ANIMAL FORUM

> wrote in message
news:1167431958.911969.157240@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > pearl wrote:
> > > Jim Webster wrote in message
news:4vjvkaF1c9ghrU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > >> > So you are now saying that Timothy was inspired by Paul? lol.
> > >>
> > >> no,stop putting words into my mouth, instead read the words of 2 Tim 3
> > >> 16
> > > So God inspired people to write scripture using another persons
> > > identity, as if it were that person (Paul) writing it? I dont think so.
> >
> > I dont believe that you are qualified to have a theological opinion on
> > this, you know. (Unless youre claiming to know this by divine
> > revelation...! -- This is theology, not history, surely?)
>
> In the real world, authoring a book in anothers name is considered to
> be fraud, and claiming divine inspiration made me do it will not get
> you off the hook. Perhaps theyd need to hire a qualified theologian.

> > > > Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee
and
> > > > he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was
said
> > > > through the prophets, he will be called a Nazarene
> > >
> > > A town for which no historical or archaeological evidence exists.
> >
> > Im afraid that the only people who say this online dont actually seem
> > to know. The web pages that assert it are all written by evidently
> > stupid people.
>
> Can -you- show us this now legendary archaeological evidence?

> > > > >> and ideally a document that isnt a third century gnostic forgery
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont know of any third century gnostic forgeries, but..
> > > > >
> > > > > .. The second point that this presses upon us is that since the
> > > > > drive to find canonical written texts was created by the need
> > > > > to refute heretics, anti-heretical and other rhetoric influenced
> > > > > both the selection of texts as well as the editing or writing of
> > > > > the texts themselves.
> > > > > ...
> > > > > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard carrier/NTcanon.html
> >
> > This is factually untrue.
>
> Ive seen you forced to correct a page on your site because
> of a very public discussion in which Carrier was involved,
> but I dont see you challenge him on that anywhere. Why?

> Perhaps you could tell us here what you think this means,
> from your own site:
>
> Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13. This mentions
> that the definitions of Nicaea were drawn up with reference to
> Scripture; and the argument about whether phrase x or y was or
> was not in scripture formed the basis of much of the argument.

> Also:
>
> NEW: Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith. No English translation of
> this has been published, but it reads as follows:
> Among the Jews, the book of Judith is counted/considered
> [legitur] among the apocrypha; the basis for affirming those
> [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less
> than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean
> [he means Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the
> historical books. But the Nicene Council is considered to have
> counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have
> acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and,
> my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained,
> I have given a single nights work (lucubratiuncula), translating
> according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most
> error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with
> coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ...
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
>
> What is meant by I have cut back the most error-ridden codices?