FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2013, 07:54 PM   #21
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
... the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others. There is every reason to believe that all the gospels were intended to be part of set of texts supplementing one another.

There were never Christians who accepted 2 gospels and 5 epistles, or 6 gospels and 11 epistles.
Codex Sinaitcus & Codex Vaticanus contain various gospels not included in later 'canons' and the many of the gospels they have in common with later bibles have omissions or variations.

Moreover, the presence of various apocryphal/gnostic gospels show a considerable degree of fluidity among early christian texts eg. Gospel according to Thomas has 60+ sayings of Jesus that are present in the canonical gospels.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-14-2013, 08:14 PM   #22
James The Least
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others.
Actually, I believe Irenaeus or Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites only recognized the Gospel of Matthew.
James The Least is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 09:05 PM   #23
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

The fact is there is no actual evidence that any Christians held to anything other than the known canon in the 4th century and thereafter. As I said we don't find evidence of any accepted Christian canon consisting of 3 gospels and 12 epistles or 6 gospels and 22 epistles, etc.
Every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels. In any case there is no evidence at all of the actual existence of "Ebionites" anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
That is a very interesting supposition considering the fact that the gospels were always presented as a canon of a set of texts, and there exists no evidence of Christians who accepted one or another of the canonical gospels to the exclusion of the others.
Actually, I believe Irenaeus or Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites only recognized the Gospel of Matthew.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-15-2013, 09:17 PM   #24
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
...Every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels. In any case there is no evidence at all of the actual existence of "Ebionites" anywhere.
Your claim is false or imaginative fiction. There are apologetic writers who did not mention gMark, gLuke, gJohn, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline Corpus and the Non-Pauline letters.

Christian writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, and Arnobius wrote nothing of an existing canon of epistles and gospels.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 04:21 AM   #25
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

I think you already know that these were not church apologetics, and the reason Jesus or the canon were not mentioned was more likely because the texts were monotheistic friendly texts that existed before and were adopted by Christians. We have also already discussed Justin.

Plus, I was not discussing cases of non-mention of a canon, but of cases of evidence of alternative canons. Whenever a canon is mentioned for Christians it only refers to the set now known of gospels and epistles.
You will never find a canon that has 5 gospels, 21 epistles, or 3 gospels and 6 epistles, or 6 gospels and 10 epistles. You will not find an apologist who says he never heard of GMatthew or GMark but did hear of a gospel according to Jeffrey or the Epistle to the Parisians rather than Corinthinians etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
...Every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels. In any case there is no evidence at all of the actual existence of "Ebionites" anywhere.
Your claim is false or imaginative fiction. There are apologetic writers who did not mention gMark, gLuke, gJohn, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline Corpus and the Non-Pauline letters.

Christian writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, and Arnobius wrote nothing of an existing canon of epistles and gospels.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 09:58 AM   #26
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post

Plus, I was not discussing cases of non-mention of a canon, but of cases of evidence of alternative canons. Whenever a canon is mentioned for Christians it only refers to the set now known of gospels and epistles.
You will never find a canon that has 5 gospels, 21 epistles, or 3 gospels and 6 epistles, or 6 gospels and 10 epistles. You will not find an apologist who says he never heard of GMatthew or GMark but did hear of a gospel according to Jeffrey or the Epistle to the Parisians rather than Corinthinians etc.
You specifically claimed "every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels."

I have merely re-exposed your consistent fallacies. You obviously don't know what you are talking about and still persist in regurgitating absurdities.

Please, get familiar with writings of antiquity before you post obvious erroneous information about writers of antiquity.

An extremely significant writing of antiquity is "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen and it would be clearly seen that Celsus was NOT familiar with any Canon of Gospels and Epistles when he wrote "True Discourse" c 177 CE.

Origen admitted that Celsus did not write anything about Paul and also exposed that Celsus did not mention any Gospel named according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Up to the last quarter of the 2nd century there was NO known Canon of the Jesus cult just stories of Jesus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 12:37 PM   #27
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

You yourself are not a big fan of Origen, and in any case this is untrue, and you and I both know it:
SECTION IX.
Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were published; and therefore any notices of these books from him are extremely important for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so by the character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of these books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have made them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of what Chrysostom, two centuries afterwards, observed, that “the Gospels, when written, were not hidden in a corner or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now.” (In Matt. Hom. I. 7.)

4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present Gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in these Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these Gospels; of the precepts,
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 12:43 PM   #28
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Regarding the so-called Christian Municius Felix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavius_(dialogue)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
...Every writer always knew that Christian held to the existing canon of epistles and gospels. In any case there is no evidence at all of the actual existence of "Ebionites" anywhere.
Your claim is false or imaginative fiction. There are apologetic writers who did not mention gMark, gLuke, gJohn, gMatthew, Acts of the Apostles, ALL the Pauline Corpus and the Non-Pauline letters.

Christian writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, and Arnobius wrote nothing of an existing canon of epistles and gospels.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-16-2013, 08:52 PM   #29
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
You yourself are not a big fan of Origen, and in any case this is untrue, and you and I both know it:
SECTION IX.
Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were published; and therefore any notices of these books from him are extremely important for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so by the character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of these books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have made them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of what Chrysostom, two centuries afterwards, observed, that “the Gospels, when written, were not hidden in a corner or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now.” (In Matt. Hom. I. 7.)
What sources of antiquity, what evidence from antiquity, show that the Gospels were published one hundred years before Celsus?

Please, you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv
......4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present Gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in these Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these Gospels; of the precepts,
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence whatsoever that Celsus knew of the genealogies of Jesus as found in gMatthew and gLuke.

Origen's "Against Celsus" 2.32
Quote:
And now, in finding fault with our Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned...................But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.”
You must first read what is written in "Against Celsus" before you continue to make blatant erroneous claims which are no more than imaginative fiction.

In the Gospels, gMatthew 1.18 and gLuke 1.26-35, Jesus is the descendant a Holy Ghost.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.