Nazarene Space

Did the Nazarenes use the Gospel of Peter?

Theodoret (5th century CE) commented that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel of Peter. Some scholars today think his statement was made in error, but I am curious if anyone has researched this supposed connection.

Views: 252

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

great discussion going here, but as far as scriptures and other writings, do we have any original forms of scripture in this day?
as to every single scripture, including the traditional 66, we have no surviving version of the original.  However, Ezra restored the Scriptures about 500 years before the Messiah was born, and therefore, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have manuscripts that are less than 500 years removed from the original forms that Ezra restored.  the Wisdom of Sirach is the closest Scripture we have to its original date of composition, less than 200 years removed from the original form written by Sirach.
so since we dont have the originals, your point #2 of the 10 holds the most weight of the so called other books outside the so called canon. and there seems to be some that support scripture and give more to some of the stories of scripture. otherwise the quotes and/or references to other books such as " is this not written in the book of yashar" or judes quote of enoch make no sense.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
as to every single scripture, including the traditional 66, we have no surviving version of the original.  However, Ezra restored the Scriptures about 500 years before the Messiah was born, and therefore, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have manuscripts that are less than 500 years removed from the original forms that Ezra restored.  the Wisdom of Sirach is the closest Scripture we have to its original date of composition, less than 200 years removed from the original form written by Sirach.

i agree, though, I don't regard the reference to Jasher as authentic to the original.  in the oldest version of the passages that exist, the passages read very differently, and in Joshua there isn't even the reference to Jasher.

 

What i mean is, i reject Jasher as Scripture because I don't think the original books referred to it.

Would you be able to substantiate that claim ?

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

in the oldest version of the passages that exist, the passages read very differently, and in Joshua there isn't even the reference to Jasher.

 

 

Yes.  the oldest extant version in existence of that passage is the Septuagint, and in the Septuagint, there is no reference to Joshua.  I would know, i own several copies of Septuagint personally, as well as reading it online.  You may argue that a manuscript tradition goes back farther, which is an acceptable hypothesis as for arguing purposes, but my argument is the oldest reference to Jasher is not the oldest version of the passage that exists, and i believe this is impossible to refute.
This really doesn't mean anything from the stance of empirical evidence. The supposed "oldest manuscripts" also contain a dating chronology that is hotly contested by many more recent manuscripts. Older is not always superior.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
Yes.  the oldest extant version in existence of that passage is the Septuagint, and in the Septuagint, there is no reference to Joshua.  I would know, i own several copies of Septuagint personally, as well as reading it online.  You may argue that a manuscript tradition goes back farther, which is an acceptable hypothesis as for arguing purposes, but my argument is the oldest reference to Jasher is not the oldest version of the passage that exists, and i believe this is impossible to refute.

i agree oldest doesn't necessarily mean most accurate.  but, omissions and misprints are two totally different kinds of errors, and oldest brings warrant for strong strong consideration.

 

As to the Septuagint, the errors to the dating chronology were introduced because the people wanted to reconcile the Bible's dating and the dating of other pagan countries, and they saw that when they added 100 years to each person, it came close to what the dating of other pagan countries claimed as well.

Prov 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your paths.
Your canon isn't older than you, nor is there any chance it COULD be, as you consciously add books written post-apostolically and in the second, third centuries, etc...

What's your point ?
I find only "the 66" to be canon, even if I were to use your ridiculous way of determining canon.
Don't you GET THAT ???  You're so absent-minded you force me to repeat myself ten times:
THE 66 have been PROVEN to me as CANON, by the holy spirit; no other books have been proven to me as canon.

No point arguing with her; would you have me take your word over her word ?
Apparently !



Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

 

 

I have stated that your canon is not testified by ANY one sole authority (for there is no extant record that i am aware of detailing all and only the 66 books being Scripture prior to the birth of the protestants.

 

When it says lean not on your own understanding, its not saying do not lean on your own understanding in the way you think its saying, but its saying do not lean on the understanding that's conducive solely to your own (in other words, do not lean on selfish understanding).

Christian, in order to even understand the alleged command of God of not leaning on your understanding as you think Solomon is implying, you would first have to lean on your own understanding to understand not to lean on your own understanding.  Therefore, we see a contradiction, and your claim selfdefeats itself.

 

My point is that you have no basis for your 66 canon.  the only hope for your canon is a historically bases one, but it doesn't even have that.  whereas mine has a different basis.  you do not require historical merit for it being Scripture, but that can be one of the many indications.  however, you have NO indications.  while i may not have the indications that all my books were accepted as Scripture by the gleaning of history, this is not necessary because i have other indications.  you however, have nothing tangible or rational or reason-based in your belief regarding canon.

 

So, basically, your "proof" that the 66 alone are Scripture is you think the 66 are canon alone.  Your argument is no better than for me to claim the Holy Spirit of Reason told me that every book I regard as Scripture is Scripture.  Whose claim is to be preferred, yours or mine?  Its quite obvious that appeal to Holy Spirit is meaningless without a rational basis for a distinguishing between authenticity and authority of what truly does come from Holy Spirit.  So, i suppose the question is, what evidence do you have that it was indeed the holy spirit telling you this rather than your own mind?  on the contrary, the Holy Spirit told someone that I was God reincarnate.  Do you see how claiming the Holy Spirit told me, really bears no merit unless that statement is filtered through the analysis of the rational mind?

When it says lean not on your own understanding, its not saying do not lean on your own understanding in the way you think its saying,

Wow what a childish sentence. "Your understanding" is a part of the thought process controlled by the man, as predestined by God, whereas the Holy Spirit working within me is not my own understanding, but works in a way similar to thought / brain activity

.
Lol, you don't see a difference between God's mind (the Ruach) and the human mind !
I can tell a difference though, and it is not my own mind that tells that difference, but God's breath that gives us that ability.

You have not proven to me that Jubilees, Areo-pagan or Enoch is canon, and you can WHINE AND WHINE as much as you want, but you have no argument.

I'm not trying to convince you, child, I'm answering your accusations, or have you forgotten that?
You're so confused.


Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

When it says lean not on your own understanding, its not saying do not lean on your own understanding in the way you think its saying, but its saying do not lean on the understanding that's conducive solely to your own (in other words, do not lean on selfish understanding).

Christian, in order to even understand the alleged command of God of not leaning on your understanding as you think Solomon is implying, you would first have to lean on your own understanding to understand not to lean on your own understanding.  Therefore, we see a contradiction, and your claim selfdefeats itself.

(I THINK GOD'S MIND IS MY OWN)

 

My point is that you have no basis for your 66 canon.  the only hope for your canon is a historically bases one, but it doesn't even have that.  whereas mine has a different basis.  you do not require historical merit for it being Scripture, but that can be one of the many indications.  however, you have NO indications.  while i may not have the indications that all my books were accepted as Scripture by the gleaning of history, this is not necessary because i have other indications.  you however, have nothing tangible or rational or reason-based in your belief regarding canon.
(NEITHER DO I, APCAP THE PROPHET AND SOLE KEEPER OF TRUTH; I AM A GIANT HYPOCRITE)

So, basically, your "proof" that the 66 alone are Scripture is you think the 66 are canon alone.  Your argument is no better than for me to claim the Holy Spirit of Reason told me that every book I regard as Scripture is Scripture.  Whose claim is to be preferred, yours or mine?  Its quite obvious that appeal to Holy Spirit is meaningless without a rational basis for a distinguishing between authenticity and authority of what truly does come from Holy Spirit.  So, i suppose the question is, what evidence do you have that it was indeed the holy spirit telling you this rather than your own mind?  on the contrary, the Holy Spirit told someone that I was God reincarnate.  Do you see how claiming the Holy Spirit told me, really bears no merit unless that statement is filtered through the analysis of the rational mind?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service