A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>>  Tim

>>  Now you have a different standard when something uncomfortable comes

>> your way.



>> Please provide evidence that Jesus did not kiss Mary on the mouth.

>> There has never been any evidence to contradict this, so I have no

>>  reason to doubt that it happened.  

 

> THEO:

> I probably made an error in stating the standard.  I'm only human,

>you know. What is the probable date of this "Gospel?"Is it close enough 

>to the 1st century to be written by eye witnesses and their 

>contemporaries?


Tim
You have changed your standard since yesterday, when you claimed:


>THEO

>This all tends to show that there is no reason for doubting 

>everything a historical document says until it can be "proved" true beyond 

>a reasonable doubt.


Tim
You problem is that there is nothing in history, or even the canonical
Gospels, that prohibits Jesus from kissing Mary. Now on to your question.

The Gospel of Phillip was found bound with the Gospel of Thomas. The
Nag Hammadi mauscripts themselves date from the 4th Century, but in your
post to Pomery, you don't want manuscript dates, so I have no
problem with that . Here is what Elaine Pagels had to say about 
the Gnostic Gospels (from 
Gospels.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story
/pagels.htm)

" But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. 
Some of them can hardly be later than c. A.D. 120-150, since Irenaeus, the
orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing C.180, declares that heretics "boast that
they possess more gospels than there really are,'' and  complains that
in his time such writings already have won wide circulation--from Gaul 
through Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor."

and further:

"recently Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University has suggested 
that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, although compiled c.
140, may include some traditions even OLDER than the gospels of the New
Testament, "possibly as early as the second half of the first
century" (50-100)--as early as, or earlier, than Mark, Matthew, Luke
, and John."

Tim
So, it appears this Gospel could have easily been written with the
lifetime of an eyewitness or his "contemporary". Unfortunately for you,
you now have a new problem, created by your ever changing standards.
Here is your new standard, just as a reminder:


>THEO

>Is it close enough 

>to the 1st century to be written by eye witnesses and their 

>contemporaries?


Now, from http://encarta.msn.com

"The Second Epistle is addressed to all Christians.
Ecclesiastical tradition has attributed both Epistles to Saint Peter,
but modern scholars have questioned Peter's authorship of the First
Epistle, and most have doubted his authorship of the Second Epistle."

and further

"The Second Epistle of Peter is generally believed to have been
written by an unknown person during the 2nd century. The Epistle has
been accepted as canonical since the 4th century. It was written to
strengthen the Christian belief in the second coming of Christ, a belief 
that had been attacked and ridiculed as ill-founded"

So, by your new standard, any claims made in II Peter must be thrown out,
unless you are claiming he lived to be approximately 120 years old.
Now, I personally have no problem throwing out II Peter, because
then you lose your Parousia crutch. Yes, even this anonymous writer
realized the false promises of a second-coming and had to come
up with damage control.

In any event, if you insist on an early date for the Gospels, I will
insist on one for Phillip, and by your new standard, you must accept
that Jesus kissed Mary on the mouth.










_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
• Next message: A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]