The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[outhouse]

so whatever question i ask or whatever point i raise you are always going to ignore them

Brother, I don't have answers to all your questions.

If you have a point, please provide sources and ill explore it with you, but Im not doing homework to go out on what could be a wild goose chase.

It is not disrespect to you or your ideas.

[outhouse]

i just admit that our text is the product of the theological wars going on in the second century.

Then make a case for it.


I have an open mind here, but your evidence need to be in context and relevant.


So, during these 2nd century wars, which im going to admit, this movement was all over the board, and there were many competing versions that existed similar to the wild west.


What part of our text do you think changed and when? for the evidence below

Johns movement 30ce ish
Pauls epistles 55ce ish
Mark 70ce ish
Matthew Luke 80-90ce ish
John 100 ce ish

[outhouse]

What is the evidence that Acts was popular?

Oh so when Stephen King comes out with part 2 of a blockbuster at roughly the same time that part 1 did, it wont be associated with part 1?

The fact Luke was so popular dictates the other piece that circulated with it, would also be popular.

Why couldn't Acts have been placed in a public library or many popular libraries and came to define Christianity that way

Because that is NOT how information and knowledge was shared during this time.

YOU forget they were for the mots part illiterate?



These 2 books are 25% on the NT, nah they were not popular

[outhouse]

Because of Irenaeus.

Cordially, Bernard

Yes in part Bernard.


But it was also popular with part 1, as this part 2 was an apology to the Jewish foundations the movement was founded on.


It was a very important piece to these early followers. That's why it was important to Irenaeus.

[outhouse]

Well, if you don't accept Luke/Acts borrowing from Josephus maybe it's not even the same evidence, the same puzzle or the same picture.

Bud, lets ask you this.

If Mark and Q cover 67% of the text in Luke, and the rest is the fictional birth narrative in L, how much do you really want to attribute to J????


Im more inclined to think we have what is known, small changes/ interpolations as the text evolved into the second century, but the piece for the most part stays original,. Of course that is if your not following the typical longer Western versions, and using the Alexandrian shorter ones.

I have no evidence but feel this community that wrote 1 and 2, and Josephus probably had similar educations of that specific time period, reflecting each other. Josephus may have read Luke/acts, may have had the same teachers, and the authors could have been influenced by J. But it changes nothing for historicity of the movement or Galilean.

[harrytuttle]

to harrytuttle,

Why would Marcion keep all the stuff about Lucifer and cut out 2 Cor 11:16-12:6, including the entirely unobjectionable struggle of Paul?

How do you know that?

Oh, good point. I did only a quick check with the online reconstruction by Stuart Waugh, but apparently it's not confirmed as missing. Is there any attestation? If there isn't even without its confirmed absence i'm willing to consider it as an interpolation on internal evidence alone, it is a very suspicious passage.

are the pastorals and Acts big forgeries contra Marcion and pro apostolic succession?

NO. Prove why you claim.

If by this time you aren't convinced of the late date of Acts i'm not going to try to prove it now, i'll just stand in the (good) minority. The arguments for the pastorals are the usual ones: late forgeries, missed by Marcion, "avoid antithesis of gnosis", emphasis on apostolic succession.

Who is that guy he met from 14 years before?

Allegedly the Lord in heaven.

Wait, what? He met a men on earth who had a vision... Maybe he is talking about himself (i wonder why someone later on came up with an Apocalypse of Paul...) or a random christian mystic... But Peter fits the role admirably well on condition that this is a second century interpolation postdating the Apocalypse of Peter.

It may have been a recently published and extremely popular text at the time of Marcion, how did it end up in the Muratorian fragment if it was so late?

Why do you mean by that?

I simply mean that the Apocalypse of Peter is an anonymous second century work, but it became sufficiently popular to get included in several early canons. For late texts to reach a wide acceptance some tricks are often required: a fake revered author, a fake early date, a fake early attestation, maybe all of them... Hey, if its a stupid idea fine, i just won't reject it because of an early date for Acts or the orthodox 2 Cor.

And how did Acts end up in our canon?

Because of Irenaeus.

Yeah but would Irenaeus have liked it so much if his epistles of Paul lacked any mention of Timothy, shipwrecks, early visit to Jerusalem, and so on?

[Secret Alias]

Secret Alias wrote:
What is the evidence that Acts was popular?

So this is outhouse's 'proof' that Acts was popular:

Oh so when Stephen King comes out with part 2 of a blockbuster at roughly the same time that part 1 did, it wont be associated with part 1?

The fact Luke was so popular dictates the other piece that circulated with it, would also be popular.

As I said originally, you are a moron. This is not an argument for Luke or Acts being 'popular' at any time in history let alone the late second century. Argument by assertion guided by small IQ.

And now for part two of stupidfest:

Why couldn't Acts have been placed in a public library or many popular libraries and came to define Christianity that way

Because that is NOT how information and knowledge was shared during this time.

Of course this is how information was transmitted in antiquity. You are a know nothing. As I noted before this is pointless. You have no idea how information was transmitted in antiquity. Please read a book about public libraries in antiquity, assuming of course you can read AND COMPREHEND at a university level.

[Secret Alias]

There is no evidence that Acts 'was popular' before Irenaeus chose to make it the centerpiece of his counter-attack against the Marcionite traditional understanding of Paul.

[Adam]

Nice argument, Bernard, but it ignores a compromise solution, namely that the early Catholic Church was always right about this, that the so-called "Brothers" were really "cousins" (or for early Orthodoxy and by the Proto-Evangelium of James, "step-brothers"):

This claim is false. Hegesippus was clearly an anti-marcionite proto-Catholic, and yet he was the first to introduce the James ''brother of Lord'' in a biological sense.

While in Greek there are separate words for "brother" and "cousin", Aramaic had one word for both, helping foster confusion among early Christians who had to juggle texts in both languages or did not suspect that a Greek word they saw might be itself the result of misunderstanding. In any case this whole discussion has shown quite LOUDLY that the word "brother" had many meanings.
I categorically reject your bald, "This claim is false." No wonder no one here agrees with you. You should have said simply, "I disagree."

[Bernard Muller]

to harrytuttle,

Wait, what? He met a men on earth who had a vision... Maybe he is talking about himself (i wonder why someone later on came up with an Apocalypse of Paul...) or a random christian mystic... But Peter fits the role admirably well on condition that this is a second century interpolation postdating the Apocalypse of Peter.

You did not specify "on earth" in your initial post. On earth, the context indicates progressively that man is Paul himself.

Yeah but would Irenaeus have liked it so much if his epistles of Paul lacked any mention of Timothy, shipwrecks, early visit to Jerusalem, and so on?

Actually, Irenaeus acknowledged Acts as non-heretic, but that does not mean he liked it.
And Acts contradicts Irenaeus here, in his 'Demonstration apostolic':
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles" (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tolic.html)
That goes against what is described in Acts.
Actually, Acts was not popular for a very long time, I think, because of the above, and also other things as explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

Cordially, Bernard