Bernard Muller

to aa,
After me hassling you for a week or more, you finally found this so-called translation of the Sinaiticus. That does not take away that during that whole time, you were unable to come up with evidence for your claim about Acts (which I understood, of course, to be the canonical version).
Now let's look at Chapter 29. As far as I know, it is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. But it is in the translation given by H. T. Anderson (1861) http://www.sinaiticus.com/
which comes with the warning:
The origin of Chapter 29 appears to come from, as explained by a very apologetic site: http://asis.com/users/stag/paulbrit.html
Here is another website about Acts 29:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Los...f_the_Apostles
From it I quote:
Congratulations, you are drawing your evidence on 18th century forgery!

Duvduv

With the large number of apocryphal books of Acts of apostles available, what could have been the reason that the emerging church establishment only wanted to include a book of Acts that emphasizes mostly PAUL?
Look at how many books were written about apostles who according to the gospels saw and talked to the Christ in the flesh. Why weren't any of these names entitled to a canonical book of acts?!

3.1.1 Acts of Andrew
3.1.2 Acts of Andrew and Matthias*
3.2.1 Acts of Barnabas*
3.5.1 Acts of John
3.5.2 Acts of John the Theologian*
3.7.1 Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
3.9.1 Acts of Peter
3.9.2 Acts of Peter and Andrew
3.10.1 Acts of Philip

Although these writings don't touch on the issue of the trinity or of pauline salvation, it still is a question as to why some form of books of acts of such named apostles would not be included in a canon of the orthodox.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about. I have used that site many times for OVER a year. The Short-Ending gMark is found at that site.

You have imploded. There is an apologetic source called Acts 29 which states that Paul was in Spain and Britain.


That is precisely the point. All sources that mention Paul are fraudulent, fiction and forgeries.

Can you Please tell me when it was discovered that the Pastorals were forgeries??? Or when it was discovered that Acts of the Apostles is a work of fiction???

These sources mention Paul and they are all forgeries, fiction or fraudulent.

1. Acts of the Apostles is considered a work of Fiction.

2. 2 Peter does NOT belong in the Canon--it is NOT genuine according to the very Church.

3. The Pauline writings have MULTIPLE authors.

4. The very Church does NOT know when Paul really lived.

4. Clement the Bishop of Rome is a fabricated character.

5. "Against Heresies" is a masssive forgery.

6. "Against Marcion" is NOT corroborated by Apologetic sources.

7. The writings of Ignatius are considered forgeries or at least questionable.

The fabrication of Paul and the Pauline letters are Crimes Against Humanity.

In "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25 and Commentary on Matthew 1 it is claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

This would mean Paul could have lived in the 2nd century or beyond and was NOT executed under Nero.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
If you knew about it, why did you take all that time (from February 19 th) to make it known. Why in your defence, you wrote about other things such as:
rather than mention the spurious chapter 29, where Paul goes to Spain, Britain, Gaul and Helvetia?
How can you say: "You don't know what you are talking about."? Can't you read, consider the websites I indicated (there are more on the web, none saying that Chapter 29 was in any ancient manuscripts)
"I have used that site many times for OVER a year. The Short-Ending gMark is found at that site."
What does that prove? Did you read the warning?
And your apologetic source is a forgery from the 18th century, and chapter 29 was put in a translation of Sinaiticus by a dishonest Christian.

aa5874

Again, when was it discovered that the Pastorals were forgeries???

Was it in the 18th century???

When was it discovered that Acts of the Apostles is a work of Fiction???

When was it discovered that 2 Peter was a forgery???

Acts 29 claims Paul went to Spain and Britain but as usual it MUST be a forgery.

When did you discover that Irenaeus was an Obvious LIAR???

In the 21st century!!!!

You STILL BELIEVE the Pauline writer when you know that they are dishonest Christians.

The history of the Church has been BUSTED--the Pauline writer was DISHONEST.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Does that matter? What's your point? Or are you evading the fact you relied of a 18th century obvious forgery?
Actually, in the 20th century. Does that matter for anything? What are you getting at, except for confusing the issues?
What's the connection? Or maybe I should believe Christianity does not have any origin because there are dishonest Christians?
Paul, as dishonest, is not news to me.

aa5874

You have admitted the sources you use are DISHONEST so you are really just wasting time.

You have NOTHING but fiction, interpolation, forgeries, fraud and dishonesty.

There is ZERO credible sources to corroborate Paul and Irenaeus.

Bernard Muller

Dishonest people still have an existence. And their writings, even if lies can be detected, does not mean all have to be rejected, or the authors did not exist.
So why are you making some theories from that muck? You are wasting time. Better go fishing.

And what about the others, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius? Where are you going to stop the elimination? They all include Paul in their writings and they also lie.
And Paul's epistles have all the mark of being written by a preacher under duress, in real time, when Christianity was evolving fast, more so when you remove the interpolations and the editing. They show a man, far from honest, but still in the process of dealing with issues among his converts, trying to keep them under him, and, by necessity, lying. It is most exciting to study him, rather than repeat N times, he did not exist, he did not exist, he did not ...
And 1Clement and gJohn do show his past presence or christology.

aa5874

How absurd!!! You very well know that Dishonest people can FABRICATE stories solely to DECEIVE.

You very well know that Dishonest people can make false claims about events that never even happened.
You are the one who is Fishing for your Jesus in the Muck. I am trying to warn you not to FISH in the Muck but you seem to want to dive in even though you admit your sources are liars and dishonest.

Your post is most disturbing. You discredit your sources but rely on them. You admit Paul and Irenaeus were LIARS but still use them as credible sources.

Duvduv

I am intrigued as to what ideas participants may have of this issue.