| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Libertarius" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2003 12:02:01 PM |
| Object: |
ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
.
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
29 Dec 2003 09:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FF06C19.CE2F7710@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
This is a joke, right?
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
29 Dec 2003 11:22:35 PM |
|
|
Didymos wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FF06C19.CE2F7710@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
This is a joke, right?
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
19 Jan 2004 12:13:49 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FF10B9B.A078BF3F@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Didymos wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FF06C19.CE2F7710@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
This is a joke, right?
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather .
.. .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The
first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century."
How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources
for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental
scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
He does, huh? Then why didn't he say so? He pretty clearly wrote "gospels
of the first century" and you and I both know that is nonsense because none
are known to exist. Ergo, his premise fails the possibility test. And
since true, or at least not readily falsifiable, conclusions cannot be based
upon false premies, this theory fails from the outset.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
Fact? My, my, aren't you optimistic? I tend not to ignore "fact" but you
see, there is not much "fact" in the lines you cite. Precisely what "fact"
appears in that sentence? What is the range of those dates? Plus or minus
25 years is the usual standard, is it not? And that means your dates are
just as conceivably 150, 170, and 150 A.D.. Or as early as 100, 120, and
100 A.D. And that kind of does run into the little problem of the papyrus
Suppl. Gr. 1120 which is dated to 150 A.D. And this manuscipt is just a bit
older than P. Bodmer XIV, now isn't it? Before you object too strenuously,
I 'll bet I can find (actually, already have) found more big guns in
papyrology field that date P-4 earlier than P-75.
By the way, what are the oldest extant manuscripts of the Gospel of the
Hebrews, the Gospel of Marcion, and the Protoevangelion? Or is the age of
the earliest extant manuscripts not relevant?
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
But only if one is duped by such nonsense as this by a yet another sincere
hobbyist. I mean, geez, "THE LAW OF ACCRETION"? Whose "law" is that? Is
it still a law if it is falsified once? Twice? A dozen times? A hundred?
I have never read a credentialed scholar or papyrologist who bandies terms
such as "law" around. Ancient manuscripts tend to be just too chock full of
surprises for such certainty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 06:50:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:35 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 08:16:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:29:52 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
===>He is making his typical ASSertion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 10:22:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D.. However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
www.icr.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:42:50 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:51:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death. Are you asserting that the
scholars are wrong about it being a copy of an older
text? You are a stupid little man.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Evolution has never been proven and there
is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils,
showing that man came from anything else.
- Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 02:48:53 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
SEE:
"It is not true that the earliest datable manuscript goes back to the first
quarter of
the eighth century. The famous palaeographer Adolf Grohmann informs us that
one dated copy exists from the first century of Higra and two exists
from the second, seven only from the third century of Higra.[23]
The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from Iran.
The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and 107 AH / 725 CE
are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter we have already discussed
above.[24]
A word of caution needs to be added. Whenever there is a waqf marking on the
manuscripts,
it is the burden of the paleographer to estimate the time between the
writing of a manuscript and its being deposited in a mosque or any other
religious institution.
In other words, the wakf marking is not the true representative of the
exact age of the manuscript. It only overestimates the date of writing of the
manuscript."
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
Let me quote another article, which is not exactly a pro-Islam one, but states:
Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in
Tashkent,
and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many
Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a
script style
called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no
earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been
compiled any earlier,
they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script
style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same
conclusion.
(John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989).....
....Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no
earlier than
100 years after Muhammad died."
(FROM: "Islam: Truth or Myth?" at
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm
So much for yet another ASSertion, fake "pastor".
Go to school! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 03:40:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The real problem with creationism is that
our governments don't have the will to
prosecute the offenders (there are more
troublesome criminals around for one thing)
and our churches have lost the will to combat
heresies. - Dave Oldridge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 04:24:04 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text.
===>Another STUPID LIE!
We were discussing the KORAN (QUR'AN).
Bye, bye, LIAR!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 03:45:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text. His biography was
originally written in 767 A.D.. That is irrelevant.
Even that is still over a century after his death.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation.
Believing in the Creator. When Paul preached to
those worshipping nature and said... "turn from
these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven and earth and the sea and all things that
are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 04:27:12 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text. His biography was
originally written in 767 A.D.. That is irrelevant.
Even that is still over a century after his death.
===>You wrote "700 years after his death"!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
02 Jan 2004 08:04:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:27:12 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text. His biography was
originally written in 767 A.D.. That is irrelevant.
Even that is still over a century after his death.
===>You wrote "700 years after his death"!
Try reading it again and this time, look at ALL of the
words.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
03 Jan 2004 04:45:42 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:27:12 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:48:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:23 GMT, "Ron B."
<zypher@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:09 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
Pastor Dave, you are begging the question. What evidence can you cite?
One need only cite the Gospel of Luke. It had to have
been written before 70 A.D..
===>Just as I thought. A typical fake "pastoral" ASSertion.
However, it isn't up to
me to cite anything. Libertarius gave no evidence for
his claim of post 145 A.D..
===>The oldest manuscript of Luke is found in the Bodmer Papyrus XIV,
dated the END of the second century.
A man calling himself "pastor" should know that!
But not a FAKE "pastor". -- L.
Which means nothing at all. You show your ignorance
again. We don't see texts about Mohammed until 700
years after his death.
===>Irrelevant, but it is actually a LIE!
You confuse Jesus with Mohammed,
i.e. something dated to seven centuries after Jesus
with it being dated, as you wrote,
"700 years after his [Mohammed's] death."
THAT, fake "pastor", is not just ignorance,
it is STUPIDITY!
No, it isn't, since it's true.
(FROM: On The Origins Of Kufic Script by
M S M Saifullah, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem, found at
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
In fact there are manuscripts from within 200 years and fragments from within
about 100 years of the death of Mohammed!
We're not discussing the same text. His biography was
originally written in 767 A.D.. That is irrelevant.
Even that is still over a century after his death.
===>You wrote "700 years after his death"!
Try reading it again and this time, look at ALL of the
words.
===>OK, clarify what you meant.
WHAT was written "700 years after his death"???
As far as I know, NOTHING of relevance
was written "700 years after his death"! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:28:53 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:35 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
===>And your evidence for that is?????
Or are you just making your typical ASSertions? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:28:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:35 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
===>And your evidence for that is?????
Or are you just making your typical ASSertions? -- L.
The fact that you're a moron is obvious to all.
The fact that it is YOU who has made an ASSertion is
obvious to all. I merely pointed out that you never
supported it.
Of course, in your typical fashion, you think that you
making an accusation and demanding proof of the
opposite from anyone who responds, is proper debating
technique. You are a stupid, pathetic little man who
breeds hate and lives on it.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 02:51:28 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:28:53 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:35 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> spake thusly:
Do you really consider yet another hobbyist reliable?
That stuff is your idea of "strong eveidence "? Doesn't this rather . . .
startling . . . assertion appear near the bottom of this page? "The first
two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century." How
can this author possibly know that? Obviously, the only way to know and
measure the truth or falsehood of that assertion is to read the " the
gospels of the first century," right? I would like to see the sources for
that rather silly assertion. . . . so would every intertestamental scholar
in the world . . . can anyone produce them?
===>He means the earliest material available.
The fact is in the second sentence, which you ignore:
"They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes,
about A. D.125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. T
hey first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125,
and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic."
The comparison suggests the primacy of the Marcion Gospel
over "Luke". -- L.
The problem is, that the Gospel of Luke was around long
before 145 A.D..
===>And your evidence for that is?????
Or are you just making your typical ASSertions? -- L.
The fact that you're a moron is obvious to all.
The fact that it is YOU who has made an ASSertion is
obvious to all. I merely pointed out that you never
supported it.
Of course, in your typical fashion, you think that you
making an accusation and demanding proof of the
opposite from anyone who responds, is proper debating
technique. You are a stupid, pathetic little man who
breeds hate and lives on it.
===>EVERYONE reading your idiotic claims
knows you are an ignorant LIAR,
so anything you say has no meaning, fake "pastor". -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trotter960" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
29 Dec 2003 08:12:48 PM |
|
|
From: Libertarius
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
From the ABD (IV, 516): " The strength of this argument is diminished by the
fact that in Marcion's gospel, Luke 4.31 seems to have followed directly upon
Luke 3.1. This increases the likelihood that Marcion was removing material.
Nonetheless the only known version of the Lukan gospel without the infancy
narratives is Marcion's."
See the following ABD article on the Marcion's gospel as well where a list of
passages are cited which show additional places where Marcion edited GLuke.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
29 Dec 2003 11:16:37 PM |
|
|
Trotter960 wrote:
From: Libertarius
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a
heretic by the Roman Church.
From the ABD (IV, 516): " The strength of this argument is diminished by the
fact that in Marcion's gospel, Luke 4.31 seems to have followed directly upon
Luke 3.1. This increases the likelihood that Marcion was removing material.
Nonetheless the only known version of the Lukan gospel without the infancy
narratives is Marcion's."
See the following ABD article on the Marcion's gospel as well where a list of
passages are cited which show additional places where Marcion edited GLuke.
===>The evidence I cited
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
shows the opposite: that GLuke is an EXPANDED
version of Marcion's Gospel. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 01:49:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:02:01 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a heretic by
the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
Written in 1900? This idea does not seem to have caught on with more
recent scholars.
Some dates given by neutral and skeptical resources:
80-90 CE
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/bible1.htm
80-130 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
70-80 CE
http://i-cias.com/e.o/luke_g.htm
The early "Fathers"
Irenaeus:
Clearly familiar with Marcion's work, calls it heresy: Recognises the
"Four Gospels" as the only proper number of Gospels in 180. This was only
35 years after Marcion's Gospel. Is this enough time for Luke to be
composed and circulated with enough popularity for Irenaeus to recognise
it as being old enough to be a "true" Gospel and would he not see
Marcion's hand in it if Marcion were the final editor?
From:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html
Begin quote:
When Christian writers started to use gospel quotes, no (or little)
indication was given about their literary origin. That was the situation
before the four gospels were declared to be sacred by the very prominent
St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, France) around 180: Irenaeus, "Against
Heresies", III, 11, 8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds , while the Church is
scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the
Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should
have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying
men afresh." In the same chapter (also III, 1, 1), he introduced an author
for each one of the four: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Irenaeus also gave
plenty of identified quotes from each gospel.
End quote.
Tatian:
Composed and distrbuted the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels
circa 175 CE. This included parts of Luke not found in Marcion's version.
From:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html
Begin quote:
THE TEXT OF THE DIATESSARON
SECTION I.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the 3
Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and
4 without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and
the life 5 is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness apprehended it not.
6 There was in the days of Herod the king a priest whose name was
Zacharias, of the family of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of
Aaron, and her name 7 was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before
God,
End quote.
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
30 Dec 2003 12:27:27 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:02:01 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a heretic by
the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
Written in 1900? This idea does not seem to have caught on with more
recent scholars.
Some dates given by neutral and skeptical resources:
80-90 CE
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/bible1.htm
80-130 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
70-80 CE
http://i-cias.com/e.o/luke_g.htm
The early "Fathers"
Irenaeus:
Clearly familiar with Marcion's work, calls it heresy: Recognises the
"Four Gospels" as the only proper number of Gospels in 180. This was only
35 years after Marcion's Gospel. Is this enough time for Luke to be
composed and circulated with enough popularity for Irenaeus to recognise
it as being old enough to be a "true" Gospel and would he not see
Marcion's hand in it if Marcion were the final editor?
===>What is YOUR guess???
From:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html
Begin quote:
When Christian writers started to use gospel quotes, no (or little)
indication was given about their literary origin. That was the situation
before the four gospels were declared to be sacred by the very prominent
St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, France) around 180: Irenaeus, "Against
Heresies", III, 11, 8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds , while the Church is
scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the
Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should
have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying
men afresh." In the same chapter (also III, 1, 1), he introduced an author
for each one of the four: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Irenaeus also gave
plenty of identified quotes from each gospel.
===>What a rational piece of reasoning!
Since "there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds", there
MUST be four Gospels! WOW!
End quote.
Tatian:
Composed and distrbuted the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels
circa 175 CE. This included parts of Luke not found in Marcion's version.
===>EXACTLY.
Parts ADDED TO Marcion's Gospel, produced in the 140's.
From:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html
Begin quote:
THE TEXT OF THE DIATESSARON
SECTION I.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the 3
Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and
4 without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and
the life 5 is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness apprehended it not.
6 There was in the days of Herod the king a priest whose name was
Zacharias, of the family of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of
Aaron, and her name 7 was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before
God,
End quote.
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
===>And the DATES of that acceptance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
31 Dec 2003 03:11:35 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FF1C38F.791BFFC7@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Ron B." wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:02:01 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
There is strong eveidence that the Gospel attributed to "LUKE" is a
reworked edition of the Gospel of Marcion, who was declared a heretic by
the Roman Church.
SEE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm
Libertarius
=============
Written in 1900? This idea does not seem to have caught on with more
recent scholars.
The idea was advanced by German scholars during a period of
anti-semitism, who wanted to get rid of the embarassing idea of a Jew
named Jesus at the bottom of their state religion. Thus they dated
all the gospels as late as possible, and debunked every earlier ref.
Instead they set up Marcion -- the chap who rejected the OT -- as
their idol.
The whole silly process -- advocated by scholars of real learning --
was kicked out of existence by the discovery of P52 (ca. 125AD), the
fragment of John. This demonstrated unequivocally that the
methodology of dating as late as possible was garbage; and made it
fairly clear that, unless one clung onto that method and asserted John
was written in 124AD and 11 months, John must have been written a fair
bit earlier -- ca. 90AD, in fact, or the fourth quarter of the 1st
century. This happens to be the traditional date.
But there is more. It's fairly obvious that the synoptics were
written rather earlier. Those who cling to the 'late-as-possible'
idea would doubtless say '89AD and 11 months'. But again this method
has been shown to be daft; and a reasonable period of time must be
supposed. This puts them back into the third quarter of the first
century, which is again the traditional dating.
Some dates given by neutral and skeptical resources:
80-90 CE
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/bible1.htm
80-130 CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
70-80 CE
http://i-cias.com/e.o/luke_g.htm
The early "Fathers"
Irenaeus:
Clearly familiar with Marcion's work, calls it heresy: Recognises the
"Four Gospels" as the only proper number of Gospels in 180. This was only
35 years after Marcion's Gospel. Is this enough time for Luke to be
composed and circulated with enough popularity for Irenaeus to recognise
it as being old enough to be a "true" Gospel and would he not see
Marcion's hand in it if Marcion were the final editor?
===>What is YOUR guess???
No sensible person considers Marcion's gospel to be anything but
secondary. As Tertullian rightly remarked (Adv. Marcion. 4, at the
end), even in Marcion's gospel, it is clear that the Christ presented
is that of Luke, not that of Marcion. Remember also that Irenaeus was
the disciple of Polycarp, who knew the apostle John personally. He
was in an excellent position to know about gospels.
From:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html
Begin quote:
When Christian writers started to use gospel quotes, no (or little)
indication was given about their literary origin. That was the situation
before the four gospels were declared to be sacred by the very prominent
St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, France) around 180: Irenaeus, "Against
Heresies", III, 11, 8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds , while the Church is
scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the
Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should
have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying
men afresh." In the same chapter (also III, 1, 1), he introduced an author
for each one of the four: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Irenaeus also gave
plenty of identified quotes from each gospel.
===>What a rational piece of reasoning!
Since "there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds", there
MUST be four Gospels! WOW!
This is anachronistic. The point is that Irenaeus was so familiar
with the idea of only four gospels, that he could found a literary
conceit on it.
End quote.
Tatian:
Composed and distrbuted the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels
circa 175 CE. This included parts of Luke not found in Marcion's version.
===>EXACTLY.
Parts ADDED TO Marcion's Gospel, produced in the 140's.
You need to produce something like reasoning or evidence, not just
assertion, when you make these statements. In particular, ancient
documents must be allowed to speak. It is not rational to use a text
for what it can be made to mean, rather than what it does mean. This
is a particular problem with most atheist writing online,
incidentally, so be wary of them.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
31 Dec 2003 07:45:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
The early "Fathers"
Irenaeus:
Clearly familiar with Marcion's work, calls it heresy: Recognises the
"Four Gospels" as the only proper number of Gospels in 180. This was only
35 years after Marcion's Gospel. Is this enough time for Luke to be
composed and circulated with enough popularity for Irenaeus to recognise
it as being old enough to be a "true" Gospel and would he not see
Marcion's hand in it if Marcion were the final editor?
===>What is YOUR guess???
That it is highly unlikly that Ireneaus would have accepted "Luke" as a
gospel if he thought it came from Marcion's pen. Also that he would have
reconised it as Marcionite if it were.
From:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/gospels.html
Begin quote:
When Christian writers started to use gospel quotes, no (or little)
indication was given about their literary origin. That was the situation
before the four gospels were declared to be sacred by the very prominent
St. Irenaeus (bishop of Lyons, France) around 180: Irenaeus, "Against
Heresies", III, 11, 8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either
more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds , while the Church is
scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the
Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should
have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying
men afresh." In the same chapter (also III, 1, 1), he introduced an author
for each one of the four: Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. Irenaeus also gave
plenty of identified quotes from each gospel.
===>What a rational piece of reasoning!
Since "there are four zones of
the world in which we live, and four principal winds", there
MUST be four Gospels! WOW!
Hardly what we would call clear reasoning but besides the point. Irenaeus
would never have accepted a Marcionite gospel as one of the four.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
31 Dec 2003 08:12:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
===>And the DATES of that acceptance?
No later then 175 for Taitan and 180 for Irenaeus, the estimate time of
the writting of their works. Most likely at least several years earlier
to allow time to study the documents and write the harmony and (in
Irenaeus case, the apology. In Irenaeus case, this was a major
work, that not only commented on Marcion, but was an in-depth
study and refutation of Gnosticism. The latest date (I would
guess) for Taitan might be 170 and 175 for Irenaeus. Assuming
distribution of Marcion's "Luke" no earlier then 145 (time of his
publication of his own gospel) and nlt then 150, this allows only 35-40
years for his "Luke" to be accepted as authoritative by Irenaeus and
Taitan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
01 Jan 2004 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
===>And the DATES of that acceptance?
No later then 175 for Taitan and 180 for Irenaeus, the estimate time of
the writting of their works. Most likely at least several years earlier
to allow time to study the documents and write the harmony and (in
Irenaeus case, the apology. In Irenaeus case, this was a major
work, that not only commented on Marcion, but was an in-depth
study and refutation of Gnosticism. The latest date (I would
guess) for Taitan might be 170 and 175 for Irenaeus. Assuming
distribution of Marcion's "Luke" no earlier then 145 (time of his
publication of his own gospel) and nlt then 150, this allows only 35-40
years for his "Luke" to be accepted as authoritative by Irenaeus and
Taitan.
===>No one claims it was ever accepted.
The hypothesis is that it was CHANGED. Expanded with e.g. the
birth story, etc. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron B." |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
01 Jan 2004 06:05:39 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:18:37 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
"Ron B." wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
===>And the DATES of that acceptance?
No later then 175 for Taitan and 180 for Irenaeus, the estimate time of
the writting of their works. Most likely at least several years earlier
to allow time to study the documents and write the harmony and (in
Irenaeus case, the apology. In Irenaeus case, this was a major
work, that not only commented on Marcion, but was an in-depth
study and refutation of Gnosticism. The latest date (I would
guess) for Taitan might be 170 and 175 for Irenaeus. Assuming
distribution of Marcion's "Luke" no earlier then 145 (time of his
publication of his own gospel) and nlt then 150, this allows only 35-40
years for his "Luke" to be accepted as authoritative by Irenaeus and
Taitan.
===>No one claims it was ever accepted.
The hypothesis is that it was CHANGED. Expanded with e.g. the
birth story, etc. -- L.
When I say 'Marcion's "Luke"' I mean the hypothetical Gospel of Luke
including any changes made by Marcion as final redactor. As I understand
the theory being discussed here, it is claimed that Marcion wrote his
"Gospel of the Lord" and distributed it. He then went on to use this as
a core to add those things to complete "Luke". This means that he was the
author of Luke. Are you saying that Irenaeus "accepted" the proto-gospel
that Marcion used for "The Gospel of the Lord", but neither of what would
have been Marcion's works?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
01 Jan 2004 01:06:32 PM |
|
|
"Ron B." wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:18:37 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
"Ron B." wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0700, Libertarius wrote:
It is thought by many scholars that Irenaeus' insistance on four Gospels
was at least in part a reaction to Taitan's harmony. But both writers
accept Luke as authoritative despite their clear differences in
understanding of Christianity. Could Luke have become so universally
accepted after only one generation?
===>And the DATES of that acceptance?
No later then 175 for Taitan and 180 for Irenaeus, the estimate time of
the writting of their works. Most likely at least several years earlier
to allow time to study the documents and write the harmony and (in
Irenaeus case, the apology. In Irenaeus case, this was a major
work, that not only commented on Marcion, but was an in-depth
study and refutation of Gnosticism. The latest date (I would
guess) for Taitan might be 170 and 175 for Irenaeus. Assuming
distribution of Marcion's "Luke" no earlier then 145 (time of his
publication of his own gospel) and nlt then 150, this allows only 35-40
years for his "Luke" to be accepted as authoritative by Irenaeus and
Taitan.
===>No one claims it was ever accepted.
The hypothesis is that it was CHANGED. Expanded with e.g. the
birth story, etc. -- L.
When I say 'Marcion's "Luke"' I mean the hypothetical Gospel of Luke
including any changes made by Marcion as final redactor. As I understand
the theory being discussed here, it is claimed that Marcion wrote his
"Gospel of the Lord" and distributed it. He then went on to use this as
a core to add those things to complete "Luke".
===>WRONG.
Marcion never added the birth stories and other things that are found
in the so-called "Luke" Gospel.
This means that he was the author of Luke.
===>WRONG. The hypothesis is that he authored a Gospel, which was
later expanded and credited to "Luke".
Are you saying that Irenaeus "accepted" the proto-gospel
that Marcion used for "The Gospel of the Lord", but neither of what would
have been Marcion's works?
===>No, I am not saying that at all. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF THE "LUKE" GOSPEL |
02 Jan 2004 11:36:16 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
"Ron B." wrote:
< CLIP >
This means that he was the author of Luke.
===>WRONG. The hypothesis is that he authored a
Gospel, which was later expanded and credited to "Luke".
Why assume that Marcion wrote or modified it?
What about the possibility that Marcion possessed an older
version which may have been written by Luke himslf, and that
Irenaeus and Taitan mistakenly accepted their versions as as
being authentic?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
