We Have Two Swords

[Cow Poke]

In a way that's no different than saying that Muhammad was a pagan not a Muslim.

Or that Luther was not a Lutheran.

[rogue06]

You sure "snipped for relevance" an awful lot there again. More like chopped.

That is evidence of some frantic Googling on your part.

Really?

It is nearly quoting verbatim something I posted last May which was largely simply putting together stuff from several earlier posts.

Compare:

[...]

Meanwhile, in the real world, where speculations are trumped by the facts, the fact is that numerous works that Christians would have been very keen on reproducing are lost to us. A huge number of works by the ECFs are only known to us by quoted snippets in later works. Polycarp is believed to have penned several works but all we know of is his Epistle to the Philippians.

Papias' multi-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is lost except for short excerpts by Irenaeus and especially Eusebius of Caesarea. Similarly, all we know of Hegesippus the Nazarene's history of the church as well as his five volume Hypomnemata ("Memoranda") regarding Apostolic teachings, is provided by Eusebius. And all we know of one Apostolic Father, Quadratus of Athens, is that he wrote an Apology, presented to Hadrian when he was attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries (c.120-130 A.D.). Eusebius mentions it and quotes a single sentence, whereas Jerome provides some biographical details in his Illustrious Men, although some think it influenced Irenaeus when it came to what he wrote about miracles.

In fact, Eusebius cites quite a number of works that are only known through his quotations of them. For instance he cites at least four books by Irenaeus now lost.

I probably should note that some of Eusebius' works are also lost.

Heck, even some of Paul's epistles were lost -- and you know they would be trying to preserve those (such as a third letter to the Corinthians mentioned in II Corinthians 2:4; 7:8-9, and set between the two we do have. Ephesians 3:3-4 mentions an earlier epistle he sent to them, and Colossians 4:16 mentions a possible now lost letter to the Laodiceans).

So your insistence on blaming Christians for all of the works being lost is misplaced.

With the one from May

[...]

Many of the works that nearly all Christians went out of their way to copy and preserve were something by Aristotle, who was viewed quite highly. And yet two-thirds of it has been lost.

And look at how many early Christian works are only known by what was quoted by others (often centuries later) and some only by the mentioning of their existence. I mean we even lost some of Paul's letters, such as a third letter to the Corinthians mentioned in II Corinthians 2:4; 7:8-9, and set between the two we do have. Ephesians 3:3-4 mentions an earlier epistle he sent to them, and Colossians 4:16 mentions a possible now lost letter to the Laodiceans

As for later works, including some from the earliest Church Fathers, again most is lost or only known in fragments where they are quoted in later works. For instance, Polycarp is believed to have penned several works but all we know of is his Epistle to the Philippians.

Papias' multi-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is lost except for short excerpts by Irenaeus and especially Eusebius of Caesarea^[1]. Similarly, all we know of Hegesippus the Nazarene's history of the church as well as his five volume Hypomnemata ("Memoranda") regarding Apostolic teachings, is provided by Eusebius. And all we know of one Apostolic Father, Quadratus of Athens, is that he wrote an Apology, presented to Hadrian when he was attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries (c.120-130 A.D.). Eusebius mentions it and quotes a single sentence, whereas Jerome provides some biographical details in his Illustrious Men, although some think it influenced Irenaeus when it came to what he wrote about miracles.

In fact, Eusebius cites quite a number of works that are only known through his quotations of them. For instance he cites at least four books by Irenaeus now lost.

I probably should note that some of Eusebius' works are also lost.

The point being even things that people were working hard to preserve were lost in droves.



1. There appears to be some evidence that the work may have survived up into the latter Middle Ages

The amusing part is that the earlier one was addressed to you as well.

However, you are merely repeating my own points concerning texts that have been lost.

Yup. At some point I'm hoping they might sink in.

I had a friend back in the 70-80s who when he got drunk and belligerent (the two always went hand in hand ) that I eventually realized the best thing to do was keep repeating the same point that he kept ignoring. Usually by the third time he would gradually begin to understand what it was I was saying and the significance of it.

With you I believe I'm on the fifth time.

And of course you employ your usual tactic of caricature and distortion. Nowhere in what I wrote was I "blaming Christians for all of the works being lost is misplaced".

However, the fact remains that Christians did destroy many texts.

Arrant nonsense premised on your own flights of fancy. A secretary's job was to take dictation. He was not required to embellish or adapt what he was writing down

Who said that they were "required"?

But when you were translating into a different language the amanuensis' influence cannot but help to be felt. Anyone who has compared different translations of the same work can see how that person can subtly change meanings by their choice of words.

Peter, as you so often inelegantly point out, was probably not a wordsmith in Koine Greek (although I believe that he was able to more than adequately communicate in it, much like many if not most people who have a second or third language), and would probably not have any difficulty with his secretary improving on his Greek.

Not one of your "flights of fancy" but a reasonable conjecture about something we'll never know for certain.

As you contend that it is a fact that Peter used a secretary, where is the evidence?

Aside from the tradition that Mark had been Peter's? Maybe if you ever bothered to read for yourself what you've spent decades criticizing you'd be familiar with

Scripture Verse: I Peter 5:12

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it.

© Copyright Original Source

This is nearly universally thought to be the same Silas in Acts and the Silvanus Paul mentions in II Corinthians 1:19; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1, partly because its an uncommon name.

While there isn't unanimous agreement (is there ever?) it seems that most feel this means that Silvanus was Peter's amanuensis.

Still, I think some translations go further than what is said in their versions

Like the Contemporary English version

Scripture Verse:

Silvanus helped me write this short letter, and I consider him a faithful follower of the Lord...

© Copyright Original Source

Or the New American Bible

Scripture Verse:

I write you this briefly through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother...

© Copyright Original Source

They are, IMHO, presuming too much.

That is not the subject to which I was referring despite your constant attempts to pivot back to it.

The fact is that you dismissed Caesar's campaigns in Gaul with the following two statements

Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter.

And

with respect to the big picture it really didn't much matter.

Both of which self-evidently reveal that you have read nothing of substance concerning Caesar's campaigns despite your allegation that you had done so.

Is this your awkward way of conceding that your continued insistence that Caesar never invaded or conquered Gaul was an obviously erroneous position? That you were wrong about all of that?

So now you seek to quibble over my saying that there was no need to explain Caesar's actual motives (which might not be the same as what he claimed in his self-aggrandizing propaganda piece) because the fact is that he did do it, so the why is no longer relevant.

'scuse me a sec.




'k. I'm back.

I gave you our known earliest source.

That wasn't what I was referring to. It's yet another part that you "snipped for relevance":

If so then please list the other names that have been offered for the authorship of the Synoptics smiley waiting-impatient.gif

My emphasis.

If you are going to quote the man you could at least give his name correctly.

His name is Brant J Pitre not Petre Brant. Your confusion clearly indicates that you have not actually consulted his text.

I haven't the foggiest idea where I came up with that name?

But the fact that I quoted extensively from his book indicates, despite utterly screwing up his name, you are probably once again wrong here

The quotes come from pages 16 and 17, IIRC.

And once more this is his personal opinion [which is at odds with much academic thinking].

Your careful use of "much" here indicates that you realize that it also lines up with "much" academic thinking

Furthermore, on what attested evidence is he alleging that:

The second major problem with the theory of the anonymous Gospels is the utter implausibility that a book circulating around the Roman Empire for almost a hundred years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of any disagreement in any manuscripts

To what "book" is he referring? And where is the evidence from his sweeping generalisation that these texts were "circulating around the Roman Empire for almost a hundred years"? Were they circulating in Lusitania or Pannonia or Germania?

Are you serious?

Are you really that clueless?



Honestly what do you think he's referring to (he freaking tells you in the quote)?

Read Paul's authentic letters and then read Acts. It is quite clear that the latter was a narrative intended to present the earlier period as harmonious when Paul's authentic letters show distinct tensions as well as his own arrogance concerning the superiority of his gospel.

That there were disagreements there is no doubt, but they were resolved because the Apostles had the authority to resolve them.

In the mid fifties CE these Christian sects were small, disparate, and dotted around the eastern empire. I sincerely doubt if their total membership consisted of more than a few hundred individuals at that period. That these early groups met clandestinely in people's homes likewise indicates their numbers were comparatively small.

Your point?

This "Apostolic Age" to which you repeatedly refer is nothing but a convenient apologetic convention which almost certainly has little basis in fact

Except for the fact it was the time when the Apostles were still around to decide disputes

How would you interpret/explain I Corinthians chapter two verses six to eight and II Corinthians chapter twelve verses two to five?

Evidence for what I already said. That there were disagreements there is no doubt, but in the end they were resolved because the Apostles had the authority to resolve them.

Christianity developed gradually and different people had different ideas and interpretations.

And yet, historically speaking, it isn't until the mid 2nd century and later that the various heresies started to develop. Funny that.

However, perhaps you can explain why, if as you are contending that from this "Apostolic Age" everyone was "singing from the same hymn-sheet" from where exactly did these supposed "heresies" of yours originate?

Pretty much the same way they arise everywhere else. Issues and questions arise that were not answered earlier -- or that were, but nobody with such unquestionable authority was around to firmly put an end to it.

Your atrocious syntax in this sentence does not make any sense:

I don't know of anyone who doubts that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.

Let's try

I'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.

Are you now trying to pretend that you habitually mix in academic circles?

No. But I do know several. Particularly folks involved in geology and paleontology. If you knew of my side interests this would not come as much of a surprise to you.

[tabibito]

I'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.

Can we be sure that there were no teachings prior to Marcion that claimed Jesus was not God come in the flesh (1John 4:1-2; 2John 1:7)? 2John 1:7 in particular indicates that it was not an uncommon heresy, and Marcion's teachings were at most a development from those of the gnostic, Cerdo, Marcion's own teacher. The teachings did not originate with Marcion, and the sect to which Cerdo belonged (by its own reckoning) traced its origins to Simon Magus.

[One Bad Pig]

Can we be sure that there were no teachings prior to Marcion that claimed Jesus was not God come in the flesh (1John 4:1-2; 2John 1:7)? 2John 1:7 in particular indicates that it was not an uncommon heresy, and Marcion's teachings were at most a development from those of the gnostic, Cerdo, Marcion's own teacher. The teachings did not originate with Marcion, and the sect to which Cerdo belonged (by its own reckoning) traced its origins to Simon Magus.

I"m not sure what those verses have to do with Marcion. Marcion's issue was that he thought the God which sent Jesus was different than the God of the Old Testament. The epistles of John refer to people (docetists) who thought Jesus came from God, but didn't have a material body.

[tabibito]

I"m not sure what those verses have to do with Marcion. Marcion's issue was that he thought the God which sent Jesus was different than the God of the Old Testament. The epistles of John refer to people (docetists) who thought Jesus came from God, but didn't have a material body.

That was actually my point. The "teachings" that Jesus was not God come in the flesh have their origins with gnosticism, which was around long before Marcion promoted his own concepts in Rome. There is no hint in scripture of the existence of a "teaching" that YHWH was a rather unsavoury character, and not the father of Jesus, who was another God entirely. John's prologue only addresses the issue of Logos becoming flesh, it doesn't address the other elements of Marcion's teaching.

[One Bad Pig]

That was actually my point. The "teachings" that Jesus was not God come in the flesh have their origins with gnosticism, which was around long before Marcion promoted his own concepts in Rome. There is no hint in scripture of the existence of a "teaching" that YHWH was a rather unsavoury character, and not the father of Jesus, who was another God entirely. John's prologue only addresses the issue of Logos becoming flesh, it doesn't address the other elements of Marcion's teaching.

I wonder if rogue06 is instead referring to this.

[rogue06]

I wonder if rogue06 is instead referring to this.

bullseyeloop.gif

I thought I made that clear earlier.

And you may also notice why I strongly doubt that there is anyone who thinks this prologue wasn't Marcionite.

[tabibito]

I wonder if rogue06 is instead referring to this.

I hadn't seen that before.

The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully. But the heretic Marcion, after being condemned by him because he was teaching ² the opposite to him [John], was expelled by John. But he [Marcion] had brought writings or letters to him [John] from the brothers which were in Pontus.

Let's see now: Marcion was born in 85CE ... say he was 20 when he had the run in with John: that would make it105CE
Say that John was 20 when Jesus died ... at the latest 33CE: that would make him 92 in 105CE

The prologue doesn't seem reasonable, even with the unreasonable ages of 20 for each.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct. It there are flaws that I can find they are likely to be quite basic. Subtle errors will probably escape my notice.

You appear to alleging that you possess a greater knowledge than that of every academic in these disciplines

I am not suggesting it, I am stating it plainly: that particular teaching has fallen into disrepute. It is not main-stream belief that Logos was made flesh.

Are you therefore contending that the prologue of John's gospel is in error?

A challenge advanced without a reason beyond speculation cannot be considered an attested fact.

An amusing comment from an individual who regularly presents his speculative opinions as if they are facts.

John seems pretty solid.

In what sense?

Matthew might be challenged.

In what sense?

Is it just an example of the unthinking acceptance of tradtionally held views without consideration and investigation?

You tell us. You seem to consider yourself the supreme historian, palaeographer, textual critic, etc.

On these boards? The only one I can think of who believes Hebrews to be Paul's is not a Christian.

Perhaps someone should put that to the test.

He says he was a companion traveller with Paul.

The author "says" no such thing.

Paul expressed no lasting conflict with any of the other apostles of his time. Such conflicts as did arise were brief.

Only according to Acts.

Well, not everyone. There seem to have been people creating a ruckus even in Paul's time.

How do you account for this "ruckus" [i.e. heated controversy] managing to be resolved as brief conflicts?

There are. They are also rationalised into oblivion.

That is a topic for another thread.

Across the board. Paul's writings do not conflict with the teachings of any other New Testament author.

Given that his are the earliest texts that have come down to us, why are you surprised by that?

You seem to be unaware of the implications of "similar."

As you never employed the word "similar" in connection with your remarks concerning my comments to rogue06, what relevance does the word have in this regard?

See my response to your first comment cited in this post.

Seem my reply to your first comment from your post.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You sure "snipped for relevance" an awful lot there again. More like chopped.

I divided my replies into two separate posts. You evidently have overlooked one of them

It is nearly quoting verbatim something I posted last May which was largely simply putting together stuff from several earlier posts.[/quote] Which does not preclude the distinct possibility that it was all initially Googled.

Which does not preclude the distinct possibility it was all initially Googled.

We know that on occasion from the late first century BCE and into the first century CE texts [particularly those of astrologers] and sometimes philosophers were occasionally banned but there is no conclusive evidence that books were burned in these contexts prior to the fourth century onward .

Who said that they were "required"?

What other purpose required a secretary?

But when you were translating into a different language the amanuensis' influence cannot but help to be felt. Anyone who has compared different translations of the same work can see how that person can subtly change meanings by their choice of words.

This is nothing but your own speculative flights of fancy.

Peter, as you so often inelegantly point out, was probably not a wordsmith in Koine Greek (although I believe that he was able to more than adequately communicate in it, much like many if not most people who have a second or third language), and would probably not have any difficulty with his secretary improving on his Greek.

It is not solely the language that is the issue in 1 & 2 Peter. These texts also show an understanding of Greek rhetorical techniques, philosophy, and a knowledge of the LXX.

Not one of your "flights of fancy" but a reasonable conjecture about something we'll never know for certain.

Ehrman sums it up rather well in his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, HarperCollins, 2011

Some scholars have suggested that Peter did not directly write 1 Peter [as I’ve indicated, almost no one thinks he wrote 2 Peter], but that he indirectly wrote it, for example, by dictating the letter to a scribe. Some have noted that the letter is written “through Silvanus” [5:12] and thought that maybe Silvanus wrote down Peter’s thoughts for him.... The answer is, “Almost certainly not.” But for now I can say at least a couple of words about the case of 1 Peter.
First off, scholars now widely recognize that when the author indicates that he wrote the book “through Silvanus,” he is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying the letter to the recipients. Authors who used secretaries don’t refer to them in this way.

But why not suppose that Peter used someone else, other than Silvanus, as a secretary? It would help to imagine how this theory is supposed to work exactly. Peter could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. That would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can one easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testament, so the person who composed the letter [whether orally or in writing] must have known the Scriptures in Greek. Is it possible, then, that the historical Peter directed someone to write a letter, basically told him what to say, and let him produce it? To that there are two responses. First, it would seem that if someone else actually composed the letter, it would be that person, not Peter, who was the author. But the other person is never named. Even in Paul's letters that are coauthored [almost all of them]he names the others, even though he probably wrote them himself

[...]But even more compelling is this. Where in the ancient world do we have anything at all analogous to this hypothetical situation of someone writing a letter-essay for someone else and putting the other person’s name on it—the name of the person who did not write it—rather than his own name? So far as I know, there is not a single instance of any such procedure attested from antiquity or any discussion, in any ancient source, of this being a legitimate practice. Or even an illegitimate one. Such a thing is never discussed

Both these texts are pseudepigraphical and were written at a later date.

Is this your awkward way of conceding that your continued insistence that Caesar never invaded or conquered Gaul was an obviously erroneous position?

No. I am pointing out that your making those remarks severs to illustrate your ignorance of those campaigns, why they were undertaken [i.e. the history of the region] and that convulsive period of Roman history.

I haven't the foggiest idea where I came up with that name?

I could make a few suggestions!

But the fact that I quoted extensively from his book indicates, despite utterly screwing up his name, you are probably once again wrong here

My emphasis.

Do you actually consider that quoting six lines of text constitutes quoting "extensively" from a work that runs to [including notes] more than 200 pages?

Your careful use of "much" here indicates that you realize that it also lines up with "much" academic thinking

Much - to a great extent or degree

Are you serious?

Are you really that clueless?

Are you alleging that these four gospels were in circulation from the 50s CE?

Honestly what do you think he's referring to (he freaking tells you in the quote)?

These texts were not in any book circulating from the mid 50s CE.

That there were disagreements there is no doubt, but they were resolved because the Apostles had the authority to resolve them.

Again, I recommend you read Paul's letters The tensions and [some might suggest schisms] between those who had known Jesus and Paul are evident from his letters. Acts is in part a later narrative looking back at events some decades earlier and presenting those events and that period in a contrived manner. In Acts disagreements and divisions are all reconciled and everyone eventually comes to agreement. In that regard it is an early form of spin or PR.

Your point?

My point being that in the mid 50s CE these were small and disparate groups of a clandestine cult.

Except for the fact it was the time when the Apostles were still around to decide disputes.

Once again you are relying on Acts as your historical source.

Evidence for what I already said. That there were disagreements there is no doubt, but in the end they were resolved because the Apostles had the authority to resolve them.

What on earth has that reply to do with the content of the specific verses I cited from I and II Corinthians?

And yet, historically speaking, it isn't until the mid 2nd century and later that the various heresies started to develop.

Yet again you seem unaware of the fact that in the first century [there was no uniform theology. The theology of these disparate Christian communities tended to be shaped by the ideas of their respective founders and the relations between those various individuals could be often hostile. Hence Paul's remarks on false teachers.

Pretty much the same way they arise everywhere else. Issues and questions arise that were not answered earlier -- or that were, but nobody with such unquestionable authority was around to firmly put an end to it.

Therefore, and contrary to your previous repeated assertions, there was no over-arching orthodoxy.

I'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.

That makes more sense.

No. But I do know several. Particularly folks involved in geology and paleontology. If you knew of my side interests this would not come as much of a surprise to you.

So you allege.

[tabibito]

You appear to alleging that you possess a greater knowledge than that of every academic in these disciplines

In a very (extremely even) restricted number of topics, yes. Majority consensus is never (hyperbole) unanimous.

Are you therefore contending that the prologue of John's gospel is in error?

No. I am saying that John's prologue is correct.

An amusing comment from an individual who regularly presents his speculative opinions as if they are facts.

Examples?

You tell us. You seem to consider yourself the supreme historian, palaeographer, textual critic, etc.

Textual critic, exegete - middling to very good. Knowledge of paleography and history are a bit better than can be found among average high schoolers, but not by much.

The author "says" no such thing.

Not "the author says" but "the author says that." He claimed to be with Paul during particular events, late in Acts. For similar events described earlier in Acts he does not claim to have been with Paul. The record switches from "they" and "them" to "we" and "us."

Only according to Acts.

Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11; Galatians 2:8; 1Cor 15:9, among a swathe of other references, would seem to undermine your narrative.

How do you account for this "ruckus" [i.e. heated controversy] managing to be resolved as brief conflicts?

I did not say that the founding apostles were among those causing a ruckus. Those that were making a scene were attempting to undermine Paul's credentials and veracity. It was much the same as the way you don't address issues, but simply attempt to undermine the credibility of anyone who raises a counter argument to your assertions.

Given that his are the earliest texts that have come down to us, why are you surprised by that?

Majority consensus posits the claim that the gospels are of late composition. A sizable minority of scholars consider the "evidence" supporting the claim rather questionable. In fact the only evidence advanced seems to be the idea that prophecy is impossible.

As you never employed the word "similar" in connection with your remarks concerning my comments to rogue06, what relevance does the word have in this regard?

You employed the word, "similar."

[tabibito]

While there isn't unanimous agreement (is there ever?) it seems that most feel this means that Silvanus was Peter's amanuensis.

Still, I think some translations go further than what is said in their versions

Like the Contemporary English version

Scripture Verse:

Silvanus helped me write this short letter, and I consider him a faithful follower of the Lord...

© Copyright Original Source

Or the New American Bible

Scripture Verse:

I write you this briefly through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother...

© Copyright Original Source

They are, IMHO, presuming too much.

The writing is a completed action - aorist tense in the Koine Greek - so "(I) wrote" or "(I) have written." If Peter was referring to the person as conveying the letter, "write" is the wrong word, and the tense is wrong.
Allowing, for the sake of argument, that "write" might indicate "convey:" if Peter were sending the letter by Silvanus, "write" should be simple present "(I) write" or "(I) am writing," signifying an action in progress. I agree with your assessment of the CEV, but the [only*] issue arising with the NAB is the change of tense - for all that it is natural English grammar, it does allow for the writing to be in progress.
.
[* only] While it might be considered no more than a minor annoyance, the change of tense would be a negative strike when considering the version for use in study purposes.

[tabibito]

Paul was by no means the only one who encountered problems with false doctrines.

From Jude1:4 through to verse 21 - a criticism of people who counter orthodoxy.
1John 2:18-19 addresses a teaching apparently holding that Jesus was not the messiah. It cannot pass without notice that John also (incorrectly) considered their actions to be a sign of the imminent return of Christ. 1 and 2.Peter address similar issues, but in general terms.

Paul's argument with Peter (Galatians 2:12) was triggered by people from James who were unorthodox, unsettling even Peter and Barnabas. Even without the more expansive comment by John and the people who had gone out from him, there is no reason to believe that the troublous group acted with James' approval or even awareness.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In a very (extremely even) restricted number of topics, yes.

You have shown little evidence of this greater knowledge. Furthermore, on what basis do you make such claims for yourself? What have you actually studied and to what extent?

Majority consensus is never (hyperbole) unanimous.

Nowhere did I mention "Majority consensus".

No. I am saying that John's prologue is correct.

Then the word was made flesh. The various Christian creeds also refer to Jesus being conceived [albeit by a god].

Examples?

In this very thread on the role of Silvanus and other remarks you have made about Peter's apparent adult education courses in Greek language, rhetoric, and philosophy.

Textual critic, exegete - middling to very good. Knowledge of paleography and history are a bit better than can be found among average high schoolers, but not by much.

Once again I am forced to the conclusion that you hide this alleged light under an exceedingly large bushel.

Not "the author says" but "the author says that." He claimed to be with Paul during particular events, late in Acts.

The author uses the pronouns "us" and "we" in certain sections, as you have noted. However, nowhere does the author write [as you contended]

He says he was a companion traveller with Paul.

I again repeat he "says" [writes] nothing of the sort.

Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11;

Ephesians is widely accepted as a deutero-Pauline text.

Galatians 2:8;

This is only Paul's word. You have no corroborating and attested evidence from Peter.

1Cor 15:9,

Again this is only Paul's word - and in a somewhat servile tone. No one else has left us any attested evidence of their views and experiences.

I did not say that the founding apostles were among those causing a ruckus. Those that were making a scene were attempting to undermine Paul's credentials and veracity.

Because they disagreed with him. And why should they not? What authority did Paul have? All he offered was his own mystical revelations which he considered superseded and trumped the opinions and beliefs of those individuals who had known a real man.

In other words he was an arrogant upstart declaring that his experiences and his gospel were the only correct and true things to believe and what anyone else taught or believed was wrong. Again, the standard behaviour of a cult leader.

Look at his language. My emphasis.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ

In other words only what he teaches is correct. No one else's beliefs have any merit and they are attempting to "pervert the gospel of Christ" i.e. his gospel.

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me

An arrogant dismissal of those men who had known a man we now call Jesus of Nazareth as opposed to Paul's mystical figure of Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ and his arcane ethereal experiences.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned, ¹² for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

Since when has keeping Jewish dietary laws been something for which an observant Jew should be criticised?

It was much the same as the way you don't address issues

As demonstrated above I have just done so - albeit extremely briefly.

Majority consensus posits the claim that the gospels are of late composition. A sizable minority of scholars consider the "evidence" supporting the claim rather questionable. In fact the only evidence advanced seems to be the idea that prophecy is impossible.

It is impossible to rational people who live in an advanced scientific and technological world.

Of course a belief in such things was common in the first century CE along with a belief in the existence of demons and the significance of signs and omens, along with the wearing of amulets and suchlike.

Although I doubt many today in western society take the auspices before embarking on a journey or undertaking some new venture.

You employed the word, "similar."

Which in the context in which I employed it had and has nothing to do with your remark:

Yep, standard Roman practice - though I don't think Rome can be singled out: it might more properly be termed standard practice across the board. People on the wrong side of an argument got cancelled even then.

A remark you have yet to fully explain.

[tabibito]

Then the word was made flesh. The various Christian creeds also refer to Jesus being conceived [albeit by a god].

There is a world of difference between "being conceived" and "becoming." The latter is what the scriptures declare, though there may be two references that refer to being conceived.

In this very thread on the role of Silvanus and other remarks you have made about Peter's apparent adult education courses in Greek language, rhetoric, and philosophy.

There is a world of difference between "wrote" and "am sending" even in Koine Greek. The ridicule doesn't substitute for a reasonable explanation of why you believe that Peter, who was circulating in the Koine Greek speaking world, could not have learnt Koine Greek.

The author uses the pronouns "us" and "we" in certain sections, as you have noted. However, nowhere does the author write [as you contended]

He says he was a companion traveller with Paul.

I again repeat he "says" [writes] nothing of the sort.

Saying "us" and "we" somehow doesn't mean that he was present? Saying "us" and "we" doesn't mean that he was on the same ship with Paul? Was the ship in dry-dock perhaps? But no - it was wrecked at sea.

Ephesians is widely accepted as a deutero-Pauline text.

The claims are far from unanimous. It would be reasonable to wonder if they would even amount to a majority consensus without first restricting the concept of majority consensus to the German and English speaking schools. Those schools seem to think the rest of the world doesn't have an acceptable theology.

This is only Paul's word. You have no corroborating and attested evidence from Peter.

The people to whom Paul was writing and the people before whom Paul is said to have criticised Peter are the same group. It would be reasonable to expect them to notice if the event had not happened.

Again this is only Paul's word - and in a somewhat servile tone. No one else has left us any attested evidence of their views and experiences.

And again, it is reasonable to expect that silence would prevail in the face of manifestly false claim?

Because they disagreed with him. And why should they not? What authority did Paul have? All he offered was his own mystical revelations which he considered superseded and trumped the opinions and beliefs of those individuals who had known a real man.

He offered them substantially more than that. His preaching was affirmed in the performance of miracles, and members of the churches under his care could do the same.

In other words he was an arrogant upstart declaring that his experiences and his gospel were the only correct and true things to believe and what anyone else taught or believed was wrong. Again, the standard behaviour of a cult leader.

When people can demonstrate that their claims have merit, arrogant people with opposing views will always call them arrogant.

Look at his language. My emphasis.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ

In other words only what he teaches is correct. No one else's beliefs have any merit and they are attempting to "pervert the gospel of Christ" i.e. his gospel.

Only teachings that don't contradict him are correct. Given that his preaching had God's obvious approval, as did the preaching of the founding apostles, it was reasonable to make the claim.

And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me

An arrogant dismissal of those men who had known a man we now call Jesus of Nazareth as opposed to Paul's mystical figure of Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ and his arcane ethereal experiences.

"supposed to be" ? That doesn't come from a sound reading of the Koine Greek. An adequate translation would be "considered to be." Their reputation wasn't a deciding factor, and they hadn't found fault with Paul's gospel. But this is a rehash of your previous attempts to change the meaning of the text.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned, ¹² for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

Since when has keeping Jewish dietary laws been something for which an observant Jew should be criticised?

In that piece, where is Peter's diet mentioned? Yet again, yet another attempt to make the text say things that it doesn't

As demonstrated above I have just done so - albeit extremely briefly.

Indeed you have - you claimed (above) that the text says something that it doesn't.

It is impossible to rational people who live in an advanced scientific and technological world.

There is nothing technologically backward about the world I live in, and it is most assuredly possible on occasion even to me. Someone rational is among your acquaintances it seems? Certainly, rational people don't throw insults around like confetti the way that you do.

Of course a belief in such things was common in the first century CE along with a belief in the existence of demons and the significance of signs and omens, along with the wearing of amulets and suchlike.

Maybe things were being done in the first century that aren't usually being done today.

Although I doubt many today in western society take the auspices before embarking on a journey or undertaking some new venture.

It certainly does not reflect Christian practice, anyway. Even in the first century, it would have been an uncommon practice at most.