| 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 -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
18 Dec 2003 11:10:15 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 07:33:39 AM |
|
|
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding of the
times in which the texts were written
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE28837.7C9B643A@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 11:23:18 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding of the
times in which the texts were written
===>Not by MY logic.
There are many books in the collection that were most likely written by
the person whose name is claimed as the author. E.g. most, though not all,
of the letters of Saul/Paul. In the OT, most of the books of the prophets, etc.
But often an author is merely ATTRIBUTED to certain books, e.g. Moses
and the Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Gospels,
etc. But the fact that the author of "2 Peter" goes to some length to claim
that he was THE Peter makes it a clear and intentional forgery. -- L.
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE28837.7C9B643A@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
21 Dec 2003 12:56:26 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE52E46.8F518895@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding of
the
times in which the texts were written
===>Not by MY logic.
There are many books in the collection that were most likely written by
the person whose name is claimed as the author. E.g. most, though not all,
of the letters of Saul/Paul. In the OT, most of the books of the prophets,
etc.
But often an author is merely ATTRIBUTED to certain books, e.g. Moses
and the Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Gospels,
etc. But the fact that the author of "2 Peter" goes to some length to
claim
As does the writter of the Pentaeuch, want examples ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
21 Dec 2003 11:29:06 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE52E46.8F518895@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding of
the
times in which the texts were written
===>Not by MY logic.
There are many books in the collection that were most likely written by
the person whose name is claimed as the author. E.g. most, though not all,
of the letters of Saul/Paul. In the OT, most of the books of the prophets,
etc.
But often an author is merely ATTRIBUTED to certain books, e.g. Moses
and the Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Gospels,
etc. But the fact that the author of "2 Peter" goes to some length to
claim
As does the writter of the Pentaeuch, want examples ?
===>Sure. Why not?
After introducing himself as "Simon Peter", there are
at least four places where the author refers to himself in the
first person.
2 Peter 1:12
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things...
2 Peter 1:13
I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling...
2 Peter 1:15
And I will also be diligent...
2 Peter 3:1
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you
in which I am stirring up your sincere mind...
Thus claiming he wrote the first letter.
How about any similar instance from the Pentateuch with an author
claiming he is Moses? As far as I know, Moses is ALWAYS
referred to in the THIRD PERSON, as the PROTAGONIST of
discourse, not in the first as the author!
Do you actually have something different? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
23 Dec 2003 12:26:51 PM |
|
|
Fuss budget :-)
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE68122.3BC05455@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE52E46.8F518895@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding
of
the
times in which the texts were written
===>Not by MY logic.
There are many books in the collection that were most likely written
by
the person whose name is claimed as the author. E.g. most, though not
all,
of the letters of Saul/Paul. In the OT, most of the books of the
prophets,
etc.
But often an author is merely ATTRIBUTED to certain books, e.g. Moses
and the Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Gospels,
etc. But the fact that the author of "2 Peter" goes to some length to
claim
As does the writter of the Pentaeuch, want examples ?
===>Sure. Why not?
After introducing himself as "Simon Peter", there are
at least four places where the author refers to himself in the
first person.
2 Peter 1:12
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things...
2 Peter 1:13
I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling...
2 Peter 1:15
And I will also be diligent...
2 Peter 3:1
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you
in which I am stirring up your sincere mind...
Thus claiming he wrote the first letter.
How about any similar instance from the Pentateuch with an author
claiming he is Moses? As far as I know, Moses is ALWAYS
referred to in the THIRD PERSON, as the PROTAGONIST of
discourse, not in the first as the author!
Do you actually have something different? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
23 Dec 2003 11:15:57 PM |
|
|
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
Fuss budget :-)
===>Is THAT supposed to be one of the promised
"examples"? ;-)
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE68122.3BC05455@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:3FE52E46.8F518895@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
By your logic, the whole Bible is a "FORGERY" lacking understanding
of
the
times in which the texts were written
===>Not by MY logic.
There are many books in the collection that were most likely written
by
the person whose name is claimed as the author. E.g. most, though not
all,
of the letters of Saul/Paul. In the OT, most of the books of the
prophets,
etc.
But often an author is merely ATTRIBUTED to certain books, e.g. Moses
and the Pentateuch, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Gospels,
etc. But the fact that the author of "2 Peter" goes to some length to
claim
As does the writter of the Pentaeuch, want examples ?
===>Sure. Why not?
After introducing himself as "Simon Peter", there are
at least four places where the author refers to himself in the
first person.
2 Peter 1:12
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things...
2 Peter 1:13
I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling...
2 Peter 1:15
And I will also be diligent...
2 Peter 3:1
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you
in which I am stirring up your sincere mind...
Thus claiming he wrote the first letter.
How about any similar instance from the Pentateuch with an author
claiming he is Moses? As far as I know, Moses is ALWAYS
referred to in the THIRD PERSON, as the PROTAGONIST of
discourse, not in the first as the author!
Do you actually have something different? -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
19 Dec 2003 07:57:19 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE28837.7C9B643A@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
Novelisation is at least one example of non-forgery in this area:
think of The Lord of the Rings, or Jane Eyre. There have been other
genres that allowed this.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
19 Dec 2003 07:49:56 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE28837.7C9B643A@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
Novelisation is at least one example of non-forgery in this area:
think of The Lord of the Rings, or Jane Eyre. There have been other
genres that allowed this.
Who wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Oxford professor J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), a linguist (philologist).
Had the book claimed that it was a work of, say, Thomas Jefferson,
it would have been a FORGERY.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 09:33:31 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE3AAC4.1EF6FA16@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE28837.7C9B643A@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" wrote:
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
===>Any writing CLAIMING to have been written by someone other than the
author IS a FORGERY!
Novelisation is at least one example of non-forgery in this area:
think of The Lord of the Rings, or Jane Eyre. There have been other
genres that allowed this.
Who wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Oxford professor J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), a linguist (philologist).
Member of my old college, in fact.
Had the book claimed that it was a work of, say, Thomas Jefferson,
it would have been a FORGERY.
There is rather a large amount of material in the appendices in which
he professes that he is only translating material from the Red Book of
Westmarch...
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 11:12:12 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE3AAC4.1EF6FA16@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Who wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Oxford professor J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), a linguist (philologist).
Member of my old college, in fact.
Had the book claimed that it was a work of, say, Thomas Jefferson,
it would have been a FORGERY.
There is rather a large amount of material in the appendices in which
he professes that he is only translating material from the Red Book of
Westmarch...
===>So....?
How does that realete to 2 Peter?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
21 Dec 2003 04:54:40 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE52BAC.36AD6724@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<3FE3AAC4.1EF6FA16@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Who wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Oxford professor J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), a linguist (philologist).
Member of my old college, in fact.
Had the book claimed that it was a work of, say, Thomas Jefferson,
it would have been a FORGERY.
There is rather a large amount of material in the appendices in which
he professes that he is only translating material from the Red Book of
Westmarch...
===>So....?
How does that realete to 2 Peter?
That word is relate and not realete, fool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iamhere" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
29 Dec 2003 02:33:15 PM |
|
|
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
Iamhere
===============================================================================
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vtvbnji2marc97@corp.supernews.com>...
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 <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: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 09:57:32 AM |
|
|
(Iamhere) wrote in message news:<4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com>...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
It has always been said that, the gentiles have no understanding
of anything about God. You have just confirmed it.
Iamhere
===============================================================================
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vtvbnji2marc97@corp.supernews.com>...
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 <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: "Iamhere" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
02 Jan 2004 11:37:47 AM |
|
|
(Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0312300757.1487409@posting.google.com>...
dotcom457@yahoo.com (Iamhere) wrote in message news:<4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com>...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
It has always been said that, the gentiles have no understanding
of anything about God. You have just confirmed it.
Iamhere
===============================================================================
Your reply is ambiguous because it can be taken two ways. Either you
agree with me or are calling me a Gentile who knows nothing about
God.Which is it? By the way, I'm 100% Jewish...no equivocation
whatsoever....not even the slightest iota of belief in anything
Christian.
Iamhere
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<vtvbnji2marc97@corp.supernews.com>...
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 <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: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 12:52:23 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
dotcom457@yahoo.com (Iamhere) wrote in message news:<4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com>...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
It has always been said that, the gentiles have no understanding
of anything about God. You have just confirmed it.
===>Are you a JEW?
If not, YOU are also a GENTILE!
Christianity in all its forms is a GENTILE religion,
invented FOR GENTILE, by the GENTILE (or Gentilized)
Saul/Paul of Tarsus. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DW Suiter" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 12:29:22 AM |
|
|
Certainly it is the old testament that is a fraud. All the stories about
Moses is all a forgery and myth. Right?
"Iamhere" <dotcom457@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
Iamhere
============================================================================
===
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<vtvbnji2marc97@corp.supernews.com>...
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 <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: "Iamhere" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 12:05:56 PM |
|
|
"DW Suiter" <dwsuiter@toast.net> wrote in message news:<vv1sb39st6d746@corp.supernews.com>...
Certainly it is the old testament that is a fraud. All the stories about
Moses is all a forgery and myth. Right?
"Iamhere" <dotcom457@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
Iamhere
================================================================================
Could be you're right however this I'll say-what comes closer to the
truth is Judaism, not Christianity. All Christianity was, was Judaism
for the Gentiles who were too damn stupid to comprehend the wishes of
God as interpreted by the Hebrews. They needed a one man show which
explains the affinity for Jesus.Jesus never knocked his Judaic
upbringing but did much to bring it to those incapable of being
reached by Rabbis. Incidentally Jesus was no Rabbi because that term
first appeared more than 100 years after THE crucifixion--I stress THE
because before and after Jesus, the ROMAN speciality for putting to
death anyone who openly defied Rome was by that method. Apparently the
only crucifixion that ever counted was Jesus's. All the others were
part of big Roman show and tell.
You mentioned Moses and cast skepticism. I don't blame you. To me he
was like Sandy Koufax--SUPER JEW.Legend has it he led the children of
Israel in the desert for 40 years yet there's not a shred of evidence
supporting such a thing.
I'm sure much in the OT is allegorical, symbolic and hyperbolic yet
there's enough basic truths therein to sustain and unify the
Hebrews/Jews for 4000 years.
On the other hand,the NT is sheer ani-Semitic ***** and bull concocted
by Greek morons to exact revenge on the people who tossed their rear
ends out of the Holy Land. How odd it is that the same people who
supposedly murdered Jesus are his chief spokesmen by way of the
Papacy. The NT is simply as filled with holes as swiss cheese and the
idea of a Three in One God is an insult to human intelligence.
Iamhere
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 01:42:18 PM |
|
|
Iamhere wrote:
Incidentally Jesus was no Rabbi because that term
first appeared more than 100 years after THE crucifixion
Mark 10:51
And answering him, Jesus said, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
And the blind man said to Him, "Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!"
John 20:16
Jesus said to her, "Mary!"
She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!"
(which means, Teacher).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=SimonMagus, 2 Peter Forgery |
30 Dec 2003 10:40:05 AM |
|
|
DW Suiter wrote:
Certainly it is the old testament that is a fraud. All the stories about
Moses is all a forgery and myth. Right?
===>There is a difference between "fraud" and FICTION.
The epistle 2 Peter is clearly a fraud. So are some of the letters
claiming to have been written by Paul (e.g. the so-called "Pastorals"). -- L.
"Iamhere" <dotcom457@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4774dc51.0312291233.1aad8d2@posting.google.com...
The entire NT is one big forgery or perhaps the word should be
"fraudgery"which I myself made up.Yet the word "fraudgery" may catch
on as did the NT thought up by Greek kooks with revenge against the
Jews as their chief motivation. The story of Jesus is no more than
Greek mythology worked and re-worked into the type of garbage that
would capture minds because it claimed to have the answer to the
mysteries of death. Believe in Jesus and you'll live forever and all
that rot.Believe in Jesus and in the final days the graves will open
and all the skeletons will jump out yelling "Praise Be Jesus" while
dancing the Macarena. Such stupidity of the masses defies
comprehension.
Iamhere
============================================================================
===
"Glenn \(Christian Mystic\)" <christianmystic@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:<vtvbnji2marc97@corp.supernews.com>...
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 <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: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
18 Dec 2003 01:08:19 PM |
|
|
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 <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".
I know that scholars congratulate one another just like the pharisees
in THE ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. If one erreneous opinion validates another
erreneous opinion what would you end up with?
"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: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
19 Dec 2003 08:12:29 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
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.
Scholars do not agree with this idea about the Clementines.
Who is there to validate that scholarship?
===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".
On matters of controversy, however, this process merely ensures that
those holding state-funded posts all more or less agree with the
spirit of the age. At one time, all scholars agreed that Christianity
was true. Today they all agree that it is untrue. At one time large
numbers were communists. Today none are.
Politics and religion are always biases. There is no purpose in
seeking a pronouncement of academic 'authority' on these topics: on
them, they write as men, not as scholars.
"One of Christianity?s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,
Metzger is a mainstream scholar, not a conservative scholar.
Mr. L. -- This technique of labelling scholars conservative is a ploy
which one comes across in some of the more dishonest atheist
pamphlets, as I see you have (I know you post in good faith, but I
need to talk about your sources here).
The polemical reason to do this is fairly obvious: the writer wants to
use some statements from the standard text, which support his
position, but dismiss others.
So, by claiming (in this case) Metzger as belonging to 'the other
side', anything he says which is damaging to the Christians can be
touted as 'even one of their own admits...', while anything he says
which is unwelcome can be dismissed as bias. All this, of course, is
the stuff of dishonest polemic: one should either use an author as an
authority, or not.
So watch out for misassignments of this kind -- they are not morally
neutral.
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....
Indeed they do, but there seems no pressing reason ever cited for
this.
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.)
Again, we have to ask why. How do they know?
In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.
This is not what the ancient sources actually say. Origen tells us
that some people accept it, as does Eusebius. Both say that others
regard it as orthodox, but do not know it to be Petrine.
Letters by their very nature tend to circulate in the area to which
they were despatched. That some know a work, and others have no such
tradition, is likely, and indeed must have occurred with every work.
It isn't evidence, tho.
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.
Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)
Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).
All the best
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 04:14:25 AM |
|
|
(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312190612.fdcd591@posting.google.com>...
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDA6070.E2BE1FD4@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
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.
Scholars do not agree with this idea about the Clementines.
Who is there to validate that scholarship?
===>Scholars tend to validate one another. It is called
"peer review".
On matters of controversy, however, this process merely ensures that
those holding state-funded posts all more or less agree with the
spirit of the age. At one time, all scholars agreed that Christianity
was true. Today they all agree that it is untrue. At one time large
numbers were communists. Today none are.
Politics and religion are always biases. There is no purpose in
seeking a pronouncement of academic 'authority' on these topics: on
them, they write as men, not as scholars.
"One of Christianity?s most authoritative
CONSERVATIVE biblical scholars Bruce Metzger,
Metzger is a mainstream scholar, not a conservative scholar.
Mr. L. -- This technique of labelling scholars conservative is a ploy
which one comes across in some of the more dishonest atheist
pamphlets, as I see you have (I know you post in good faith, but I
need to talk about your sources here).
The polemical reason to do this is fairly obvious: the writer wants to
use some statements from the standard text, which support his
position, but dismiss others.
So, by claiming (in this case) Metzger as belonging to 'the other
side', anything he says which is damaging to the Christians can be
touted as 'even one of their own admits...', while anything he says
which is unwelcome can be dismissed as bias. All this, of course, is
the stuff of dishonest polemic: one should either use an author as an
authority, or not.
So watch out for misassignments of this kind -- they are not morally
neutral.
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....
Indeed they do, but there seems no pressing reason ever cited for
this.
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.)
Again, we have to ask why. How do they know?
In fact 2 Peter was not recognized as canonical until the Councils of
Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century.
This is not what the ancient sources actually say. Origen tells us
that some people accept it, as does Eusebius. Both say that others
regard it as orthodox, but do not know it to be Petrine.
Letters by their very nature tend to circulate in the area to which
they were despatched. That some know a work, and others have no such
tradition, is likely, and indeed must have occurred with every work.
It isn't evidence, tho.
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.
Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)
Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).
All the best
Roger,
In his History (H1:11), immediately after Eusebius cites the account
of the death of John (Ant.18:5.2) and then the TF (Ant.18:2.3), he has
"shameless dishonesty" and "forgery" on his mind. He writes: "When
a writer sprung from the Hebrews themselves has furnished in his own
writing an almost contemporary record of John the Baptist and our
Saviour too, what excuse is there left for not condemning the
shameless dishonesty of those who forged the Memoranda blackening them
both?" This reminds me of the kind of self-incriminating response the
murderer Ian Huntley gave to an interviewer when he said "have they
found the girl's clothes yet?", knowing that he had hidden them. The
bishop and the murderer both used the subliminal language of a guilty
liar.
Against the Memoranda (whatever that was), I would suggest that
Eusebius garbled the original record in Josephus to fabricate the
account of the death of John at the hands of Herod Antipas, and the
reference to Jesus the Christ in the TF. To find a convenient place
for the death of John in the original history, he apparently has him
die after Jesus instead of before as in the NT.
I would further suggest that the TF and the adjacent account of
Paulina and Mundus were both originally about John, and that the
original true record was possibly cited in the Memoranda as polemic
against John.
It is interesting to note how Eusebius wants to ram home the idea that
John was a baptist. He refers to: "John who was called the Baptist",
or simply to "the Baptist" (H3:24).
The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
20 Dec 2003 09:27:31 AM |
|
|
(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312200214.43f8fc4a@posting.google.com>...
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312190612.fdcd591@posting.google.com>...
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.
Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)
Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).
Roger,
In his History (H1:11), immediately after Eusebius cites the account
of the death of John (Ant.18:5.2) and then the TF (Ant.18:2.3), he has
"shameless dishonesty" and "forgery" on his mind. He writes: "When
a writer sprung from the Hebrews themselves has furnished in his own
writing an almost contemporary record of John the Baptist and our
Saviour too, what excuse is there left for not condemning the
shameless dishonesty of those who forged the Memoranda blackening them
both?" This reminds me of the kind of self-incriminating response the
murderer Ian Huntley gave to an interviewer when he said "have they
found the girl's clothes yet?", knowing that he had hidden them. The
bishop and the murderer both used the subliminal language of a guilty
liar.
Against the Memoranda (whatever that was), ...
Geoff,
FYI: This is a reference to the 'Memoranda of Pilate'. When
Diocletian had decided to persecute the Christians, one of his
officers, Hierocles, was set to produce documents to rubbish the
Christians, demonise them, accuse them of child-abuse, etc etc, in
order to 'justify' the seizure of property and torture of Christians.
The memoranda were one of the documents he turned out, as well as
writing a philosophical text professing to act on motives of the
highest regard for truth, and abusing the Christians as stupid. There
were others also. He also arranged for the arrests of Christian girls
on the professed grounds that Christianity involved prostitition (even
the pagans laughed at this, I gather). Hierocles then initiated a
bestial persecution. These events took place a few years before
Eusebius wrote the first draft of the HE.
(The actions of Hierocles have many parallels since, of course, not
least in anti-Christian invective online today).
The argument offered in support of this attack on Eusebius does not
seem very convincing to me!
The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT and the record in Josephus at the same time so
that he could cite the latter in support of the former and "prove" his
case.
There is, however, no evidence of any of this, and I think that it is
wrong to accuse people of such things without very convincing evidence
indeed. Otherwise is it not just libel?
By the way, since the discoveries of the Bodmer papyri of the gospels,
dated to 200AD+, it is not really possible to accuse Eusebius of
editing the NT, unless he could somehow edit papers buried before he
was born.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus, 2 Peter Forgery |
22 Dec 2003 05:52:31 AM |
|
|
(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312200727.3aef7745@posting.google.com>...
geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0312200214.43f8fc4a@posting.google.com>...
(Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0312190612.fdcd591@posting.google.com>...
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.
Origen, Commentary on John, book 5 (not sure this is extant, other
than in Eusebius, tho.)
Incidentally, while I am glad to see you using Eusebius, do you
likewise accept his citation of the Testimonium Flavianum? (One of
your coreligionists is currently attacking the honesty of Eusebius
again, so you see why I am reluctant to allow you people to both cite
him and abuse him as convenient!).
Roger,
In his History (H1:11), immediately after Eusebius cites the account
of the death of John (Ant.18:5.2) and then the TF (Ant.18:2.3), he has
"shameless dishonesty" and "forgery" on his mind. He writes: "When
a writer sprung from the Hebrews themselves has furnished in his own
writing an almost contemporary record of John the Baptist and our
Saviour too, what excuse is there left for not condemning the
shameless dishonesty of those who forged the Memoranda blackening them
both?" This reminds me of the kind of self-incriminating response the
murderer Ian Huntley gave to an interviewer when he said "have they
found the girl's clothes yet?", knowing that he had hidden them. The
bishop and the murderer both used the subliminal language of a guilty
liar.
Against the Memoranda (whatever that was), ...
Geoff,
FYI: This is a reference to the 'Memoranda of Pilate'. When
Diocletian had decided to persecute the Christians, one of his
officers, Hierocles, was set to produce documents to rubbish the
Christians, demonise them, accuse them of child-abuse, etc etc, in
order to 'justify' the seizure of property and torture of Christians.
The memoranda were one of the documents he turned out, as well as
writing a philosophical text professing to act on motives of the
highest regard for truth, and abusing the Christians as stupid. There
were others also. He also arranged for the arrests of Christian girls
on the professed grounds that Christianity involved prostitition (even
the pagans laughed at this, I gather). Hierocles then initiated a
bestial persecution. These events took place a few years before
Eusebius wrote the first draft of the HE.
(The actions of Hierocles have many parallels since, of course, not
least in anti-Christian invective online today).
The argument offered in support of this attack on Eusebius does not
seem very convincing to me!
The parallel editorial work was to change the accounts in the NT so
that John was demoted from being a prophet to the status of a mere
baptist who is quickly disposed of at the hands of Antipas to make way
for the fictitious Jesus the Saviour. Eusebius' basic technique was
to change both the NT an | | | | |
