[bronx2]

Once again, your comical assertions are without merit given the salient fact that you have never offered any evidence to support your contentions. Perhaps it would serve you well to read scholarly literature concerning Gnosticism to facilitate your knowledge of said subject . Kathleen McVey of Princeton, Susan Garrett of Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, Jeffery Burton Russell of Univ of California, and Frederica Mathewes Green have all written extensively on the subject of Gnosticism and they might be a good starting point for you to immerse yourself into a scholarly study of Gnosticism.Your replies are without any substantive verification so these aforementioned authors/scholars may provide you with an introduction to an educated analysis of the subject.
Your comment regarding copying error and development of doctrine stands naked with just your self serving testimony as verification.In like fashion, labeling Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer as “Partisan” is folly since this is merely the testimony of one without any apparent credentials.
Yet the most egregious point of your reply is your mindless assertion of the existence of “Sufficient Justifiable Doubt” concerning the use of a copy. You never define what constitutes “Sufficient Justifiable Doubt” and thus your contention must be summarily dismissed without the introduction any objective criteria to use in making an informed judgment.

You would be well advised to study Gnostic works and their attendant critiques before entering a discussion of this topic as to avoid embarrassment. Provide source materials as verification for your contentions.

[kosta50]

You are providing more entertainment and laughs than a whole season of sitcoms. I don't know where to begin. For one, you never respond to anything but simply regurgitate an endless array of banal phrases in different order.

 

Perhaps it would serve you well to read scholarly literature concerning Gnosticism to facilitate your knowledge of said subject

 

I don't see your qualifications to give scholarly advice. You even failed to answer what have you published. But, then, you failed to answer everything else. Conveniently.

You seem to think that just because someone is a scholar he or she is automatically right. Being a scholar doesn't mean that at all.  There are good drivers and bad drivers, yet they are all licensed to drive.

 

I see that after some Google search you found a list of five names of Gnostic experts, of which I am familiar with only one, Federica Matthews Green, mainly because of her articles on Eastern Orthodoxy, which are spot on, but she is not a big time acadmeician (although she has a Masters in biblical studies). The other four names you list don't even appear in Wikipedia (or if they do appear they are not associated with the institutions you associate them with). But given that you lumped two previous references into one name (Raymond Brown Fitzmeyer!), I am not surprised.

 

If you had any idea what Irenaeus was arguing about you wouldn't even be listing different scholars. It wasn't about Gnosticism as compared to orthodoxy (which was as of yet not defined); rather, it was a matter of the different interpretation of two of Paul's verses, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54. The Gnostic and his interpretations are like night and day. They see a gnostic Paul in those verses and Irenaeus saw an orthodox Paul in them. 

How much of his interpretation is what was in the original manuscript, and how much was added with developing doctrine 200 years later remains undetermined because the original is missing. Given some of the other things he wrote, his orthodoxy was probably not as orthodox as some try to make him. Based on the canon of his Bible (which included some books now rejected) that is almost a certainty.

 

You don't have to "immerse yourself into the scholarly study of Gnosticism" to see how they interpreted the verses differently. They believed in two different things. What makes Irenaeus "orthodox" and them "heretical" except who is writing it?

 

There is also no extant original copy of Irenaeus' work, but a translation of his work dated 200 years after Irenaeus. Because there is no original to compare it to, the best one can come up with as regards the extant copies is how probable is it that they are true copies of the original.

 

Since you seem to support the idea that they are very probably if not certainly true copies, please provide evidence, which you have failed to do so far. 

 

There is sufficient doubt that it is not because some of the writings of Irenaeus, when retro-translated into koine Greek, lend themselves dubious (such as calling Mary an advocata). Having written in Greek, he would not have made the mistake of calling Mary a Paralclete, as the translation does,  unless his own orthodoxy is questionable. Bust since there is no Greek original to compare it to, we really don't know what he called her, do we?

 

My comment regarding copying errors and redactions to keep up with the developing doctrine does not stand "naked with just [my] self serving as verification," as you say. The fact that you would write something like that that tells me about your lack of scholastic qualifications more than anything else you have written so far because well-known academicians have documented this trend. 

 

Which brings me to your advising me what to do. I believe I did not solicit your advice, so you can take it with you or shove it some place big enough where it will fit. I am sure you will have no problems finding one.

 

I am not interested in your dead-end references, self-arrogated advisory authority, your banal phraseology and your apparent lack of ability or willingness to discussing the context. You appear only to insult, albeit ineffectually, by making your posts personal. I am not flattered that you spend so much time and effort writing posts dedicated to me personally. I think you'd be better off trolling somewhere else. Good bye.

 

You are providing more entertainment and laughs than a whole season of sitcoms. I don't know where to begin. For one, you never respond to anything but simply regurgitate an endless array of banal phrases in different order.

Perhaps it would serve you well to read scholarly literature concerning Gnosticism to facilitate your knowledge of said subject

I don't see your qualifications to give scholarly advice. You even failed to answer what have you published. But, then, you failed to answer everything else. Conveniently.

You seem to think that just because someone is a scholar he or she is automatically right. Being a scholar doesn't mean that at all.  There are good drivers and bad drivers, yet they are all licensed to drive.

I see that after some Google search you found a list of five names of Gnostic experts, of which I am familiar with only one, Federica Matthews Green, mainly because of her articles on Eastern Orthodoxy, which are spot on, but she is not a big time acadmeician (although she has a Masters in biblical studies). The other four names you list don't even appear in Wikipedia (or if they do appear they are not associated with the institutions you associate them with). But given that you lumped two previous references into one name (Raymond Brown Fitzmeyer!), I am not surprised.

If you had any idea what Irenaeus was arguing about you wouldn't even be listing different scholars. It wasn't about Gnosticism as compared to orthodoxy (which was as of yet not defined); rather, it was a matter of the different interpretation of two of Paul's verses, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54. The Gnostic and his interpretations are like night and day. They see a gnostic Paul in those verses and Irenaeus saw an orthodox Paul in them. 

How much of his interpretation is what was in the original manuscript, and how much was added with developing doctrine 200 years later remains undetermined because the original is missing. Given some of the other things he wrote, his orthodoxy was probably not as orthodox as some try to make him. Based on the canon of his Bible (which included some books now rejected) that is almost a certainty.

You don't have to "immerse yourself into the scholarly study of Gnosticism" to see how they interpreted the verses differently. They believed in two different things. What makes Irenaeus "orthodox" and them "heretical" except who is writing it?

There is also no extant original copy of Irenaeus' work, but a translation of his work dated 200 years after Irenaeus. Because there is no original to compare it to, the best one can come up with as regards the extant copies is how probable is it that they are true copies of the original.

Since you seem to support the idea that they are very probably if not certainly true copies, please provide evidence, which you have failed to do so far. 

There is sufficient doubt that it is not because some of the writings of Irenaeus, when retro-translated into koine Greek, lend themselves dubious (such as calling Mary an advocata). Having written in Greek, he would not have made the mistake of calling Mary a Paralclete, as the translation does,  unless his own orthodoxy is questionable. Bust since there is no Greek original to compare it to, we really don't know what he called her, do we?

My comment regarding copying errors and redactions to keep up with the developing doctrine does not stand "naked with just [my] self serving as verification," as you say. The fact that you would write something like that that tells me about your lack of scholastic qualifications more than anything else you have written so far because well-known academicians have documented this trend. 

Which brings me to your advising me what to do. I believe I did not solicit your advice, so you can take it with you or shove it some place big enough where it will fit. I am sure you will have no problems finding one.

I am not interested in your dead-end references, self-arrogated advisory authority, your banal phraseology and your apparent lack of ability or willingness to discussing the context. You appear only to insult, albeit ineffectually, by making your posts personal. I am not flattered that you spend so much time and effort writing posts dedicated to me personally. I think you'd be better off trolling somewhere else. Good bye.