"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1161033655.554154.162750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

What is more, those four canonical gospels must all have been written
by about AD 90 at the very latest. (I am inclined to think they are
probably a lot earlier than that, but they cannot be later.)

By this statement you show that you are "inclined to think" what you
*want* to think, in contradiction to all the evidence that nags at your
mind to the contrary. What 'evidence'? I'll show you . . .

They are
known and referred to by Christian writers in the first half of the
second century, long before anyone begins to discuss the material we
now know from Nag Hammadi.

The Christian, Ante-Nicene writings you refer to, as from Polycarp,
Ignatius and Clement, upon close reading by an honest, objective eye
turn out to be, for the most part, pseudepigraphic productions of the
late 2nd Century, early 3rd Century Church (of Origen, Clement of
Alexandria, et al) which was compiler, if not to some extent, author of
the pre-Jerome canon, in its written content, much as we now know it.

The pseudepigraphic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp (and one letter
of Clement) were forged by the 3rd Century church in order to establish
the fiction of an earlier origin for the canonical, synoptic gospels.
The Fourth Gospel as of that time was still being held in contention,
especially by the fathers of the Byzantine Church which continued to
hold it suspect right on up until, or beyond the time of Jerome in the
5th century.

There is, however another body of Ante-Nicene writings which do appear
to be authentic, honest productions of the early church, and these are
namely the writings of Justin Martyr, Papias and the authentic Clement
who is author of the so-called "Second Epistle of Clement". Now these
honest documents, upon a close and careful reading reveal in their
citations elements of the earliest published text of "the Gospel"
(there was only the one, at this time), the untampered with recension
of Mark that was known to both the authentic Clement and Justin Martyr.

It's been some 15 years since those days and nights, when, cloistered
within the tiny confines of a mountain cabin lost in the fastnesses of
the California Sierra Nevada, my wife and I holed up with the writings
of the Ante-Nicene fathers, a Greek Interlinear copy of the New
Testament, a concordance and the other necessary materials to make this
study. So, my recollection of the specific passages from Justin and
Clement which prove conclusively the truth about the times and
dates--well, needless to say, by this time, it's all gotten rather
vague, but it is there in those writings to be studied by anyone who
would sincerely hope to discover the truth of the matter, which in
summary amounts to something like this . . .

Justin was writing, previous to his martyrdom, up into the reign of
Hadrian, which was the time also when the Gnostic heresiarch Marcion
was just starting to run afoul of the Orthodoxy at Rome. Marcion, it
is well known, had at this time, his own, interpolated and pared down
version of "Luke" that he was unsuccessfully promoting for acceptance
as part of an early canon. Marcion's activity along this line of
fooling with the tradition of the Gospel was not something, all of
itself, that the bishops would have found extraordinary or
unprecedented. No. It was Marcion trying to take a practice they
themselves were indulging to such an extremity, that it left no choice
finally but to brand him heretic.

Now what's stated earlier as to 3rd century Church of Clement of
Alexandria comes to this: They had before them the productions of an
earlier tradition. That Justin had some form of early Mark in his
hands circa A.D. 140 is a fact beyond dispute. That Clement I, even
earlier, if sometime between 90-100 A.D. had in his possession a copy
of the same text, seems also not an irresponsible conclusion to arrive
upon, i.e. based on his citations from the sayings of the Christ which
comport with Mark, but not with Matthew. But as from Papias, whose
writings are much earlier, if even going back to around 60 A.D. there
is indication of little more than an oral tradition, and vague mention,
as reported later by Epiphanius, of something then known as "The Gospel
According to the Hebrews".

Putting these pieces together results in a very early document held
only by the fathers of the Church at Jerusalem--if possibly also (with
Ignatius) at Antioch, but a tradition which Paul had reference to as
"that other gospel" which he (or his 2nd Century amanuensis)
virulently, and quite wrongly in his jealousy opposed. Now this Gospel
of the Hebrews was the earliest text of Mark, the same that Clement had
reference to in his one authentic Letter, "II Clement".

As of this time however, the Pauline opposition to "the other gospel"
still festered in the Gnostic antinomian heretic imaginations of Paul's
most vocal and devoted follower, namely Marcion and his progenitors
from whom arose the first texts of "Acts of the Apostles" and "Luke".
There was at this time a War of the Gospels, Luke vs Mark, and this is
a conflict that spanned all the intervening years up to the time of
Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria, when finally, Mark came
to be expanded, at Rome, to the extent of Matthew, while Luke, the
de-Marcionized text was released into publication from Alexandria.

Would you ask me for solid documentary proof of these contentions? I
answer that there can be none in specific, as one can no more establish
the form of the whole picture puzzle from a handful of pieces than he
could show you the specific Church documents which present the entire
picture showing that the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius are the
works of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, having been produced solely
to the purpose of 'documenting' an earlier origin for the canon they
were seeking to establish.

The Fourth Gospel is another matter entirely. Suffice it to say for
now, that there is extant a Coptic codex of the canon in which the
story of the stoning of the "Woman Taken in Adultery" is to be found,
not in "John" but in Luke. That the so-called "Gospel According to
John" is a later Gnostic, anti-semitic production of the Marcionite
heresy, is a contention fortified by the fact of its being so long
resisted by the Byzantine Church well into the Fifth century--but this,
as Le Moustache said over cognac to the Gendarme, "is another story"
which can be told by no more than mere textual word studies done by
reference to a standard concordance of the New Testament. You can do it
yourself. Look up the word (in any of its forms) 'repentance' in John
and compare to its frequency in the gospels of the Synoptic Tradition.
Also, try the word, "Jew". Compare the number of occurrences of that
word from the entire Old Testament, as opposed to the text of "John".
Lastly, do this with respect to the word, "forgive" in all its forms.
You may be in for a mighty big surprise, comparing the Fourth "gospel"
to the Synoptics.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1161033655.554154.162750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

What is more, those four canonical gospels must all have been written
by about AD 90 at the very latest. (I am inclined to think they are
probably a lot earlier than that, but they cannot be later.)

By this statement you show that you are "inclined to think" what you
*want* to think, in contradiction to all the evidence that nags at your
mind to the contrary. What 'evidence'? I'll show you . . .

They are
known and referred to by Christian writers in the first half of the
second century, long before anyone begins to discuss the material we
now know from Nag Hammadi.

The Christian, Ante-Nicene writings you refer to, as from Polycarp,
Ignatius and Clement, upon close reading by an honest, objective eye
turn out to be, for the most part, pseudepigraphic productions of the
late 2nd Century, early 3rd Century Church (of Origen, Clement of
Alexandria, et al) which was compiler, if not to some extent, author of
the pre-Jerome canon, in its written content, much as we now know it.

The pseudepigraphic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp (and one letter
of Clement) were forged by the 3rd Century church in order to establish
the fiction of an earlier origin for the canonical, synoptic gospels.
The Fourth Gospel as of that time was still being held in contention,
especially by the fathers of the Byzantine Church which continued to
hold it suspect right on up until, or beyond the time of Jerome in the
5th century.

There is, however another body of Ante-Nicene writings which do appear
to be authentic, honest productions of the early church, and these are
namely the writings of Justin Martyr, Papias and the authentic Clement
who is author of the so-called "Second Epistle of Clement". Now these
honest documents, upon a close and careful reading reveal in their
citations elements of the earliest published text of "the Gospel"
(there was only the one, at this time), the untampered with recension
of Mark that was known to both the authentic Clement and Justin Martyr.

It's been some 15 years since those days and nights, when, cloistered
within the tiny confines of a mountain cabin lost in the fastnesses of
the California Sierra Nevada, my wife and I holed up with the writings
of the Ante-Nicene fathers, a Greek Interlinear copy of the New
Testament, a concordance and the other necessary materials to make this
study. So, my recollection of the specific passages from Justin and
Clement which prove conclusively the truth about the times and
dates--well, needless to say, by this time, it's all gotten rather
vague, but it is there in those writings to be studied by anyone who
would sincerely hope to discover the truth of the matter, which in
summary amounts to something like this . . .

Justin was writing, previous to his martyrdom, up into the reign of
Hadrian, which was the time also when the Gnostic heresiarch Marcion
was just starting to run afoul of the Orthodoxy at Rome. Marcion, it
is well known, had at this time, his own, interpolated and pared down
version of "Luke" that he was unsuccessfully promoting for acceptance
as part of an early canon. Marcion's activity along this line of
fooling with the tradition of the Gospel was not something, all of
itself, that the bishops would have found extraordinary or
unprecedented. No. It was Marcion trying to take a practice they
themselves were indulging to such an extremity, that it left no choice
finally but to brand him heretic.

Now what's stated earlier as to 3rd century Church of Clement of
Alexandria comes to this: They had before them the productions of an
earlier tradition. That Justin had some form of early Mark in his
hands circa A.D. 140 is a fact beyond dispute. That Clement I, even
earlier, if sometime between 90-100 A.D. had in his possession a copy
of the same text, seems also not an irresponsible conclusion to arrive
upon, i.e. based on his citations from the sayings of the Christ which
comport with Mark, but not with Matthew. But as from Papias, whose
writings are much earlier, if even going back to around 60 A.D. there
is indication of little more than an oral tradition, and vague mention,
as reported later by Epiphanius, of something then known as "The Gospel
According to the Hebrews".

Putting these pieces together results in a very early document held
only by the fathers of the Church at Jerusalem--if possibly also (with
Ignatius) at Antioch, but a tradition which Paul had reference to as
"that other gospel" which he (or his 2nd Century amanuensis)
virulently, and quite wrongly in his jealousy opposed. Now this Gospel
of the Hebrews was the earliest text of Mark, the same that Clement had
reference to in his one authentic Letter, "II Clement".

As of this time however, the Pauline opposition to "the other gospel"
still festered in the Gnostic antinomian heretic imaginations of Paul's
most vocal and devoted follower, namely Marcion and his progenitors
from whom arose the first texts of "Acts of the Apostles" and "Luke".
There was at this time a War of the Gospels, Luke vs Mark, and this is
a conflict that spanned all the intervening years up to the time of
Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria, when finally, Mark came
to be expanded, at Rome, to the extent of Matthew, while Luke, the
de-Marcionized text was released into publication from Alexandria.

Would you ask me for solid documentary proof of these contentions? I
answer that there can be none in specific, as one can no more establish
the form of the whole picture puzzle from a handful of pieces than he
could show you the specific Church documents which present the entire
picture showing that the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius are the
works of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, having been produced solely
to the purpose of 'documenting' an earlier origin for the canon they
were seeking to establish.

The Fourth Gospel is another matter entirely. Suffice it to say for
now, that there is extant a Coptic codex of the canon in which the
story of the stoning of the "Woman Taken in Adultery" is to be found,
not in "John" but in Luke. That the so-called "Gospel According to
John" is a later Gnostic, anti-semitic production of the Marcionite
heresy, is a contention fortified by the fact of its being so long
resisted by the Byzantine Church well into the Fifth century--but this,
as Le Moustache said over cognac to the Gendarme, "is another story"
which can be told by no more than mere textual word studies done by
reference to a standard concordance of the New Testament. You can do it
yourself. Look up the word (in any of its forms) 'repentance' in John
and compare to its frequency in the gospels of the Synoptic Tradition.
Also, try the word, "Jew". Compare the number of occurrences of that
word from the entire Old Testament, as opposed to the text of "John".
Lastly, do this with respect to the word, "forgive" in all its forms.
You may be in for a mighty big surprise, comparing the Fourth "gospel"
to the Synoptics.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://doo-dads.blogspot.com/

"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1161033655.554154.162750@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19743_1.html

<snip>

I see you've never read Hunter S. Thompson.

How can anyone trust the Bibles when there are NO ORIGINALS in existence and
the copies available
are obvious myths, fables, contradictions and impossible and implausible
tales?

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19743_1.html



Can We Trust the Gospels?


None of the Gnostic texts--or any other recently unearthed find--can
trump the four canonical gospels.

I can think of quite a few, actually. The Three Little Pigs comes to
mind, and so does Little Red Riding Hood. Both are much easier on the
conscience, and neither contradict themselves.