Paul was a murderer

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Huge problem, Irenaeus quotes from them in 180 AD and Hyppoleteus does as well in the third century AD. The Gnostics removed those verses because they rejected the resurrection.

Perhaps you might show some gnostic scripture showing said "rejection" of the resurrection?

Irenaeus is barely a source of information on gnostic beliefs considering he thoroughly rejects gnostic ideas... even going as far as attacking their beliefs in his writings

Gnostics did not reject the resurrection... in fact they believed in resurrection and reincarnation as far as I've found...

So please do give some evidence that doesn't hold a Christian bias

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, it's not a lie.



Skip to 20min to hear about the change in Mark 1000 years later.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Hebrews have a long history of being polytheistic. They had many gods. Again, see Deuteronomy 32:8 from the Dead Sea Scrolls translation.

El Elyon is a separate deity from Yahweh.

Get a Hebrew dictionary. El Elyon means "Most High God".

The Most High God

El Elyon. The Most High God.

This title stresses God's strength, sovereignty, and supremacy (Gen. 14:20; Ps. 9:2). Sometimes referred to in Scripture simply as Elyon (e.g., Num. 24:16).

Hebrew

edit on 2-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

It is a plain as day. El Elyon was the Father figure and Yahweh was one of the "sons of God."

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

Both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical texts document tensions between groups comfortable with the worship of Yahweh alongside local deities such as Asherah and Baal and those insistent on worship of Yahweh alone during the monarchal period.[3][4] During the 8th century BCE, worship of Yahweh in Israel stood in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible, written in the 8th century BCE reflect this competition, as in the books of Hosea and Nahum, whose authors lament the "apostasy" of the people of Israel, threatening them with the wrath of God if they do not give up their polytheistic cults.
........................

The monotheist faction seems to have gained considerable influence during the 8th century BCE, and by the 7th century BCE, based on the testimony of the Deuteronomistic source, monotheistic worship of Yahweh seems to have become official, reflected in the removal of the image of Asherah from the temple in Jerusalem under Hezekiah (r. 715-686 BCE) so that monotheistic worship of the god of Israel can be argued to have originated during his rule.[5]

Hezekiah's successor Manasseh reversed some of these changes, restoring polytheistic worship, and according to 2 Kings 21:16 even persecuting the monotheist faction.

According to the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem was a Jebusite fortress, conquered by the Israelites and made into their capital around 1000 BCE (Edwin R. Thiele dates David's conquest of Jerusalem to 1003 BCE). As a result, the Jebusite cult exerted considerable influence on Israelite religion. The Jebusites observed an astral cult involving Shalem, an astral deity identified with the Evening star in Ugaritic mythology, besides Tzedek "righteousness" and El Elyon, the "most high God". It is plausible, however, that the application of the epithet Elyon "most high" to Israelite Yahweh predates the conquest of Jerusalem; the epithet was applied with sufficient fluidity throughout the Northwest Semitic sphere that assuming a transition from its application to El to the Yahwistic cult presents no obstacle.[2]
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by windword


Perhaps you're right. I mean, after all what the hell do the Hebrews know about Hebrew nowutimsayin?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Huge problem, Irenaeus quotes from them in 180 AD and Hyppoleteus does as well in the third century AD. The Gnostics removed those verses because they rejected the resurrection.

Perhaps you might show some gnostic scripture showing said "rejection" of the resurrection?

Perhaps instead you can explain a sect dedicated to doceticism would teach that a man who never had a body in fact resurrected in that body that they denied existed to even be resurrected.

Irenaeus is barely a source of information on gnostic beliefs considering he thoroughly rejects gnostic ideas... even going as far as attacking their beliefs in his writings

Huh? His writings were pretty much all the historians had available until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library. Secondly, I never sourced him in regards to Gnostic beliefs in this thread. I mentioned that Irenaeus and Hyppoletus both quote from the last 12 verses of Mark in the 2nd century, the same 12 verses which magically disappear from the Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts written over a century later.

Gnostics did not reject the resurrection... in fact they believed in resurrection and reincarnation as far as I've found...

Do you know what the Gnostic doctrine of "doceticism" means or is? It's that everything material is evil amd everything spirit is good. That Jesus only appeared to be here physically, that He never had a flesh and blood physical body.

So please do give some evidence that doesn't hold a Christian bias

Okay, if you in turn only show sources that only hold a Christian bias.

reply to post by windword

No, it's not a lie.

Irenaeus quotes from the last 12 verses of Mark in 180 AD...... FACT

Hyppoleteus quotes from the same 12 verses in 210 AD........ FACT


Those 12 verses are missing in the three Alexandrian MSS, which were made in the 4th through 5th centuries AD...... FACT


You're left with only two options at this point:

A: Irenaeus and Hyppoleteus were clairvoyants.
B: Gnostics expurgated those verses from the text.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Perhaps instead you can explain a sect dedicated to doceticism would teach that a man who never had a body in fact resurrected in that body that they denied existed to even be resurrected.

Im unsure if Gnosticism is as easily defined as you seem to think... Like Christian sects, there are various beliefs that are not shared across the spectrum of gnostic texts... While the idea that the material world is corrupt was one of the main themes... they did believe Jesus had a body

In fact in some cases they go so far as to say "the demiurge" was actually the one who created his body... which goes back to the idea that said material was evil and came from said evil source

Huh? His writings were pretty much all the historians had available until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library.

That's my point...

Actually I'm considering writng thread against his "against heresies" book... I've been finding issues all through it...

Secondly, I never sourced him in regards to Gnostic beliefs in this thread. I mentioned that Irenaeus and Hyppoletus both quote from the last 12 verses of Mark in the 2nd century, the same 12 verses which magically disappear from the Gnostic Alexandrian manuscripts written over a century later.

Fair enough... I'd still like to see what gnostic text rejects the resurrection... Im thinking that is Christian propaganda... gnostics did have a lot of Christian haters ye know...

Irenaeus was one obviously...

Do you know what the Gnostic doctrine of "doceticism" means or is? It's that everything material is evil amd everything spirit is good. That Jesus only appeared to be here physically, that He never had a flesh and blood physical body.

yup... I've done some research on it since we talked about it last...

Again, its not an ideal that's shared in all Gnostic writing...

And in fact... In a text named "The letter to Rheginos" a.k.a. The Treatise on the Resurrection... (approx. 170-200 AD) you'll find this...

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Where as Docetism even relies on the word docetai... which means illiusion

Okay, if you in turn only show sources that only hold a Christian bias.

Oh but I do that all the time...

YOU first...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Source? Link?

As far as I can tall, Irenaeus only quotes:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." [Psalm 110:1] Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.(3:10:5)

This is far from 12 verses, the 12 verses that were later added, and far from proof that the document wasn't altered by scribes with agendas.

Also, Bart Erhman is hardly a man who has a bias against Christianity. He was an evangelical who's eyes were opened to the errors and contradiction within the Bible, which shook his faith, as it should. When you have complete the rigors of legitimate scholarship, such as he had done, then you can criticize his bias, until then, you have no grounds to critique his findings.

My mistake about the book of Mark being altered 1000 years later. It was the Book of John, that was added to 1000 years later.



These books of the "Gospels" were NOT written by their namesakes, but were, in fact, anonymously authored, verbally passed stories and tales, that were later pieced together into "Gospels." Like "Chinese Whispers" these stories can't really be trusted to accurately relay what actually happened. They can, in no way be deemed the inerrant word of God.

reply to post by windword


Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19. You just highlighted that above.

So was he clairvoyant of what a "well intentioned scribe " would later add to the text?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So, where are the other 11 verses? The book of Mark was finished by others, much, much later. Watch the I videos posted!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, where are the other 11 verses? The book of Mark was finished by others, much, much later. Watch the I videos posted!

You have it backwards. The Alexandrian MSS expurgated an enormous amount of scripture. Things missing that were cited by authors over a century prior.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, where are the other 11 verses? The book of Mark was finished by others, much, much later. Watch the I videos posted!

You have it backwards. The Alexandrian MSS expurgated an enormous amount of scripture. Things missing that were cited by authors over a century prior.

Including a lot of Gnostic books, like the Gospel of Thomas and Peter. What was eventually qualified to be canonized gospel was cherry picked to meet the standards of the official Orthodox church.

Reading some of these posts really gets my interest . I am not a scholar by any means and I noted that this Dr. Ehrman while a very reliable scholar generally speaks only from the Greek perspective. I am in no way criticizing him because I have not that right as a layman but I do have the right to observe.

I notice that almost all Christians have ignored the early church before it became the property of the Gentiles in the early 1 st century. The first church of Jesus was in fact all Jewish and was known as the Jerusalem Church. It thrived as the first church for well over forty years with the same Apostles that we read from Greek today.

The unanswered question that I am interested in is that of this Jerusalem church. Wouldn't the original manuscripts which we would like to read be from this original Jerusalem Church? Not from the Roman See and self appointed authorities but from the Jerusalem church itself? I do understand that Greek was the predominate language of the people but I do have doubts that it was in the Jerusalem Church liturgy.

As Jesus died and the Apostolic Church became visible it carried a congregation of various people from various places with various languages. It was not simply Greek orientated by any means. But the liturgy is believed to be that of Hebrew and Aramaic and that is what interests me. Were the original scribes of the Apostles Greek speaking Hebrews? Were even the original manuscripts Greek?

Forty years is quite a lengthy period and covers a generation of new people. The Jerusalem church was not founded nor sustained by Rome, during those forty years and if Peter is the first Pope then he is most certainly the first Jewish Pope in any case. The Jerusalem church emerged in the early part of the first century but as the Gentile organization from which those roots came to what we see today.

But that is not really the issue here as I see Christians debating among themselves. The true issue is to seek the original sources of the scriptures which we accept as Christians and we can not do this with contaminated Greek literature. The accepted fathers of Christian organizations are just as contaminated because of hatred for the Jewish sources. My question is this? Can we gain more understanding by sitting under the teachings of the Apostolic church? Or is there such a thing?

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, where are the other 11 verses? The book of Mark was finished by others, much, much later. Watch the I videos posted!

You have it backwards. The Alexandrian MSS expurgated an enormous amount of scripture. Things missing that were cited by authors over a century prior.

Including a lot of Gnostic books, like the Gospel of Thomas and Peter. What was eventually qualified to be canonized gospel was cherry picked to meet the standards of the official Orthodox church.

Red herring. We're not talking about either of those. Were talking about the purposeful removal of verses of Scripture.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Just wondering...

Have you ever drank poison?

Or perhaps handled a deadly snake?

Maybe they removed them because the verses hold no real value...

I guess you have no gnostic scripture that rejects the resurrection either... so I'll just let that be

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Right, like the purposeful removal of The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, not to mention books like Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Right, like the purposeful removal of The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, not to mention books like Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher!

Technically those books weren't removed... they were rejected because they didn't comply entirely with what the church wanted to sell... I mean preach...

My biggest issue is why entire books were destroyed instead of preserved for their historical value...

And lets not forget of course... Entire belief systems... people included

reply to post by Akragon


Right, they were rejected, by the people who decided what they wanted us to believe, and what we were allowed to know!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Akragon

 

Right, they were rejected, by the people who decided what they wanted us to believe, and what we were allowed to know!

There is a lot more to it than that and the info about same is not hidden. It was very public even at the time. As well all of the "rejected" books are also to be had for ones perusal.

Fact is you probably cant talk much about just why certain "books" were rejected.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Right, like the purposeful removal of The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, not to mention books like Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher!

Technically those books weren't removed... they were rejected because they didn't comply entirely with what the church wanted to sell... I mean preach...

My biggest issue is why entire books were destroyed instead of preserved for their historical value...

And lets not forget of course... Entire belief systems... people included

Now yous guys like to pass yourself off as sorts of watch dogs about this issue of "rejected books" ....but you would know enough to know, if you knew, that many of these books were BS. They were crack pot and efforts to corrupt.

But do pray tell...show us what books were destroyed, not the rejected ones as I have most of those in my keep as we speak, but show us what books were "destroyed" that you feel should have made it in.