around to it.

reply to post by adjensen


The key word there is 'by'... as in 'before'... There is no clarifier as to how long before. I'm saying we don't know for sure, and you are saying that you do. I have sufficiently proven that it is still open to debate, which was my point in the first place. It is not a fact, it is supposition. It's been fun, but I think this dead horse has been beaten enough already...