Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

steve43 wrote:

perseusomega9 wrote:Not if you read the rest of his paragraph

Why bother if he admits that you can't tell the difference between fake and real?

Not if you read the rest of his paragraph

MattMorales wrote:
Furthermore, the focus on Simon Magus as Paul's "true identity" is a bit mystifying. What we have in Simon is a figure with even less attestation than Paul or Jesus. He doesn't even show up in Christian texts until the second century...

As in the same time as Paul?

I can't but help think that the nomina sacra, especially concerning Yahweh as Kyrios, has its roots in the early jewish/christian debates whether Jesus is Yahweh as the son of God Most High, Jesus as Yahweh as God Most High, Jesus as not Yahweh as the son of God Most High.

The difference between the 'proto-orthodox' belief and the Pauline is not whether Jesus was or wasn't on earth, it seems to me, but the nature of the resurrection at the last day: 'spiritual' or 'physical'. The question then becomes "Why were the 'proto-orthodox' so determined to claim a 'physical'...

Some = none.

Many = all.

But how canonical is Mark 16:9+?

If Darwin had a bulldog then Pete apparently has a chihuahua, and no, Pete needs to do his own work, namely demonstrate that all the gnostic apocrypha is post nicea (which he is only doing because he knows there is overlap in canon and non-canon literature and thus the NT was invented by Constantine...

Also, change the chartreuse color of the highlighted text, it doesn't work with the quote block colors

Looks like we're back in the school yard or school room .... Yes, your thesis is still fucking crap. Did you even read the first sentence in the OP? It went like this ..... "I would like to discuss the idea and hypothesis that ...." Do you happen to know what a hypothesis is, and how it differs fro...