jakejonesiv

Yes

stephan huller

andrew,

I know you are familiar with the statement in Ephrem's Commentary:

. Luke began with the baptism of John.*

The point seems to be that they are citing the same text. Also, if the received text is genuine why doesn't Jesus finish the reading (= 'the day of retribution'). This was an important contemporary theological concept. The omission is Marcionite (= only love, redemption) but the context in Luke (= standing in a Jewish synagogue is definitely not). I think the fact that Clement cites a version of the story which is stripped down is significant especially at the very beginning of the gospel.

Ephrem already tells us that the rest of that "Nazareth narrative" was in their gospel. How could this not be? and if so how not in this form. also Irenaeus's statement in AH 2.22 seems to be directed against Clement. Again how could a Catholic text like Luke have lopped off their trump card (= Jesus acknowledging the year of favor) unless it was already established by the party of love (= the Marcionites) that it was so.

Jesus as this kind of mevasser (= only redemption, no retribution) is a radical statement about (a) two powers in heaven (mercy, judgment) and Jesus as the merciful God. In short - it's incredibly Marcionite in very subtle ways and essential for the proper context for everything that follows.

That's why it was changed with scripture.

aa5874

What?? You don't even understand my methodology. I do not just assess chronology of writings by ONE factor.

I am EXTREMELY Delighted that you pointed out that the Epistles of the Apostles state the Coming of the Father would be in the MID 2nd century or Later at c 15-156 CE.

Well, was it NOT absolutely Stupid for the Apostles in Epistula Apostolorum to have made such a claim when they would have made Mark and the Apostle Matthew into LIARS??

Mark 9 Matthew 16:28 KJV All you have done is to EXPOSE that Apologetic sources are NOT credible and are historically and chronologically bogus.

The Epistula Apstolorum made Jesus a LIAR in gMark and gMatthew.

Or the authors of gMark and gMatthew Made Jesus a LIAR in the Epistula Apostolorum.

Jesus told the Apostles that he would come back c 150-156 CE??? Not in gMark and gMatthew.

Who is stupidly Lying?? The Apostles, Jesus, the author of gMark, the author of gMatthew, the author of the Epistula Apostolorum??

Your methodology is based on Fiction and sources that cannot be trusted historically .

aa5874

So, you really have Nothing other than the opinion of writers. You are merely repeating what others have written.

Now, please name your ANCIENT sources that support your position.

stephan huller

Origen says that Capernaum = 'field of consolation' (Comm John 1.6) Jerome explains it this way

aa5874

Your post has very little to do with the thread. It is like trying to argue that all persons named Stephan are Kings.

Capernaum is simply the name of a place.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_...e_Stephan_mean

Sheshbazzar

Pharaoh's chariot wheels! The Lost Ark! and The Holy Grail! Whoo wee!

Toto

By request, Jake Jones question on the Real Messiah has been split to here

Bernard Muller

to aa,

I think that business about Mark & Matthew is just a diversion, but I'll answer it anyway.

Why not? Gospels were still not sacred yet. Or the alleged prophecies of Jesus (about the coming of the Kingdom of God before all of his generation died) were being interpreted otherwise, as they are nowadays among Christians. Or the planned audience of the Epistola had rejected or not known other gospels (this Epistola looks also like a replacement for the gospels & a bit of 'Acts').
Around 150, this text was in part written to give hope that the big event was due to happen soon.
BTW, I do not think gMatthew was attributed to Matthew yet.

Who said the authors of gMark & gMatthew wrote the Epistula? Furthermore the author of the Epistola was living at least 2 generations after "Mark" and "Matthew".

Why do you state the obvious?
It seems to me that part of your methodology is that a 2nd century Christian author had to be respectful and aware of all Christian texts written earlier. And not write anything which would conflict with earlier texts, or make them look bad. Am I right?

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

Actually you were the one who introduced the so-called Prophecy of the supposed Jesus as evidence that gMark was written at around c 70 CE.

You are the one who introduced the Epistula Apostolorum, the Epistle of the Apostles, to show that Jesus TOLD his disciples that he would come c 150-156 CE.

Why is not your statements about gMark a diversion?? You very well knew that the Epistula Apostolorum Contradicted your claim that gMark must have been composed c 70 CE.

If Jesus did actually live and told the Apostles that the Second Coming would happen in the 2nd century, 120 years After Pentecost, c 150-156 CE, then it would have been EXTREMELY STUPID for gMatthew and gMark to have been composed when the Apostles of the supposed Jesus were Alive.


And, likewise, if the supposed Jesus told the Disciples that many standing here would See the Second Coming then it was EXTREMELY STUPID for the Apostles to have claimed that Jesus told them he would come c 150-156 CE.

Your arguments that gMark was written c 70 CE and the Epistula Apostolorum was written Before c 150-156 is completely illogical.

It was ONLY necessary that people BELIEVED that they were composed before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE

We read that Justin Martyr BELIEVED the Memoirs of the Apostles were composed soon After Jesus Ascended and Before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE when it was most likely written sometime in the 2nd century.

All you have is your imagination and heavy doses of speculation. Please, the Epistula Apostolorum was suposedly written by the Apostles of Jesus and it CONTRADICTS the statements in gMark and gMatthew.

If the Epistula Apostolorum is historically accurate then gMark and gMatthew are a Pact of Stupid lies and the same applies to the Epistula Apostolorum if gMark and gMatthew are records of history.

gMark, gMatthew and the Epistula Apostolorum are NOT historically reliable and there is NO actual evidence that any of them were composed in the 1st century.