stephan huller

Did you actually read Vinzent's discussion of this material that I posted earlier? Vinzent's knowledge of Marcion is superior to Detering. Probably superior to anyone alive today. He isn't boxed into an unworkable thesis (= post second revolt origins of Christianity). It is certainly a second century text at its core. Very early. And is rightly identified by Vinzent as anti-Marcionite but related to Marcionitism (very similar to the core text of Tertullian Against Marcion Books 4 and 5). Of course as it contradicts or makes exceedingly difficult Detering's thesis you want to bury it. But the Epistula is probably dated to 140 - 150 CE at its core (it has been subsequently augmented, likely many times) and its gospel to the beginning of the second century - perhaps 120 CE or so at the very latest. Maybe even the late first century, who knows.

aa5874

Where is your supporting evidence for your assertions about Vinzent's knowledge and that of Detering's?

Where is your supporting evidence that a second century origin of Christianity is unworkable?

There is no workable evidence for a Jesus cult in the 1st century just presumptions from silence.

A second century thesis is far more workable because it is the only theisis which is compatible with the present actual recovered dated evidence.

It is clear that the Epistula Apostolorum is a source of fiction and is contradicted by stories of Jesus in the very Canon.

And further, there is no manuscript of the Epistula Apostolorum that has been found and dated to the 2nd century.

It is virtually impossible to show that that Epistula Apostolorum was composed in the 2nd century when the earliest copies are from the 4th century or later.


There is nothing in the Epistula Apostolrum that must have been composed in the 2nd century when the very title of the writing exposes it as fiction.

If the Epistula Apostolorum was written in the 2nd century it is not likely to have been written by the Apostles of Jesus who supposedly lived at the time of Pilate when Tiberius was governor.

It is expected that the supposed Apostles of Jesus would have been dead in the 2nd century if they did live.

It is not acceptable to use known anonymous sources of fiction which are unattested to date the Pauline writings.

Please name any Apologetic writer of antiquity who made refence to the Epistula Apostolorum or acknowledge it at any time before the 4th century or claimed the Second Coming would be 120-150 years AFTER Pentecost.

The Epistula Apostolorum appears to be unknown by the Jesus cult of the 2nd century.

Bernard Muller

The gospel of Peter is also a mashup and is dated second century.

Another mashup, this time in gJohn:

The anointment in Bethany by Mary, the sister of Martha (Jn 12:1-8):
12:1 "... Jesus came to Bethany ..."
12:2 "... Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him."
12:3 "Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. ..."

It appears to be a conflation of:
a) Lk 10:38-42: at the home of "Martha" and her sister "Mary" (but NOT specified in Bethany, and NO anointment here)
b) Mk 14:3-8: when "reclining at the table", anointment in "Bethany" by a woman, with "pure nard" an "expensive perfume" (but NOT on the feet (on the head instead), NO "Martha" and "Mary", and NO wiping with the woman's hair)
c) Lk 7:36-38: a woman "poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair" (but NOT specified in Bethany, and NO "Martha" and "Mary", and NO "pure nard")

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

Again, you are making claims that have no actual evidence but is based on a massive amounts of presumption.

The Gospel of Peter is basically a forgery or a false attributed authorship.

The Gospel of Peter must be a source of fiction and not historically reliable even if it was written c 190 CE because as the title implies it could NOT have been composed by the Apostle Peter the supposed actual disciple of Jesus, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

In any event, the author of the Gospel of Peter wrote Nothing of Saul/Paul or his revealed teachings of the resurrected Jesus or the Pauline letters to Seven Churches.

There is no mention that Peter was in Rome in the Gospel of Peter.

After all, Peter and Paul were supposed to have been in Rome before the death of Nero.

The Gospel of Peter supports the argument that the Pauline letters and teachings were unknown in the 2nd century.

The earliest dated manuscript of the Gospel of Peter is even later than P 46 [the Pauline letters].

Bernard Muller

David is said to be a prophet in Acts 2:29-30.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

In Church History 3, the Gospel of Peter is claimed to be the work of Heretics and are works of Fiction.

Church History 3.25.6There is no corroborative evidence that the Gospel of Peter is historically reliable.

It must also be taken into consideration that the Gospel of Peter was so titled to deliberately mis-lead the reader if it was composed after the supposed Peter was long dead.

The Gospel of Peter cannot even date itself--it is a forgery or falsely attributed to Peter who himself is a product of fiction.

Duvduv

Considering that the mention of Paul evokes Acts, though the Epistola does not identify Pauline teachings among the rest of the *mishmash*, does this suggest that the author only heard about Saul's revelation together with other stories he heard, i.e. from GJohn, and did not even take it all seriously?? If someone 1000 years from now came across the NT along with the screenplay of Jesus Christ Superstar, would he think that the script was part of the religious environment of Christianity?

stephan huller

Epistula gospel	Mark	Matthew
The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion,	-	-
cried out against Jesus, saying:	He shouted at the top of his voice,	-
-	“What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”	“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us"
"Before the time of our destruction is come,	-	“before the appointed time?”
thou art come to drive us out."	-	-
But the Lord Jesus rebuked him,	For Jesus	-
saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt.	had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”	cmp "Let him go, and do him no harm" Gospel of Nicodemus 5:4
-	Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” He gave them permission,	Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.” He said to them, “Go!”
-	The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake	and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake
And he entered into the swine	and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs	So they came out and went into the pigs,
and drowned them in the water	and were drowned.	and died in the water.
and they were choked.	-	and were choked. (= Luke)

aa5874

So far, an examination of the NT Canon has exposed that there are NO claims at all that Saul/Paul wrote LETTERS to anyone or any Church before c 62 CE.

The supposed first non-Canonical source to mention Paul by name and that he wrote to the Corinthians is a letter from the Church of Rome attributed to Clement when there was a Great Dissension of the Corinth Church.

According to Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" Clement was Bishop of Rome at that time and did Reply to the Corinth Church.

The supposed Clement Letter must be an historical marker for the bishopric of Clement.

In other words, there can be NO mistake when Clement was Bishop.

All Church writers, all those of the Church of Rome, all those of the Church of Corinth, all those of the Church of Lyons, all the Heretics who heard, read or saw Clement's letter must know the time period of his bishopric.

If the Great Dissension occured 95 CE then it should have known that Clement was Bishop sometime around that time period.

According to Eusebius in Church History 3 Clement was bishop of Rome for 9 years c 92-101 CE

Now, examine the list of SIX Apolgetic sources up to the time of Irenaeus. There is no time that any bishop is the same for all six Apologetic sources.

The list of Bishops of Rome was fabricated at least up to the time of Irenaeus.

The Clement letter was Invented sometime sometime after the end of the 4th century.

Irenaeus	Tertullian	Optatus	Chronagraphy of 354	Rufinus	Augustine
-	-	-	-	Linus/Cletus	-
Linus	Clement	Linus	Linus	Clement	Linus
Anacletus	-	Clement	Clement	-	Anacletus
-Clement	-	Anacletus	-Cletus	-	Clement
-Evaristus	-	Evaristus	-Anaclitus	-	Evaristus
-Alexander	-	Sixtus	-Aristus	-	Alexander
-Sixtus	-	Telesphorus	-Alexander	-	Sixtus
-Telesphorus	-	Hyginus	-Sixtus	-	Telesphorus
-Hyginus	-	Anacetus	-Telesphorus	-	Iginus
-Pius	-	Pius	Hyginus	-	Anacetus
-Sorer	-	Soter	-Pius	-	Pius
-Anicetus	-	Alexander	-Soter	-	Soter
-Eleutherius	-	Victor	-Victor	-	Eleutherius

jakejonesiv

Stephan your posts ramble on and on, like a fillibuster, so I usually skip over them.