Originally Posted by aa5874

I am reading the books of the OT, the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles, the Non-Pauline Epistles, Revelation, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Ephrem, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Cassius Dio, Julian, the Muratorian Canon, The Donation of Constantine and other sources of antiquity.

Originally Posted by Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON

114. [Lucius Charinus, Circuits of the Apostles: Acts of Peter,
Acts of John, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul]


Read a book entitled Circuits [1] of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter,
John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus, [2] as
the work itself shows. The style is altogether uneven and strange; the words
and constructions, if sometimes free from carelessness, are for the most part
common and hackneyed; there is no trace of the smooth and spontaneous expression,
which is the essential characteristic of the language of the Gospels and Apostles,
or of the consequent natural grace.

The contents also is very silly and self-contradictory. The author asserts that
the God of the Jews, whom he calls evil, whose servant Simon Magus was, is one God,
and Christ, whom he calls good, another. Mingling and confounding all together,
he calls the same both Father and Son. He asserts that He never was really made man,
but only in appearance; that He appeared at different times in different form
to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again as a boy,
now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head reached nearly to heaven.

He also invents much idle and absurd nonsense about the Cross, saying that Christ
was not crucified, but some one in His stead, and that therefore He could laugh
at those who imagined they had crucified Him. He declares lawful marriages to be
illegal and that all procreation of children is evil and the work of the evil one.

He talks foolishly about the creator of demons. He tells monstrous tales of silly
and childish resurrections of dead men and oxen and cattle. In the Acts of St. John
he seems to support the opponents of images in attacking their use.

In a word, the book contains a vast amount of

childish,
incredible,
ill-devised,
lying,
silly,
self-contradictory,
impious, and
ungodly statements,

so that one would not be far wrong in calling
it the source and mother of all heresy.


[1] Or "Travels."
[2] Also Leucius, or Leontius. His date is uncertain,
perhaps in the fifth century A.D.

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

I don't know. I wasn't talking about the Gospels. I was talking about the Vision of Isaiah.

Maybe some of these ‘people who don’t know what they are talking about’ only exist in your imagination.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

So what exactly is it that you think Hebrews derived from the Vision to support the idea that Hebrews has to be a late 2nd century document?

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

My remark about people who don't know what they are talking about still stands.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

In fact, there is virtually nothing in common between the two except for the basic idea of the Son's sacrificial death

Originally Posted by Neil Godfrey

Doherty’s arguments are extensive and founded on a wide spectrum of evidence both within the New Testament writings and beyond. But there is one ancient document that appears to describe the very scenario that Doherty believes is found in writings such as the epistles of Paul and other New Testament letter-writers, in particular the Epistle to the Hebrews. This apocryphal text is The Ascension of Isaiah, which in its present form is a relatively late second century Christian document.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/02/...aiah-in-brief/

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

In fact, there is virtually nothing in common between the two except for the basic idea of the Son's sacrificial death

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

You should tell that to Neil Godfrey.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Why is that my points which are by far the most interesting and go beyond mere 'opinion' get consistently ignored in this thread? :huh: :rolling:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

You need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.