Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-02-2008, 06:55 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

Quote:

IX. But, further, if we be minded to discuss their gods individually, you will see how great is the absurdity; for instance, how Kronos is brought forward by them as a god above all, and they sacrifice their own children to him. And he had many sons by Rhea, and in his madness devoured his own offspring. And they say that Zeus cut off his members and cast them into the sea, whence Aphrodite is said in fable to be engendered. Zeus, then, having bound his own father, cast him into Tartaros. You see the error and brutality which they advance against their god? Is it possible, then, that a god should be manacled and mutilated? What absurdity! Who with any wit would ever say so?[This is choice]
...
XV. Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven. And if you would read, O King, you may judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called among themselves. He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians.

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-03-2008, 06:57 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

Looking forward "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-04-2008, 07:59 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

Quote:

Chapter 5. This World Should Be Despised

Wherefore, brethren, leaving [willingly] our sojourn in this present world, let us do the will of Him that called us, and not fear to depart out of this world. For the Lord says, "You shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves." Matthew 10:16 And Peter answered and said unto Him, "What, then, if the wolves shall tear in pieces the lambs?" Jesus said unto Peter, "The lambs have no cause after they are dead to fear the wolves; and in like manner, fear not them that kill you, and can do nothing more unto you; but fear Him who, after you are dead, has power over both soul and body to cast them into hell-fire."
...
Chapter 14. The Church Spiritual

So, then, brethren, if we do the will of our Father God, we shall be members of the first church, the spiritual,— that which was created before sun and moon; but if we shall not do the will of the Lord, we shall come under the Scripture which says, "My house became a den of robbers." Jeremiah 7:11 So, then, let us elect to belong to the church of life, that we may be saved. I think not that you are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ (for the Scripture, says, "God created man male and female;" Genesis 1:27; cf. Ephesians 5:22-23 the male is Christ, the female the church,) and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save you. 1 Peter 1:20 The church being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, signifying to us that if any one of us shall preserve it in the flesh and corrupt it not, he shall receive it in the Holy Spirit.

JW:
Emphasis on Revelation. The Church as a witness is spiritual (as opposed to historical). Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. No explicit assertian that Peter documented his witness. Emphasis on Eschatological.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-08-2008, 04:34 PM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

JW:
Emphasis on Revelation. The Church as a witness is spiritual (as opposed to historical). Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. No explicit assertian that Peter documented his witness. Emphasis on Eschatological.

c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...ng/episaps.htm

Quote:

1 The book which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men.
...
2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.
...
11 Then said the Lord unto Mary and her sisters: Let us go unto them. And he came and found us within (sitting veiled or fishing, Eth.), and called us out, but we thought that it was a phantom and believed not that it was the Lord. Then said he unto us: Come, fear ye not. I am your master, even he, O Peter, whom thou didst deny thrice; and dost thou now deny again?

JW:
Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical.
Explicit claim that historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas) have written this Gospel. Assertian that supposed authors are aware of Gnostics Simon and Cerinthus. Conflict between orthodox and Gnostics, both originally based on Revelation, which has moved to supposed Historical claims. Note that for this author to claim that Peter and Cephas are part of a joint effort behind the Gospel and no mention of "Mark" indicates that this author either has never heard of "Mark", does not consider it authoritative or even considers it a Gnostic product.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-13-2008, 07:10 AM

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

c. 125 The Apology of Aristides

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics.

c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html

Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later.

c. 145 Second Clement [Forged]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1011.htm

JW:
Emphasis on Revelation. The Church as a witness is spiritual (as opposed to historical). Quotes supposed historical conversation between Jesus and Peter. No explicit assertian that Peter documented his witness. Emphasis on Eschatological.

c. 145 Epistle of the Apostles

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...ng/episaps.htm

JW:
Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical.
Explicit claim that historical disciples (including Peter, Cephas and Judas) have written this Gospel. Assertian that supposed authors are aware of Gnostics Simon and Cerinthus. Conflict between orthodox and Gnostics, both originally based on Revelation, which has moved to supposed Historical claims. Note that for this author to claim that Peter and Cephas are part of a joint effort behind the Gospel and no mention of "Mark" indicates that this author either has never heard of "Mark", does not consider it authoritative or even considers it a Gnostic product.

c. 155 Justin Martyr

http://www.textexcavation.com/justinmartyr.html#misc

Quote:

Justin also refers to the memoirs of the apostles, or some variation thereof, a number of times:

* Apology 1.33.5.
* Apology 1.66.3.
* Apology 1.67.3.
* Dialogue 100.4.
* Dialogue 101.3b.
* Dialogue 102.5.
* Dialogue 103.6a.
* Dialogue 103.8.
* Dialogue 104.1b-2.
* Dialogue 105.1.
* Dialogue 105.5b.
* Dialogue 105.6.
* Dialogue 106.1.
* Dialogue 106.3.
* Dialogue 106.4.
* Dialogue 107.1.

JW:
Familiar with Synoptics. Claimed Witness has completely flipped here from Revelation to Historical. Explicit claims that historical disciples have written Gospels. No attribution of names to Gospels (one possible reference to Peter's memoirs, http://www.textexcavation.com/justin...ml#sonsthunder ). No mention of "Mark" and no mention of Paul. No mention of Acts. It would appear that at this time orthodox Christianity accepted that there were Gospels from Historical witnesses but had not given these Gospels official names.

The Timelion is starting to flesh out here:

1) Revelation from Paul. Ignore Historical witness.

2) Revelation from Paul supplemented by Historical witness.

3) Orthodox/Gnostic split. Orthodox say HW understood. Gnostics (Marcion El All) say they did not.

4) Orthodox flip from emphasis on Revelation to emphasis on Historical. Paul is associated with Gnostics and not mentioned by orthodox.

5) Justin Martyr.

6) Acts written reconciling Paul/Revelation to Peter/History. Orthodox bring Paul back into mention.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-15-2008, 06:15 PM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.

Relating to "Mark", "Mark" clearly shows Peter as a historical witness to Jesus but does not show Peter as a source of Jesus' information. Thus "Mark" is complimentary to 1st century Paul and Fake Paul regarding the criteria of Individual source and Type of Source. Paul and Fake Paul have Paul as a source and revelation as the type of source. "Mark" does not have Peter as a source and does not have historical as a type of source. Therefore, "Mark" leaves it open to Paul to be the source of Jesus' information through revelation.

Based only on the above "Mark" could be first century. On with the Timelion...

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-16-2008, 06:12 AM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.

So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-17-2008, 06:37 AM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.

So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-22-2008, 05:03 PM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.

So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.

Joseph

JoeWallack · 11-23-2008, 07:53 AM

JW:
Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information:

c. 50

Claimed individual: Paul

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 90

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information.

c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul.

Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation.

So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels).

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally.

Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

Claimed individual: None

Claimed source: Revelation toned down.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation.

c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter.

Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.

At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus c. 125 would appear to be prior to Papias.

Joseph

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2008, 06:57 AM	#42
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness: c. 50 Paul Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus. c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31 Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31 Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all. c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm JW: Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing. CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm JW: Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm JW: Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm JW: Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection. Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm JW: Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus. c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm JW: Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here: 1) What's important is belief in Jesus. 2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines. 3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil. c. 125 The Apology of Aristides http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm JW: Toned down Revelation. Philosophical argument with historical emphasis. Aware of an unidentified Gospel. Refers to twelve historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics. c. 135 The Gospel of Marcion http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Itha...7/Gospel1.html Per Tertullian and Epiphanius Marcion did not claim that his Gospel was from historical witness. Marcion's Gospel has Peter and the twelve as Disciples and as historical witness to Jesus' Ministry and Passion but never shows them as understanding Jesus' Mission. Note that this is the first point in the Timelion where there is basic agreement with "Mark" regarding the role of Peter and the Disciples. They were historical witness to Jesus' Mission but did not understand it and did not document it. This is probably the best category of evidence to evaluate which was earlier, Marcion "Luke" or orthodox "Luke", because the primary purpose of the original Gospel is to discredit Peter and the Disciples. It is orthodox "Luke" which flips the issue and makes Peter and the Disciples historical witness that did understand Jesus and the Gospel that is the Reaction to the original ("Mark") is likely the later. Looking forward "Mark" was probably written after Papias c.125, since he shows no evidence of it, and before Marcion c. 135. Joseph

11-15-2008, 06:15 PM	#46
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information: c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul Claimed source: Revelation c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information. Relating to "Mark", "Mark" clearly shows Peter as a historical witness to Jesus but does not show Peter as a source of Jesus' information. Thus "Mark" is complimentary to 1st century Paul and Fake Paul regarding the criteria of Individual source and Type of Source. Paul and Fake Paul have Paul as a source and revelation as the type of source. "Mark" does not have Peter as a source and does not have historical as a type of source. Therefore, "Mark" leaves it open to Paul to be the source of Jesus' information through revelation. Based only on the above "Mark" could be first century. On with the Timelion... Joseph

11-16-2008, 06:12 AM	#47
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information: c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul Claimed source: Revelation c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter. Claimed source: Revelation c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul. Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation. So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels). Joseph

11-17-2008, 06:37 AM	#48
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information: c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul Claimed source: Revelation c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter. Claimed source: Revelation c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul. Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation. So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels). CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally. Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm Claimed individual: None Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Joseph

11-22-2008, 05:03 PM	#49
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information: c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul Claimed source: Revelation c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter. Claimed source: Revelation c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul. Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation. So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels). CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally. Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm Claimed individual: None Claimed source: Revelation toned down. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm Claimed individual: None Claimed source: Revelation toned down. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation. Joseph

11-23-2008, 07:53 AM	#50
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: Time to summarize the results of the Timelion regarding claimed individual, Paul verses Peter, as source for Jesus information, and claimed type of source, Revelation verses Historical for Jesus information: c. 50 Claimed individual: Paul Claimed source: Revelation c. 90 Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation So for the first century the consensus is that all we have for sure is Paul and Fake Paul. While there may be an implication from Paul that Peter/Cephas was a historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Peter was a historical witness, except for 1 Corinthians. Therefore, not considering any Gospel, the first century shows evidence that Paul is the claimed source of Jesus' information. While there may be an implication from Paul that Paul had some source of historical witness to Jesus there is no Assertian by any 1st century source that Paul had a source of historical witness. Therefore the first century shows evidence that Revelation is the claimed source of Jesus' information. c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html Claimed individual: No mention of Paul or Peter. Claimed source: Revelation c. 110 First Clement http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm Claimed individual: Paul and Peter. More Paul. Claimed source: Revelation and Historical. More Revelation. So by early 2nd century, 80 or so years after supposed HJ, we have the first Assertians that Peter and History were sources of Jesus' information (not counting the Gospels). CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic: c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm Claimed individual: Peter and Paul equally. Claimed source: Revelation toned down. Assertian that Peter and Paul issued commandments as Apostles. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm Claimed individual: None Claimed source: Revelation toned down. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm Claimed individual: None Claimed source: Revelation toned down. c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation. c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm Claimed individual: Paul. No mention of Peter. Claimed source: Revelation. Awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Note the development of Doctrine here: 1) What's important is belief in Jesus. 2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines. 3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil. At this point, c. 125, Christianity is starting to develop supposed Sayings of Jesus to support Revelation but apparently has not yet attributed Historical witness to the Sayings. Thus c. 125 would appear to be prior to Papias. Joseph

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.