Toto

This is not an option that you need to keep bringing up. It has been discarded.

Please see the rules of engagement for this forum here.

This is not censorship. It is just an attempt to keep this forum from being overrun with boring repetitive garbage.

Duvduv

I am sorry, but I do not understand. I was trying to pursue a line in inquiry in relation to the logic of the view that the texts emerged in the 4th century. You have given a disclaimer that it is not censorship, but I have seen lines of inquiry that are rather strange and have not seen this type of response in other threads from you, Toto.
However, if you stand by your statement, then I would simply ask interested participants to consider replying to me off the thread privately. Alternatively, what other forum would be a place to discuss this further if not here?

Toto

Who holds this view? What is it based on?
You can report them if you think they don't belong in the thread.

I can move this thread to Elsewhere if you want to discuss the fourth century conspiracy theory.

Duvduv

I don't know enough about it in different aspects. I am skeptical about in in general, but I am open minded, especially in relation to my specific question that I posted. Indeed, the logic of an overall conspiracy in this area escapes me, but I am interested. If the discussion belongs elsewhere, that's fine. Perhaps it needs its own directory.

Toto

There is such a thing as being so open minded your brains fall out.

If you want to post meaningless nonsense, you can get a blog and see if anyone wants to read it. This forum is for the discussion of real issues related to Biblical Criticism and the history of Christianity. The fourth century conspiracy theory is not a real issue.

Duvduv

You may be right, however even other theories of the emergence of the texts have problems. Since I am not a Christian or a scholar with a position I'm not invested in any particular theory.

rlogan

I'm just going to point out that this persecution complex is not an argument, but manipulative antisocial behavior that has no place on an adult discussion board.

Once again, you don't actually quote anything from Acts in making these statements. I've been quoting Acts 15 where it couldn't be clearer that Peter is the designated reaper of Gentile souls and not Paul, who has to travel to Peter in order to receive his instructions on Gentile conversion and comportment.

Acts has to incorporate and co-opt pre-existing Pauline communities instead of exterminating them. So (duh) Paul is not treated as a heretic. For someone with as inflated an opinion of himself as you are it is amazing how this very simple concept is beyond your comprehension.

aa5874

What a load of BS.

You could NOT have shown that Peter in Acts 15 reaped any Gentile souls because PAUL had ALREADY REAPED Gentile souls all over the Roman Empire.

Peter did NOT reap a single soul from Acts 15 to Acts 28 AFTER he claimed he was the designated reaper of Gentile souls--NONE--ZERO--NIL.

Peter VANISHED in Acts 15 as soon as he made his speech and was NEVER to heard of again in Acts. Peter was NO more in the same Acts 15 and Paul took over Acts 15 to Acts 28 and REAPED more Gentiles souls for the Second time.

Please, please, please have a look at ACTS 15.

Acts 15:36 KJV.

The Churches were established and Increased Daily under Paul in Acts 15 to Acts 28.
Acts 16:5 KJVActs 19 It is EXTREMELY disturbing to me that people here can blatantly mis-represent Acts of the Apostles even though the contents is readily available.

When will this complete erroneous debunked claim stop about Acts belittling Paul when the evidence is clear that Peter was eliminated from Acts 15 to Acts 28 and did NOT reap a single Gentile soul.

Paul reaped the Gentile souls from Acts 15 to Acts 28 and the "designated" Peter got NONE.

mountainman

What model of crystal ball do you use Toto? The deluxe model? The only history of "Early Christianity" was not authored on planet Earth until the 4th century. Do you have shares in Eusebian Stock?

aa5874

A small time bishop of Caesarea wrote the "History of the Church of the Roman Empire" and WITHOUT any input from the most POWERFUL Bishop of Rome??!!

This must be the biggest joke in history of all mankind.

If a small time bishop of Caesarea wrote ALL the History of the Church of the Roman Empire then the "Donation of Constantine" is NOT a forgery.

"Church History" under the name of Eusebius MUST be a most FRAUDULENT document whether wholly or in part.