The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[outhouse]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

Acts, however, naturally shared the authority and prestige of the third Gospel, being the work of the same author, and was apparently received as canonical by all except Marcion and his followers. Indeed, Acts occupied a very important place in the New Testament canon, being the pivotal book of the New Testament, as Harnack called it, since it links the Gospels with the Epistles, and, by its record of the conversion, call, and missionary service of Paul, showed clearly how real an apostolic authority lay behind the Pauline Epistles.

made according to the Holy Spirit that was in the soul of Irenaeus.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

[Secret Alias]

But this is how stupid you are. You have a link to a page that lists a variety of interpretations for the evidence from the Church Fathers ... and you claim your opinion is 'the consensus of scholarship.' There is something wrong with the way your brain works. There are a multitude of opinions listed in the link you provide but you can only see YOUR prejudices 'proved' by a suggestion made by a scholar. I know Michael personally. He would not say that he's 'proven' his case. It's a theory to help explain the mystery of how our canon was formed. I could sift through his published works where he goes back and forth and deals with the evidence. But he by no means thinks the issue is 'closed' - in the manner your moronic posting here wants to make it seem. But then again you haven't likely even read any of his books nor the evidence he and others work with. You have your own ideas and filter through the plethora of competing interpretations and only see what you want to see.

[Secret Alias]

And what do you mean 'unsubstantiated rhetoric'? You haven't even read Irenaeus. This is pointless. You have unsubstantiated prejudices before you enter a discussion. At least I've read the original material. Why not take a week off and actually read the material? Oh I forgot, you're a moron entitled to pre-existing 'opinions' without any familiarity with the things you spout 'conclusions' about.

Jesus was a peasant revolutionary. That's what you start with and then you cite opinions that serve your conclusions. READ FUCKING IRENAEUS before you criticize my conclusions - conclusions coming from someone who has read Irenaeus and things written about Irenaeus many times over. Moron.

[Secret Alias]

And citing things written by modern scholarship isn't the same as reading the primary sources. Peter has them all laid out for you. It requires a click of a mouse and some time away from selling used cars. Take the time to read Irenaeus, Tertullian and the rest and then come back to this discussion. Waste of fucking time.

[Secret Alias]

And as an aside to everyone at the forum WHO HAS READ IRENAEUS AND THINGS WRITTEN ABOUT IRENAEUS - it is odd that Irenaeus never criticizes the New Prophesy movement even though he wrote as the movement was peaking in popularity. Tertullian thought Irenaeus was one of the fold. Aside from the EXPLICIT confirmations of the Holy Spirit being able to reconstitute verbatim lost scriptures (= Ezra and the Torah, the LXX composition etc) there is the IMPLICIT testimony that as a figure tolerant of or a member of the New Prophesy movement that he certainly had the right - and most probably the ability - to 'correct' the heretical scriptures.

[Secret Alias]

The arguments that Irenaeus makes against the 'god of this world' statement in the Pauline scriptures as well as the others are utterly without foundations linguistically or grammatically speaking. They come from a spiritual 'horse before the cart' understanding guided by the Holy Spirit which would certainly have been used throughout a correcting enterprise of the scriptures. Yes the words still appear in scripture. No doubt. This might be used to argue that he DIDN'T FALSIFY scriptures. But that's not necessarily so clear cut. It's sort of like writing a fake note to get out of school or work. You've forged a note from your mom saying that you 'Bobby' are too sick to go to school. You're out playing in the yard the teacher drives by, you can't forge another note saying you had a dentist's appointment. In other words, Irenaeus's initial falsification efforts may have been to help combat or establish one set of principles or ideas. He deposited the manuscript in a public library and that's it - you can't go back and make more corrections without arousing suspicions. That's the text of that letter of Paul or that collection of letters. The die is cast. We shouldn't expect a criminal to be perfect in his crime. Most criminals are stupid.

[Secret Alias]

If at some point a particular set of writings became 'canonical' it would have been difficult to keep changing that set (although the Letters of Ignatius demonstrate otherwise). An important example that I have been waiting to introduce is the Christian writer Julius Africanus attempting to forge a new canonical edition of Homer by deposits to important public libraries. This roughly parallels what I have suggested about Irenaeus in the same era.

[outhouse]

But this is how stupid you are. .

No Stephen its how stupid you are.


Its not the only source nor, the one I'm putting any weight on. YOUR problem is you cannot cash all these checks you wrote, and your head is way bigger then it should be when selling penny books and holding these weird unsubstantiated hypothesis.


Your providing ONLY opinion here with no sources what so ever to back your BS claims. And if you do supply sources their so FKN indirect, it requires us to jump through imaginative hoops to reach the same conclusion you seem to posit.


Cut the BS and supply direct sources. If this is something that has meat to it, I'm sure some REAL professor with a REAL education has already worked on it and has some REAL plausible conclusions.

Stop the desperate insults, ive known you to long for your childish behavior.

[outhouse]

And citing things written by modern scholarship isn't the same as reading the primary sources.

Look ill take peoples advise who are credible professors, and or real scholars. Not penny book authors who go against academia.

Their opinions are based on all primary and secondary ect ect sources available.

Peter has them all laid out for you.

Read most already a few times over.

Take the time to read Irenaeus, Tertullian and the rest and then come back to this discussion.

Already have.


Taking them out of context, to meet some left field conclusion you imagine is similar to how YEC process information, turning knolwedge into crap.


Look dude, your not someone. Your not an absolute authority here. Love Peter but he isn't either, he is one of many valuable opinions. I hope someday you get to have a valuable opinion.

[outhouse]

Lest pull those with ADD, back into context.

This started with the unsubstantiated opinion that the gospel text have undergone UNKNOWN extensive evolutionary changed after their initial compilation.

http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-origin ... utographs/


Craig Evans of Acadia University

Autographs and first copies may well have remained in circulation until the end of the second century, even the beginning of the third century…The longevity of these manuscripts in effect forms a bridge linking the first-century autographs and first copies to the great codices, via the early papyrus copies we possess (35).

In other words, it is possible (and perhaps even likely) that some of the earliest copies of the New Testament we posses may have been copied directly from one of the autographs. And, if not the autographs, they may have been copied from a manuscript that was directly copied from the autographs. Either way, this makes the gap between our copies and the autographs shrink down to a rather negligible size.

Ehrman

Since we don’t have the originals, and only copies of copies of copies, then who knows what the text was really like before our extant copies were made.




So here we have two credible scholars, but they are not making opposite example's. One states we don't know, and the other they probably stayed the same.


To go out on a limb as Stephan has and say they changed dramatically requires more then unsubstantiated rhetoric