Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken, I'm afraid I will have to decline to continue this discussion. Not sure I agree with the direction the board seems to be going (more angry replies and all that goes with that). I have noticed that you have recently soured in your opinion of me, and maybe pressed one of your buttons. I guess I a...

Here is another rub to the question of priority: from what point of the sediment are we starting from for our excavation? ... For convenience sake, here is my headcanon: *first layer, 115ad-130ad, Marcionism 0.1: belief in a mystical translation into the body of the chrestus: only Pauline letters u...

ἀγγέλων here are lower level messengers or envoys τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν* χειρὶ μεσίτου the seed to whom promise has been prescribed through 'angels' by* a mediator's/agent's hand * or, perhaps, 'during the time of' Using a concordant style interlinear I have found helpful*...

David, here is one reason I am wary of some assumptions made here: "... SG, you and I have different political POVs re state of Israel...." by DCHindley Tue Feb 27, 2024 4:12 am in the thread "Should we rename...." I appreciate many of your posts as helpful, but, as far as I can...

Moving on to your point, I did not address what might have motivated G & G to reject Q so vehemently. They have proposed a means, a very complicated means with several steps, that could explain the development of the synoptic gospels as we have them without Q, when the Q hypothesis is a much mo...

DCHindley wrote, above, Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:49 pm, in part: "I have suggested in the past that what seems to have set off the likes of Michael Goulder & Mark Goodacre to oppose the very concept or need for Q, was that it implied that Church tradition was <shudder> wrong. Even though these t...

I have suggested in the past that what set off the likes of Michael Goulder & Mark Goodacre, to oppose the very concept, was that it implied that Church tradition was <shudder> wrong. Even though they profess to be agnostics themselves, they are strongly attached to the Christian social gospel ...

I have suggested in the past that what set off the likes of Michael Goulder & Mark Goodacre, to oppose the very concept, was that it implied that Church tradition was <shudder> wrong. Even though they profess to be agnostics themselves, they are strongly attached to the Christian social gospel ...

I don't yet know the answer, but I am most often looking at the gospel relationships as follows: Mk -> *Ev Mk and/or *Ev -> Jn *Ev and maybe Mk -> Mt Then finally Luke is aware of all the preceding gospels: Mk -> Lk *Ev -> Lk Mt -> Lk Jn -> Lk No Q? "No Q for you!" says the "Q Nazi&q...

In Galatians 3:19 Paul says the Law was given through angels and trusted through a mediator. The mediator I guess is Moses. Who are the angels? Do you think these could be the archons of the lower celestial realms? The rulers of this material world? I'm thinking this is a smoking gun? Is there anot...