Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Church History 201 Guidelines
Welcome to Church History 201.
Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.
This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.
If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.
This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.
If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Epistle of Peter to James
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostNot likely. This is part of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which dates from the 3rd to the 5th century, depending on who you speak to.
Beyond that, the letter quotes Matthew, which is probably written between 75-90. That's problematic for any case for authenticity, as Peter dies around 64/65, and James is known to have died in 62. Unless Peter's ghost wrote it, it's pseudipigraphic.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostNot likely. This is part of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which dates from the 3rd to the 5th century, depending on who you speak to.
Beyond that, the letter quotes Matthew, which is probably written between 75-90. That's problematic for any case for authenticity, as Peter dies around 64/65, and James is known to have died in 62. Unless Peter's ghost wrote it, it's pseudipigraphic.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostNot likely. This is part of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which dates from the 3rd to the 5th century, depending on who you speak to.
Beyond that, the letter quotes Matthew, which is probably written between 75-90. That's problematic for any case for authenticity, as Peter dies around 64/65, and James is known to have died in 62. Unless Peter's ghost wrote it, it's pseudipigraphic.
Leave a comment:
-
Not likely. This is part of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, which dates from the 3rd to the 5th century, depending on who you speak to.
Beyond that, the letter quotes Matthew, which is probably written between 75-90. That's problematic for any case for authenticity, as Peter dies around 64/65, and James is known to have died in 62. Unless Peter's ghost wrote it, it's pseudipigraphic.
Leave a comment:
-
Epistle of Peter to James
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF- ... 54_1014821
Quote: "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy."
The enemy seems to be Apostle Paul.
Is this authentic? What is going one?
Also, I can't find a date for this Epistle.
Thank you.Tags: None
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: