Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines
Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.
Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.
We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.
General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.
We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.
General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less
We Have Two Swords
Collapse
X
-
You sure "snipped for relevance" an awful lot there again. More like chopped.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThat is evidence of some frantic Googling on your part.
It is nearly quoting verbatim something I posted last May which was largely simply putting together stuff from several earlier posts.
Compare:
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
[...]
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
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
[...]
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostHowever, you are merely repeating my own points concerning texts that have been lost.
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAnd 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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostArrant 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
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAs you contend that it is a fact that Peter used a secretary, where is the evidence?
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
Or the New American Bible
They are, IMHO, presuming too much.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThat 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.
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI gave you our known earliest source.
If so then please list the other names that have been offered for the authorship of the Synoptics smiley waiting-impatient.gif
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostMy 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.
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAnd once more this is his personal opinion [which is at odds with much academic thinking].
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostFurthermore, 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 really that clueless?
Honestly what do you think he's referring to (he freaking tells you in the quote)?
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostRead 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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIn 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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThis "Apostolic Age" to which you repeatedly refer is nothing but a convenient apologetic convention which almost certainly has little basis in fact
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostHow would you interpret/explain I Corinthians chapter two verses six to eight and II Corinthians chapter twelve verses two to five?
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostChristianity developed gradually and different people had different ideas and interpretations.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostHowever, 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?
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYour 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.
I'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAre you now trying to pretend that you habitually mix in academic circles?
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
I'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.Last edited by tabibito; 03-14-2023, 02:35 PM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
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.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI"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.Last edited by tabibito; 03-14-2023, 04:18 PM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
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.
Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
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.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Correct. It there are flaws that I can find they are likely to be quite basic. Subtle errors will probably escape my notice.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostI 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.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostA challenge advanced without a reason beyond speculation cannot be considered an attested fact.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostJohn seems pretty solid.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostMatthew might be challenged.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostIs it just an example of the unthinking acceptance of tradtionally held views without consideration and investigation?
Originally posted by tabibito View PostOn these boards? The only one I can think of who believes Hebrews to be Paul's is not a Christian.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostHe says he was a companion traveller with Paul.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostPaul expressed no lasting conflict with any of the other apostles of his time. Such conflicts as did arise were brief.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostWell, not everyone. There seem to have been people creating a ruckus even in Paul's time.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThere are. They are also rationalised into oblivion.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostAcross the board. Paul's writings do not conflict with the teachings of any other New Testament author.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostYou seem to be unaware of the implications of "similar."
Originally posted by tabibito View PostSee my response to your first comment cited in this post.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYou sure "snipped for relevance" an awful lot there again. More like chopped.
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 .
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWho said that they were "required"?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostBut 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.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostPeter, 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.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostNot one of your "flights of fancy" but a reasonable conjecture about something we'll never know for certain.
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.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIs this your awkward way of conceding that your continued insistence that Caesar never invaded or conquered Gaul was an obviously erroneous position?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI haven't the foggiest idea where I came up with that name?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostBut 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?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYour careful use of "much" here indicates that you realize that it also lines up with "much" academic thinking
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAre you serious?
Are you really that clueless?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostHonestly what do you think he's referring to (he freaking tells you in the quote)?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThat there were disagreements there is no doubt, but they were resolved because the Apostles had the authority to resolve them.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYour point?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostExcept for the fact it was the time when the Apostles were still around to decide disputes.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostEvidence 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.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd yet, historically speaking, it isn't until the mid 2nd century and later that the various heresies started to develop.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostPretty 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.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI'm not aware of anyone who holds the position that the prologue affixed to the Fourth Gospel is not anti-Marcionite.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostNo. 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."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYou appear to alleging that you possess a greater knowledge than that of every academic in these disciplines
Are you therefore contending that the prologue of John's gospel is in error?
An amusing comment from an individual who regularly presents his speculative opinions as if they are facts.
You tell us. You seem to consider yourself the supreme historian, palaeographer, textual critic, etc.
The author "says" no such thing.
Only according to Acts.
How do you account for this "ruckus" [i.e. heated controversy] managing to be resolved as brief conflicts?
Given that his are the earliest texts that have come down to us, why are you surprised by that?
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?
Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 02:21 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
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
Or the New American Bible
They are, IMHO, presuming too much.
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.Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 02:58 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
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.
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
In a very (extremely even) restricted number of topics, yes.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostMajority consensus is never (hyperbole) unanimous.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostNo. I am saying that John's prologue is correct.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostExamples?
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
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.
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Not "the author says" but "the author says that." He claimed to be with Paul during particular events, late in Acts.
He says he was a companion traveller with Paul.
I again repeat he "says" [writes] nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by tabibito View PostEphesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11;
Originally posted by tabibito View PostGalatians 2:8;
Originally posted by tabibito View Post1Cor 15:9,
Originally posted by tabibito View PostI 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.
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?
Originally posted by tabibito View PostIt was much the same as the way you don't address issues
Originally posted by tabibito View PostMajority 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.
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.
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
You employed the word, "similar."
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.Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 03-15-2023, 05:33 AM."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThen the word was made flesh. The various Christian creeds also refer to Jesus being conceived [albeit by a god].
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.
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 is widely accepted as a deutero-Pauline text.
This is only Paul's word. You have no corroborating and attested evidence from Peter.
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.
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?
As demonstrated above I have just done so - albeit extremely briefly.
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.
Last edited by tabibito; 03-15-2023, 08:00 AM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
25 responses
163 views
1 like
|
Last Post Yesterday, 09:53 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
13 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
4 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-05-2024, 10:13 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-05-2024, 10:13 PM |
Comment