Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Citation please...
Early church as in first to third century...
Why, in the 66 books of the Bible that we all agree upon, of course. ; )
Wait... you're Catholic?
LOL! Sorry to disappoint. Reformed Baptist here. :)
Ah, yes. Those 66 books that the Apostles and several generations of early Christians had no concept of.
Show me this ossuary....got a link?
Peter was not writing from Mesopotamia, which wasn’t even part of the Roman Empire at the time. It belonged to Parthia. Turn to the early part of 1st Peter. Pontus, Galacia, Bithynia...notice those are all Roman provinces? Notice the two people he says he has with him have decidedly Roman names: Silvanus and Mark (Marcus)?
And speaking of his “son” Mark who was with him there, isn’t it odd that he would follow Peter to Mesopotamia and then write a Gospel that’s full of Latinisms and not Akkadian or Aramaic ones?
LOL! Suits me fine. They had the Tanakh, which is enough.
Well, they all had the OT, right? (Minus the OT deuterocanonicals, which didn't show up as part of the Septuagint until about the 4th-5th Century.) So they had the law and the prophets, as Jesus so often referred to them, right out of the gate.
And this part boggles my mind. How can anyone think they didn't have the Gospels and the epistles within the first generation or two? They were apostolic work product. They HAD to exist during the apostolic era. There's even a physical fragment of John that dates to about 125. So while they didn't necessarily have them all neat and organized like we do, they were contemporary to the first years of the church. The ecclesia of Christ, the one that would overcome even the gates of Hell, has never been without Scripture.
Peace,
SR
Not so much.
Acts 15:13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’[b]— 18 things known from long ago.[c] 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Oh, and his name is not "Skippy". Leave those tactics to the kindergartners.
Please show where the assumption of Mary is found in scripture.
No way. The evidence would show he spent very little time there. Now one Simon Magus on the other hand...
But then a pagan by the name of Simon Magus on the other hand..
What, didjer finners fawl awf?
Peter was not writing from Mesopotamia, which wasn’t even part of the Roman Empire at the time. It belonged to Parthia.
So what? More important is the Silk Road, and the jurisdiction of the Jews in Babylon (as pertains to the synagogues)... Did you forget that Peter is an Apostle to the Jews?
Turn to the early part of 1st Peter. Pontus, Galacia, Bithynia...notice those are all Roman provinces?
Find the Northern trade route out of Babylon... Hmmm, I wonder where that goes?
Notice the two people he says he has with him have decidedly Roman names: Silvanus and Mark (Marcus)?
More important is the absolute silence of Paul... All that time up in Rome, and not a single mention of Peter... Gee, I guess he was too busy sitting on that great golden throne, getting his toes slobbered on... That's probably why Peter had no time for the little people'... ; )
You must account for what was normative and authoritative in the interim. It cannot be disputed that there was not a, what we call "New Testament." Polycarp and Ingatius had to fulfill their bishoprics without it. They defeated heresy without it.
You have to account for that. The heresies they refuted could not be refuted by Old Testament Scripture, because the Incarnation and the Resurrection had rocked the world. The heretics, like Marcion and the Gnostics were coming at the Church with ideas that rationalized or mystified the Incarnation.
So without a New Testament, they refuted the heresies and forged a link in the chain of orthodoxy (right belief). How do you account for that?
They found a statue dedicated to him on some bridge in Rome... I will have to go find that again.
I think there is more evidence that Simon Magus was the “Simon” in much of the Catholic Church history rather than Simon Peter.
I studied on this a bit. There are protocols that need to be followed for an itinerant rabbi to preach in a synagogue. Submittable in writing, and what not, for approval... This was to permit the 'home team' time to formulate correction for 'right teaching' and debate. Probably somewhere in the Talmud, I bet...
This is one of the reasons I regard an original Hebrew Gospel to be almost critically necessary, and something like Hebrews too, as 'work product', as you say. Maybe some archaeologist will dig up some transparencies or a powerpoint presentation... some CDs out in the entrance... Then we'll know.
youi mean this Polycarp, the one that quoted from most of the books of the New Testament?
http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml
Check out the quote tables. Either the chap had a blazing amazing photographic memory, or he had some of those NT texts laying around.
I’ll look at Ignatius later, but I think you see where this is going.
Peace,
SR
Ping to 59.
As for rabbinic protocols, I am not aware that Polycarp was Jewish, and I have seen (unsourced) statements he was gentile. I have no reason to believe at this point that said rabbinic protocols were being observed, and so I don’t see why this should infer a Hebrew NT text. If you have good sources backing your view I will be glad to take a look.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.