Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But since Peregrinus and Polycarp were both Christians operating in the same region of the world associated with the Ignatian corpus and both had birds alleged to come out of them as they died fiery deaths the likelihood they were separate individuals is considerably lessened. The difference between...

Marcion actually holds the same position as Justin

Not the same but similar or at least closer to each other than either was to Irenaeus.

Right but again at least some of the texts of Justin (and specifically the Dialogue) was/were altered c. 195 CE - the time of Irenaeus - as even a conservative scholar like Craig Evans acknowledges. So with all of these texts you have to apply the same doubt and sophisticated 'extraction methods' as...

I have a suspicion he either (a) doesn't know what the Marcionite beliefs are (undoubtedly because he is using an earlier text likely written by Irenaeus) or (b) he doesn't want to be too exact about their beliefs because of fear that they might make too much sense for his readers. In the end I see ...

An interesting reading of the section here - https://books.google.com/books?id=9cL_kpdUE-oC&pg=PA382&dq=%22Lk+5%22+%22Dn+7:13%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1rXN_qHTAhVY8WMKHcnbBWQQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Lk%205%22%20%22Dn%207%3A13%22&f=false The Son of Man in Dn. 7:13-14 is ...

It is amazing to see how unable Tertullian is to nail down what the Marcionite belief was with respect to Jesus being the Son of God. For instance in Book Four all he is willing to admit is that the text of the gospel had 'Son of Man' in it: But if the distinctions are made in this form, that is, if...

Evans says in a note in Book Three that we should distinguish between things affirmed by Tertullian in the treatise (i.e. as his own belief) about Son and Father: Now for my first line of attack. I suggest that he (Jesus) had no right to come so unexpectedly. For two reasons. First because he too wa...

Good question. I really don't know. I've never even considered this possibility before. I think that the construct as such was still influential because Daniel 7 might have been read in the Jewish manner - i.e. a human 'son of man' being divinized from contact with the 'divine Father' figure. Maybe ...

The more I think about it having Jesus as the Father unknown to the Jews has a certain poetic beauty about it. It seems to echo the sense of John 1: He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did ...

In Book 2 there is but one section which references to 'the Son' and 'the Father' and it can be certainly held to imply that Jesus was the Father: For we claim also that Christ has always acted in God the Father's name, has himself ever since the beginning associated with, and conversed with, patria...