| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM |
| Object: |
translated from the Greek? |
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
21 Nov 2003 07:05:05 PM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBCF0C0.4BF974C0@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBC2CC5.6ACE48D7@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBA6977.4524B84D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
...
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following.
Dr. Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
===>That is contrary to all evidence.
The "Jews" were the JUDEANS, plain and simple.
The earliest followers of Jesus were messianic Jews
(The Way, Ebionim, etc.)
===>Earliest followers of Jesus were Peter, Andrew, and John Mark who
split from John the Baptist 29 AD.
===>No one "split away" from the Baptist, of whom Jesus himself
was a baptized follower.
In any case, they were all messianic Jews, hoping for an end to
Roman occupation and the establishment of a theocracy
("Kingdom of God"), with a davidic anointed king ("Messiah")
on the throne.
The Christian Church is a product of schism from
the Essenes. Nostalgically as in the Pre-Exilic period,
the Essenes supported a return to conditions of monarchy
and return of Zadokite priesthood to power in the temple.
===>That is what John the Baptizer and Jesus, and their Jewish
followers were all about.
Starting with I Enoch, their priests relied on divine
intervention to fulfil typological prophecy, only to be
consistently postponed and ingeniously renewed at the
point of failure, based on symmetries of the solar
calendar.
===>They applied the procedure more recently known from
the Jehovah's Witnesses.
While in Maccabean exile, they found ritual
justification in a platonic concept of a heavenly
temple of which the earthly ministers were members,
imitating what was performed in heaven.
A generation before Jesus was born, sponsored by
Herod the Great but inspired by Magian Essenes, a
mixed but mostly ascetic group of Herodians, Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Diaspora Essenes started a mission among
the Diaspora and Gentiles for a Kingdom of the Jews.
===>What is your evidence for THAT?
Determined to make Jerusalem and Judea the glory
of the east, Herod began to build and from initiation
fees for membership were raised vast sums. Not only
was Jewish identity strengthened, but also the idea
of New Covenant or religious contract allowed for personal,
ethical, and spiritual renewal under instruction.
In 26 AD, John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth
joined forces by agreeing that they would be Messiah
of Aaron and Messiah of Israel at the Restoration. Yet,
John assumed that the priest was superior to the king
while Jesus felt that the king could act as a full priest.
Guided by his detailed prophecies, the Essene John
a) joined forces with the Hellenist Jonathan Annas, son
of a former high priest, concerning
1) Aaronite privilege
2) financial reform
3) ethical rigor
4) renunciation of warfare
===>What is the EVIDENCE?
b) convinced Plant-Root zealots eloquently that, although
strongly sympathetic to their eastern, nationalistic
outlook including services in Hebrew and opposition
to the ministry of women, destruction of Romans
should be left in the hands of heaven.
===>EVIDENCE?
c) ordained new deacons who would become righteous Sons
of Light left on earth after the angelic hosts had
destroyed the Sons of Darkness.
===>EVIDENCE?
d) intended, by remaining celibate and ascetic and largely
living among his followers, to restore supremacy to the
Zadokite over the Abiathar priest and would ascend to
the apex in the Sanctuary where the Voice from heaven
would speak through him.
===>EVIDENCE?
John was attempting to restore priestly dominance
and strict purity rules under a tradition called the
Way of Righteousness with entrance to the innermost
sanctuary permitted through states of virtue in
monastic discipline.
===>EVIDENCE???
ALL THIS IS PURE SPECULATION/FANTASY!
In constrast, Jesus consistently preferred association
with parishioners over monks in personal life. Even
though the Baptist relaxed his purity standard to
support Jesus over James,
===>??? WHAT EVIDENCE???
Jesus felt that priest and
king roles could be combined in himself, to the extent
of doing away with levitical priesthood and the
novitiate.
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 12:01:42 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBEB641.62D803B1@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Jesus felt that priest and
king roles could be combined in himself, to the extent
of doing away with levitical priesthood and the
novitiate.
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
Subject: List of publications [for Dr. Barbara Thiering]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2727
I've already given you 4 links on Thiering pesher methodology,
a somewhat heavy-duty introduction, which you haven't read in detail yet.
Since it's a mountain of material and I don't want it to be overwhelming,
I've invited you to engage Dr. Thiering on my yahoo forum according to
the rules of scholarly evidence and courtesy.
You would be a welcome addition.
Best,
David Christainsen - Moderator
EMAIL:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 04:50:09 PM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FBEB641.62D803B1@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Jesus felt that priest and
king roles could be combined in himself, to the extent
of doing away with levitical priesthood and the
novitiate.
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
Subject: List of publications [for Dr. Barbara Thiering]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2727
I've already given you 4 links on Thiering pesher methodology,
a somewhat heavy-duty introduction, which you haven't read in detail yet.
Since it's a mountain of material and I don't want it to be overwhelming,
I've invited you to engage Dr. Thiering on my yahoo forum according to
the rules of scholarly evidence and courtesy.
You would be a welcome addition.
Why do you refuse to give even one example of evidence? Do you find it too hard?
Of course "distances are uncannily accurate" does not bear on the assertion of financial
reform so don't bother with that nonsense.
--
"We may bomb Syria again if the situation does not improve." -- Israel
"How dare anyone think we are a threat to world peace." -- Israel
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2930
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 04:47:18 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
I have been trying to get evidence out of him since he showed up. No luck. The entire
concept of evidence does not appear to register on him. Perhaps it is a birth defect.
--
AIPAC is the first political action committee since the
communist party to openly support the government of a
foreign country.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2924
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 08:22:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
I have been trying to get evidence out of him since he showed up. No luck. The entire
concept of evidence does not appear to register on him. Perhaps it is a birth defect.
===>He defers to Thiering.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
23 Nov 2003 05:56:37 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
===>WHAT EVIDENCE???
THIS IS TOO BORING.
Come back with some evidence, please.
Libertarius
===========
I have been trying to get evidence out of him since he showed up. No luck. The entire
concept of evidence does not appear to register on him. Perhaps it is a birth defect.
===>He defers to Thiering.
Who speaks only to god.
--
Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and Israel are legitimately in the
Middle East and are democracies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2914
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
13 Nov 2003 12:48:37 AM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
The theory of historical data deliberately embedded in the gospels
is original to Dr. Thiering.
*****. It's an old theory that Thiering stole, along with her
theory about the magic "make him seem dead" potion, the "Jesus later
got married" theory, and all the rest. She clearly got every one of
her "pesher" revelations from reading popular paperbacks with oddball
bible theories. NONE of her work is original. ALL of her work is
derivative.
Please note that, even though you decided to crosspost to
soc.history.ancient, alt.bible, alt.messianic, talk.religion.misc,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible and
alt.religion.christian, STILL not a single peron has ever agreed
with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
13 Nov 2003 12:13:55 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<vr6drb37mvj55b@corp.supernews.com>...
David Christainsen wrote:
The theory of historical data deliberately embedded in the gospels
is original to Dr. Thiering.
*****. It's an old theory that Thiering stole, along with her
theory about the magic "make him seem dead" potion, the "Jesus later
got married" theory, and all the rest. She clearly got every one of
her "pesher" revelations from reading popular paperbacks with oddball
bible theories. NONE of her work is original. ALL of her work is
derivative.
Please note that, even though you decided to crosspost to
soc.history.ancient, alt.bible, alt.messianic, talk.religion.misc,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible and
alt.religion.christian, STILL not a single peron has ever agreed
with you.
You misrepresent. Dr. Thiering has no theory about the magic
"make him seem dead" potion. You just haven't read her works
in the first place.
Your biggest lie concerns the originality of Thiering pesher methodology.
Her lexicon of specialized meanings, sectarian and early Christian, is
entirely hers.
You are unsuited as my correspondent until you can get up to speed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Nov 2003 02:30:31 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Dec 2003 02:53:15 AM |
|
|
(David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
David,
But where is BT's Jesus and his cross in the Clementines?
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
10 Dec 2003 09:47:33 AM |
|
|
(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312100053.17d9a543@posting.google.com>...
david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
David,
But where is BT's Jesus and his cross in the Clementines?
Geoff
Geoff,
Not there. Why should it be?
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
11 Dec 2003 11:11:53 AM |
|
|
(David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0312100747.f3aed90@posting.google.com>...
geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312100053.17d9a543@posting.google.com>...
(David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
David,
But where is BT's Jesus and his cross in the Clementines?
Geoff
Geoff,
Not there. Why should it be?
David
David,
It shouldn't be there if Jesus and the atoning work of Jesus on the
cross were later fabrications.
Considering BT makes great play about Jesus the man, how can she bring
herself to use the Clementines, which do not mention Jesus, in support
of her theories? If Jesus is BT's Wicked Priest, then it is
remarkable that he is not referred to explicitly as an opponent (who
BT claims did not die after he was crucified, but was still around
when the Clementines were written - but of course he was lying low).
BT writes above: "Their account of the debates in Caesarea between
Peter and Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of
Christian teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant." Does BT ever
define the New Covenant? Along with many NT scholars, BT buries her
head in the sand with regard to one very explicit reference to a New
Covenant - "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant --
not of the [letter] {law?} but of the Spirit" (2 Cor.3:6).
The New Covenant was a New Covenant of the Spirit which the OT says,
for example in Joel, God will send, and as desired by Moses. Access
to God was to be by the purification of his Spirit.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT |
01 Dec 2003 03:41:21 PM |
|
|
(David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
The Clementines are no doubt garbled history, reflecting debates not
in Casarea, but Rome, and not between the fabricated Simon Magus and
Peter, but between James the leader of the church and probably his
Sadducean opponent Ananus.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus |
02 Dec 2003 06:44:46 PM |
|
|
Geoff Hudson wrote:
david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311101230.42eb2afc@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FADA368.C18A9ABF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Even if we go back to earlier dates, there is no EVIDENCE
that any of the Gospels AS WE KNOW THEM, existed during the
first century C.E. Certainly the Pauline material show a total lack
of awareness of ANY of the quasi-biographical "data" presented
in the Gospels, implying that they developed AFTER the production
of the Pauline corpus.
...
More from Barbara Thiering with whom Libertarius disagrees ---
More of the Roman history - and a footnote
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1460
"The New Testament has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas,all twelve apostles. The Clementine
literature has episodes concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman,
Zacchaeus, Simon Magus, Barnabas, all twelve apostles. The Clementines
give accurate dates and information on Roman conditions in the latter
part of the reign of Tiberius, late 30's AD. They have none of the
gross historical errors that expose a pseudepigraphon, as in the case
of Daniel. Their account of the debates in Caesarea between Peter and
Simon Magus fit the conditions of the first proclamation of Christian
teaching as an advance on the Old Covenant. If they had been composed
as fiction several centuries later as critics have thought, the Jewish
question would have been simply irrelevant."
"The reason for their not being recognised as historical is, as in the
case of a great mass of apocryphal and newly discovered material,
because their further content is unfamiliar compared with the New
Testament. Canonicity has been the criterion for historicity. But that
is a theological assumption, not the assumption of a historian. On
that belief there was only one form of the Church, only one history.
Consequently, a great many historical sources have been defined as
worthless. It was Elaine Pagels who protested against such a
destruction of evidence, in the light of the Nag Hammadi material. She
pointed out that they proved that earliest Christianity was diverse,
with many different forms. But theological pressures have caused her
and my protests to be disregarded. In the case of the NHL Gospel of
Philip, it was placed in the 3rd century, in the face of its clear
evidence of having been composed before AD 70 (see my article on this
in the Journal of Higher Criticism vol 2, 1, Spring 1995)."
The Clementines are no doubt garbled history, reflecting debates not
in Casarea, but Rome, and not between the fabricated Simon Magus and
Peter, but between James the leader of the church and probably his
Sadducean opponent Ananus.
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that “Simon” is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned “Simon” is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
04 Dec 2003 09:14:13 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD31FE.A8B71589@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that ?Simon? is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned ?Simon? is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
Peter and Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2853
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus |
05 Dec 2003 08:24:11 PM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD31FE.A8B71589@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that ?Simon? is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned ?Simon? is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
Peter and Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2853
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
===>Thanks for the reference. Having read it, I am even more
convinced of the erroneous presentation by "B.T.".
The evidence supports Eisenman's conclusions.
As I quoted above, the scholarly "consensus [is] that the mentioned
?Simon? is indeed Paul in these writings." -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
06 Dec 2003 11:12:25 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD13DCB.7A5CB08D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD31FE.A8B71589@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that ?Simon? is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned ?Simon? is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
Peter and Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2853
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
===>Thanks for the reference. Having read it, I am even more
convinced of the erroneous presentation by "B.T.".
The evidence supports Eisenman's conclusions.
As I quoted above, the scholarly "consensus [is] that the mentioned
?Simon? is indeed Paul in these writings." -- L.
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus |
06 Dec 2003 08:15:26 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD13DCB.7A5CB08D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD31FE.A8B71589@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that ?Simon? is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned ?Simon? is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
Peter and Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2853
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
===>Thanks for the reference. Having read it, I am even more
convinced of the erroneous presentation by "B.T.".
The evidence supports Eisenman's conclusions.
As I quoted above, the scholarly "consensus [is] that the mentioned
?Simon? is indeed Paul in these writings." -- L.
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
SEE an excellent article about the subject:
"PAUL SIMON MAGUS" at
http://www.mahatmarandy.com/sacrilege/SimonMagus.htm
Libertarius
==============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
08 Dec 2003 02:46:26 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD13DCB.7A5CB08D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCD31FE.A8B71589@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Incorrect.
"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite
clear.
"Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material
that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works,
much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named
Simon Magus. Scholars are certain that ?Simon? is a pseudonym for St. Paul
and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing
about this matter G. Strecker states:
It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against
Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from
the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch
(Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles,
and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to
James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter)
source they are leveled against Paul. (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)
Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a
recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:
This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou,
which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul.
Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..."
(Jewish Christianity, p. 51)
As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the
scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned ?Simon? is
indeed Paul in these writings. "
(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO
PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)
Libertarius
==============
Peter and Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2853
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
===>Thanks for the reference. Having read it, I am even more
convinced of the erroneous presentation by "B.T.".
The evidence supports Eisenman's conclusions.
As I quoted above, the scholarly "consensus [is] that the mentioned
?Simon? is indeed Paul in these writings." -- L.
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
SEE an excellent article about the subject:
"PAUL SIMON MAGUS" at
http://www.mahatmarandy.com/sacrilege/SimonMagus.htm
Libertarius
==============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus |
08 Dec 2003 11:06:13 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
09 Dec 2003 06:58:19 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for
instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two
characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same
person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Mortal enemies? Nonsense!
Thunder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
11 Dec 2003 08:30:57 PM |
|
|
Thunder wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for
instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two
characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same
person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Mortal enemies? Nonsense!
Thunder
===>WOW! What a "Thunder"-ing rebuttal! ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thunder" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
17 Dec 2003 12:34:48 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FD92861.58707300@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Thunder wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for
instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than
SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him
under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two
characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same
person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the
long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Mortal enemies? Nonsense!
Thunder
===>WOW! What a "Thunder"-ing rebuttal! ;-) -- L.
Nonsense all the same.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
09 Dec 2003 09:03:11 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
The real Peter is not in the Bible but he is in the clementines...
How do you know?
We hear those nonsenses before
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
11 Dec 2003 08:39:34 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
The real Peter is not in the Bible but he is in the clementines...
How do you know?
We hear those nonsenses before
===>More nonsense from "Duped".
No one said "The real Peter is not in the Bible".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
09 Dec 2003 09:00:51 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?
How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?
Is it because the clementines fit your kind prejudices and fancy idiea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
11 Dec 2003 08:38:25 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?
===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!
How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?
===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus |
12 Dec 2003 10:29:37 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD92A21.BC781685@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?
===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!
How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?
===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.
Who is there to validate that scholarship?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
12 Dec 2003 06:42:24 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD92A21.BC781685@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD55845.5A48B20C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FD28D3E.8FD6E83D@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Paul is mentioned in the islamic literatures as the one sent
to the gentiles. If he was known by any other name, Simon for instance,
Islam would have it pointed out.
===>No one says he was "known by" some other name, other than SAUL.
It is only that he is RECOGNIZED by the things written about him under
the name of "Simon". A good look at the things said about the two characters
in the Bible and elsewhere makes it clear that they ARE the same person.
Only in your imagination....
This following verse by Peter get you wrong:"And account that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother
Paul/Simon has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.
Do you think it makes more sense to replace Paul by Simon Magus in
this letter?
Your mind is truly fucked up.
===>Ignoramus "Duped" believes that Peter (the real
Peter) penned those words. He and Saul/Paul were mortal enemies,
as shown by the Clementines and the Preaching (Kerygmata) of
Peter., and even by the letters of Saul/Paul himself! -- L.
Why do you believe that the "clemetines" is right and the epistleis wrong?
===>2 Peter is a recognized FORGERY!
How do you go about to deciding which one to believe?
===>On the basis of scholarship. -- L.
Who is there to validate that scholarship?
===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".
"One of Christianity’s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,
wrote:
"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter,
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes
reference to his being present at the transfiguration of
Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have
lead nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an
unknown author of the early second century who wrote in
Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence
one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after
A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the
great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority."
(Bruce Metzger, "The New Testament, its background, growth,
and content, p. 258.)
And so, apologist Norman Geisler states:
"...if it was not written by Peter, then it is a biblical forgery,
because the letter is said to be written by him. If it has not been
written by Peter, then it is deceiving us and cannot be trusted in
what it purports to tell us." (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe,
"When Critics Ask", p. 538.)
In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century. Until then it is known to have
been disputed up to the time of the Church historian Eusebius, who
acknowledges the first epistle as authentic, but mentions
"that which is called the second, we have not, indeed, understood to be
embodied with the sacred books, (endiaekon) yet as it appeared useful
to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures." He also
quotes Origen as having said that Peter "left one epistle undisputed,"
and thatregarding a second one, "there is some doubt". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
16 Dec 2003 07:18:42 PM |
|
|
As most of the Bible has been written by other-that-the-claimed-author, your
reasoning doesn't make the books of Peter a forgery
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FD92A21.BC781685@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Liberta | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
