Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-28-2013, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't think it can be shown that the Christian canon ever had 2 or 3 gospels and 5 or 10 epistles without Acts, or similar. The canon always has basically the same set of texts, which might lead one to consider the possibility that they were intended to complement or supplement one another where they were lacking information, as I described from Galatians.

Again, you have no evidence at all that the canon ALWAYS has basically the same set of texts.

May I remind you that there are many fragments of NT manuscripts that are less than a page so it is near impossible for you to maintain your presumptions.

It is expected that the Canon of the Roman Church would be different to the Canon or teachings of the Marcionites, Valentinians, the Basilidians, Encratites, Cerinthians, Saturnilians, Marcosians, Justin Martyr, Montanist, Theophilus, Athenagoras and others.

Duvduv · 04-29-2013, 01:04 PM

This really means little because "Justin" does not present a set of canonized texts. Where you have canonized texts they are always the ones we know about. And of course, "Justin" never explains WHICH cities WHERE and WHO and WHICH people, colleagues and predecessors he is talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The official NT texts are always presented as a complete set, suggesting perhaps the strong possibility that rather than stemming from alternative sources they were intentionally written to complement one another. We never do actually see a canon composed of three gospels, 6 epistles and no Acts....

It cannot be shown that the "official NT Texts" were always presented as a complete set because you yourself have claimed that there are fragments of the Gospels of less than a page.

Now, what about the Gospel of Judas? Was it the Canon of some cult?

The official Canon of the Church of the Valentinians, Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Cerinthians, may be different to the Canon of the Churches in the time of Justin Martyr.

The Canon of the Churches in the time of Justin appear to contain only the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Anf further, in Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters were not acknowledged.

It can be deduced that the Pauline letters were not part of the early Canon of the Church of Christ when he was probably a Persecutor after 180 CE OR LATER.

Examine "First Apology"

Quote:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

There is simply no evidence from antiquity that the Pauline writings were in an early set of the Jesus cult Canon.

The Pauline letters had ZERO influence on the Roman Empire to the writings attributed to Arnobius in the 3rd century and there was not a single non-Apologetic argument against the Pauline writings even when Celsus wrote against the Jesus cult c 160 CE.

aa5874 · 04-29-2013, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

This really means little because "Justin" does not present a set of canonized texts. Where you have canonized texts they are always the ones we know about. And of course, "Justin" never explains WHICH cities WHERE and WHO and WHICH people, colleagues and predecessors he is talking about.

Why must Justin present a set of Canonised writings when his Church used the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets?

First Apology 67

Quote:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

The Memoirs of the Apostles were regarded as Scripture in the time of Justin based on "First Apology".

There is absolutely no evidence from antiquity that the Canon of the Jesus cult was always a set of writings.

Do not the Mormons have their own Canon? Are not Mormons regarded as Christians?

It is the very same thing in antiquity. There were multiple cults that were called Christians and they most likely had their own Canon or Sacred Texts that did not have to include an y writings from the Canon.

Duvduv · 04-29-2013, 05:40 PM

Sorry, AA. I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

aa5874 · 04-29-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Sorry, AA. I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

What??

Adam · 04-29-2013, 07:28 PM

What has BC&H come to when aa makes better sense than someone he is arguing with?

Duvduv · 04-29-2013, 08:11 PM

Perhaps you can make better sense of what AA was trying to ask me the he did.
In any case, your posting could get snipped for that comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

What has BC&H come to when aa makes better sense than someone he is arguing with?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2013, 05:40 PM	#94
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sorry, AA. I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

04-29-2013, 07:28 PM	#96
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	What has BC&H come to when aa makes better sense than someone he is arguing with?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.