THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology
From: ix@io.com (Lupo LeBoucher)
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 17:51:18 -0500

In article <421.6745T1353T1247@mercury.interpath.com>,
Kevin W. Davidson  wrote:
>
>Matthew L Weber previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:
>
>>Apart from its title, what gave you the idea that the Apostles' Creed 
>>dates from the early days of the church?
>
>We have documentary evidence that the legend of it's joint composition
>by the apostles was current in 390 AD.

Actually a bloke by the name of Irenaeus wrote it down sometime in the 
late second century, and claimed that it had been around significantly 
longer than him (as it was used by contemporary bishops in the liturgy).
Tertullian also referred to it & I'm certain he is pre 390ad.
I believe it was referred to as "the rule" at the time, but the wording
was virtually identical to the apostles creed of the present day catholic 
church.

References; Chadwick's "History of the Early Church."

-Lupo LeBoucher


To: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology
From: drsnyder@ix.netcom.com(Tom Snyder)
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 14:57:21 GMT

In <421.6745T1353T1247@mercury.interpath.com>
kwdavids@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W. Davidson) writes: 
>>Apart from its title, what gave you the idea that the Apostles' Creed

>>dates from the early days of the church?
>
>We have documentary evidence that the legend of it's joint composition
>by the apostles was current in 390 AD.

According to historian Philip Schaff in "History of the Christian
Church," the Apostles Creed has its roots in Matthew 16:16 and 28:19
(and in Chapter I of Genesis and in Chapter I of John for that matter)
and, as modern research is now showing, Matthew was probably written
before A.D. 70. Secondly, the Creed is similar to statements we can
find in the work of Ireneus (circa A.D. 170) and Tertullian (circa A.D.
200), according to Schaff. These men did not just develop these
statements completely from their own minds, but were part of a
tradition dating back to before A.D. 100.

When I cited the Apostles Creed, I did not say I believed that the
apostles actually composed the damn thing. Mr. Davidson is so anxious
to catch people like me in an error that, like others, he enjoys
jumping to conclusions so he can set up straw man arguments and easy
targets out of his own fertile imagination.

tom s.
"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Follow the
way of love."

"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. You
must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their
thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from
the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the
hardening of their hearts. Whatever is true, whatever is noble,
whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is
admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such
things. And the God of peace will be with you."



Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.uh.edu!lurch.sccsi.com!news.sccsi.com!not-for-mail
From: walter5@brewich.com (Walter Five)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 22 Jun 1996 06:39:16 -0500
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS-Largest Pagan BBS in Texas-(713)272-7350
Lines: 115
Sender: bbs@brewich.com
Message-ID: <4qgm14$et2@brewich.com>
References:  <4qb6hq$k4f@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com> <31cad295.168595552@news2.cais.com>
Reply-To: walter5@brewich.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: brewich.sccsi.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164079 tx.religion.pagan:2415 alt.satanism:45915 alt.magick.tyagi:8930 alt.religion.gnostic:3249 talk.religion.misc:226444 talk.religion.newage:53427 alt.magick.order:1491 alt.mythology:27964 alt.culture.egyptian:4624 soc.culture.egyptian:11707

In article <31cad295.168595552@news2.cais.com>,
Blackjack  wrote:
>What I hope is an even-handed evalution:
>
>The Nag Hammadi codeces are, indeed, a discovery that I consider on
>par with that of the Qumran Library--the qumran library being more
>unique in that it dates from an era from which we have almost no
>Hebrew texts, while Mag Hammadi dates from an era wherin we have some
>other coptic texts.
>

This is true. Not only do we have *some* other Coptic texts, but we have
earlier and cleaner versions of some of the classical Greek philosophy texts
that were found therein.

>But from a perspective of religious history, both are goldmines.  They
>give us first-hand perspective on religious sects about which we had
>previously only had second- and third-hand account, often written by
>detractors.

Almost entirely written by detractors, but wait, you're being even-handed
here, and a damned fine job you're doing of it! Carry on!

>
>Nag Hammadi does not "prove" much about Jesus, nor in fact about the
>early church.  The information in Nag Hammadi is slanted to support
>the ideas of its authors, just as is the information in the gospels.
>What it does indicate is that at about the same time as the gospels
>were being composed, there were groups in existance that had VERY
>differant ideas about Jesus than those presentetes in MML&J.
>
>Is this news?

>Not really.  Acts and epistles of Paul clearly show that there were
>many strains of religion that embraced Jesus in one form or another.
>Heresies abounded.  Heck, even the fourth gospel seems to come from a
>slightly differant tradition.  What Nag Hammadi shows us is what some
>(since it is not a single, cohesive vision presented therin) of these
>other groups believed, and it is an interesting Jesus, indeed.

Actually it IS news. Try to discuss the Nag Hammadi Codex with the
Bible-Thumper preaching on the street corner. He'll deny to your face that
such a thing exists. 95 percent of the Laymen have not even heard of the
discovery, let alone what specifically was found. Yeah, it's not like 
there was found a Fifth Gospel. Nothing that simple, y'know?

>
>It is damnibly difficult to ferret out from the few and contradictory
>sources we have what Jesus really intended.  I think there are many
>aspects found in Nag Hammadi that would not have been inconsistant
>with the teaching of a 1st century Jewish sectarian.  The dualistic
>and little-g gnostic elements of some of the sects are obvious in
>writings like Enoch and Giants, and in the Qumran community.  Could he
>have been married, fathered children?  Certainly.  I see nothing
>historically or in the gospels to indicate otherwise.  Do the scant
>references in Nag Hammadi PROVE that he must have been?  No.

No but they certainly offer much more room for more accurate speculations
about the origins of Xianity, and its relationship to the the historical
Yeheshua, assuming that such a person ever exisited.
>
>As far as the question of his crucifixion goes, ther are large
>technical holes in the crucifixion stories of the canon gospels (the
>spped with which he died, his private burial, etc.)  This proves
>nothing, but is an interesting indication.  Did he fake death, or was
>his brother substituted?  There is no way of knowing.  We can't do an
>autopsy.  We can present the evidence, examine it, even play with it a
>bit, but there is simply not enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

Large holes in the crucifixion story? OW! You're lucky I don't call the Pun
Police!

No, there's not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, or rather, there's too
much contradictory evidence to remain embraced to the old conclusions.

>
>And issues like resurrection and virgin birth are beyond scientific
>rules of evidence, and must remain metters of faith.  I can
>demonstrate analogues in other mythologies, demonstrate differing
>opinions and the historical development of a consensus, but these
>cannot alone prove it didn't happen.

Of course not. but neither can these prove that it DID. It places a huge
question mark upon Orthodoxy, one that even the Orthodox would be able to
see if they A: were told about the discovery; and B: Thought for themselves
about the matter.

Blessed Beast!

Walter Five
-- 
 Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS - The Largest Pagan-Oriented BBS in Texas
      We are now on the WWW!























Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!interaccess!wingenfp
From: wingenfp@interaccess.com (Bill I @ Naperville)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 22 Jun 1996 03:03:41 GMT
Organization: InterAccess Co
Lines: 60
Message-ID: 
References:  <4phc7s$m0m@brewich.com> <4pplhn$jjr@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4qb6hq$k4f@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d42.w.interaccess.com
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b7
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164051 tx.religion.pagan:2412 alt.satanism:45895 alt.magick.tyagi:8927 alt.religion.gnostic:3248 talk.religion.misc:226392 talk.religion.newage:53400 alt.magick.order:1490 alt.mythology:27957 alt.culture.egyptian:4621 soc.culture.egyptian:11683

In article <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com>, walter5@brewich.com wrote:

> YOU  cite "eyewitness testimony", sir! Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were
> written between 100-200 years after the fact! 

From "The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholar's Edition," ed. Robert J.
Miller, Polebridge Press 1994: Gospel of Mark, first edition circa 70 CE;
Gospel of Matthew, incorporating Mark and Q, circa 80 CE; Gospel of Luke,
incorporating Mark and Q, circa 90 CE; Gospel of John, incorporating the
Signs Gospel, circa 90 CE; Gospel of Mark, canonical edition, circa 100
CE; Gospel of John, third edition, circa 100-150 CE.

First editions of all four canonical gospels were therefore most likely
available by around 100 CE, your earliest starting date. Some scholars who
believe there may have been a Sayings Gospel Q date it to circa 50 CE,
around the time Paul's first letters were written. Jesus is thought to
have died around 30 CE. 100 - 30 = 70. Jesus' followers quite likely
included young folks in their teens or early 20s, like the naked young man
who fled the Garden of Gethsemane at Jesus' arrest in the Gospel of Mark.
A few of these young followers could very well have been still living at
the time of the writing of the first editions of the canonical gospels
(1st century actuarial tables would show many dying young, but a few did
live into their 90s even then).

You're wrong, I'm afraid, to claim that the canonical gospels were
necessarily written generations after the fact, and that it's impossible
that they could have been based on either first- or second-hand eyewitness
testimony. Traditions of the early church claim that Mark was dictated by
an elderly Peter from memory to one of his disciples. This is equivalent
to a young "scribe" today writing down the reminiscences of an aging
veteran of World War II. Hardly as absurd a notion as you'd like to make
it out to be.

> orthodoxy are transperant. These matters are easily discovered by anyone who
> wishes to do a little research. I suggest you start with Elaine Pagels
> "The Gnostic Gospels", and then do a bit of looking around--there's plenty
> of critical analysis of the history of the Gospels and the Roman Church out
> there!

Yes, and I would encourage everyone who's interested to pursue a
*balanced* study of the gospels. The gnostics were hardly the egalitarian
feminist saints that anti-orthodox polemicists like Pagels would often
like to make them out to be. For those seriously interested in the study
of the gnostic sects, suggest obtaining as a starting point "Gnosis: The
Nature & History of Gnosticism," by Kurt Rudolph, Harper 1987. For those
who simply want to reinforce their dislike of orthodox Christianity, stick
to Pagels' text.

And realize, too, that a "scholarly consensus" sometimes equates to
scholarly faddishness. A lot of modern biblical scholarship is based on
whole hosts of assumptions about the origins of the texts, the nature of
authorship, and the probability or improbability of the existence of the
supernatural. A careful reader of this scholarship must start by
questioning the assumptions of the scholar. Including scholars whose
philosophical/theological starting points one happens to agree with. :-)

-- 
Bill I.                   |  We sleep to time's hurdy-gurdy; we wake,
Naperville, Illinois      |  if we ever wake, to the silence of God.
wingenfp@interaccess.com  |            -- Annie Dillard

Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!interpath!news.interpath.net!usenet
From: kwdavids@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W. Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 22 Jun 96 20:27:46 -500
Organization: Interpath -- Providing Internet access to North Carolina
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <720.6747T1227T2336@mercury.interpath.com>
References: <4qgm14$et2@brewich.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.interpath.com
X-Newsreader: THOR 2.31 (Amiga;TCP/IP)
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164141 tx.religion.pagan:2420 alt.satanism:45947 alt.magick.tyagi:8953 alt.religion.gnostic:3252 talk.religion.misc:226540 talk.religion.newage:53457 alt.magick.order:1494 alt.mythology:27973 alt.culture.egyptian:4629 soc.culture.egyptian:11721


Walter Five previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:

...

>Actually it IS news. Try to discuss the Nag Hammadi Codex with the
>Bible-Thumper preaching on the street corner. He'll deny to your face that
>such a thing exists. 95 percent of the Laymen have not even heard of the
>discovery, let alone what specifically was found. Yeah, it's not like 
>there was found a Fifth Gospel. Nothing that simple, y'know?

There are a lot more than five. We studied the Gospel of Peter in
Sunday School last year. It's not canon, but it's interesting.

--
Kevin (kwdavids@mercury.interpath.com) | http://www.interpath.com/~kwdavids/

"Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other" 1 Corinthians 10:24


Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uuneo.neosoft.com!news.uh.edu!lurch.sccsi.com!news.sccsi.com!not-for-mail
From: walter5@brewich.com (Walter Five)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 23 Jun 1996 16:48:20 -0500
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS-Largest Pagan BBS in Texas-(713)272-7350
Lines: 29
Sender: bbs@brewich.com
Message-ID: <4qke34$h8l@brewich.com>
References: <4qgm14$et2@brewich.com> <720.6747T1227T2336@mercury.interpath.com>
Reply-To: walter5@brewich.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: brewich.sccsi.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164265 tx.religion.pagan:2432 alt.satanism:45994 alt.magick.tyagi:8969 alt.religion.gnostic:3257 talk.religion.misc:226657 talk.religion.newage:53517 alt.magick.order:1502 alt.mythology:28004 alt.culture.egyptian:4643 soc.culture.egyptian:11753

In article <720.6747T1227T2336@mercury.interpath.com>,
Kevin W. Davidson  wrote:
>
>Walter Five previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:
>
>...
>
>>Actually it IS news. Try to discuss the Nag Hammadi Codex with the
>>Bible-Thumper preaching on the street corner. He'll deny to your face that
>>such a thing exists. 95 percent of the Laymen have not even heard of the
>>discovery, let alone what specifically was found. Yeah, it's not like 
>>there was found a Fifth Gospel. Nothing that simple, y'know?
>
>There are a lot more than five. We studied the Gospel of Peter in
>Sunday School last year. It's not canon, but it's interesting.

Oh, well I know it! My point was, that a discovery of a *single* "New
Gospel" would be a matter that the simpletons could get a handle on.
Dig? The Nag Hammadi Codex is a pretty big pill to swallow at once.


Yours in LVX,

Walter Five


-- 
 Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS - The Largest Pagan-Oriented BBS in Texas
      We are now on the WWW!

Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: drsnyder@ix.netcom.com(Tom Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 23 Jun 1996 19:59:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4qk7nc$1c5@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
References:  <4phc7s$m0m@brewich.com> <4pplhn$jjr@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4qb6hq$k4f@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: irv-ca19-03.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 23 12:59:40 PM PDT 1996
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164250 tx.religion.pagan:2429 alt.satanism:45987 alt.magick.tyagi:8962 alt.religion.gnostic:3256 talk.religion.misc:226636 talk.religion.newage:53505 alt.magick.order:1498 alt.mythology:27999 alt.culture.egyptian:4641 soc.culture.egyptian:11748

In <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com> walter5@brewich.com (Walter Five) writes: 
>YOU  cite "eyewitness testimony", sir! Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were
>written between 100-200 years after the fact! Your attempts to
legitimize
>orthodoxy are transperant. These matters are easily discovered by
anyone who
>wishes to do a little research. I suggest you start with Elaine Pagels
>"The Gnostic Gospels", and then do a bit of looking around--there's
plenty
>of critical analysis of the history of the Gospels and the Roman
Church out
>there!


I will try to answer the other points you cite some other time, but I
just can't let this one go right now.

First of all, we have fragments of at least one of the four gospels
that can be dated to AD 110. This is not 100-200 years after the fact.

Secondly, Thiede in "Eyewitness to Jesus" sayd the Magdalen Papyrus at
Oxford Univ. (I forget which gospel it was) can be dated to about AD
70. He also says a scroll fragment found at Qumran in 1972 can be dated
to AD 68 and a papyrus fragment in a Paris Library can be dated Ad
63-67.

Thirdly, according to Bob Passantino of Answers in Action
(714/646-9042), one of the best Greek scholars in this century who was
not a fundamentalist but a very "liberal" theologian (Robinson I
believe is the name but I'm typing this from memory so that's why I
gave you the phone number so you can personally check it out) believed
that all the New Testament documents were written before AD 70.

Fourthly, even "liberal" scholars agree that some of Paul's epistles
should be dated before AD 60.

Fifthly, you can read "Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke" by John Wenham or
"Jesus Under Fire" co edited by J.P. Moreland, author of "Scaling the
Secular City" for more info about this subject of dating the New
Testament documents.

Sixthly, we have quotations of the New Testament documents in the
writings of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene church fathers to show the
progressive development of canonicity and Christian theology.

Seventhyly, I can see you probably won't trust the books I cite, but I
can tell you that I, and other scholars, don't trust what Pagels
writes. New research is coming out all the time about Nag Hamadi and
the Gnostic Gospels. I or Bob Passantino can eventually get you some
more information about it from our side of the issue.

Or you can try contacting Thiede, Wenham and the writers in the "Jesus
Under Fire" book including the sources which they cite in their
writings. Or you can search out the Christian home pages on the World
Wide Web (there's probably good discussions about this topic).

Finally, you can contact John Baskette, who runs Passantino's home
page, at jfb@kaiwan.com. He or Passantino can probably discuss this
topic with you, or anyone else for that matter, in a more enlightened
way than I can.

Is this enough documentation to get you started, or do you need me to
hold your hand while you go through it?

Tom S.

"Truth does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."





Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.interpath.net!usenet
From: kwdavids@mercury.interpath.com (Kevin W. Davidson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 24 Jun 96 19:43:58 -500
Organization: Interpath -- Providing Internet access to North Carolina
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <559.6749T1183T2930@mercury.interpath.com>
References: <31CE2238.B11@goodnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.interpath.com
X-Newsreader: THOR 2.31 (Amiga;TCP/IP)
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164176 tx.religion.pagan:2423 alt.satanism:45963 alt.magick.tyagi:8957 alt.religion.gnostic:3254 talk.religion.misc:226576 talk.religion.newage:53469 alt.magick.order:1496 alt.mythology:27976 alt.culture.egyptian:4635 soc.culture.egyptian:11728


Rich Gillespie previously wrote an article appearing in talk.religion.misc:

>Hmm, how were these documents dated, not the notoriously 
>"inaccurate"(like my spelling) carbon method.  Ya know the one which 
>"can't" be used to date fossils.  :-)  just causing trouble to no good 
>purpose.

No trouble. Such documents are dated according to the handwriting style.
The technique is call paleography. 

--
Kevin (kwdavids@mercury.interpath.com) | http://www.interpath.com/~kwdavids/

"Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other" 1 Corinthians 10:24


Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!news2.cais.com!news
From: blackjack@jolly-roger.com (Blackjack)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:30:02 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc.
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <31d1806c.606639452@news2.cais.com>
References:  <4phc7s$m0m@brewich.com> <4pplhn$jjr@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4qb6hq$k4f@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4qduss$ol5@brewich.com> <4qk7nc$1c5@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.161.1.30
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164582 tx.religion.pagan:2461 alt.satanism:46190 alt.magick.tyagi:9059 alt.religion.gnostic:3270 talk.religion.misc:227064 talk.religion.newage:53684 alt.magick.order:1519 alt.mythology:28097 alt.culture.egyptian:4666 soc.culture.egyptian:11897

drsnyder@ix.netcom.com(Tom Snyder) wrote:

>
>I will try to answer the other points you cite some other time, but I
>just can't let this one go right now.
>
>First of all, we have fragments of at least one of the four gospels
>that can be dated to AD 110. This is not 100-200 years after the fact.

True.

>
>Secondly, Thiede in "Eyewitness to Jesus" sayd the Magdalen Papyrus at
>Oxford Univ. (I forget which gospel it was) can be dated to about AD
>70. He also says a scroll fragment found at Qumran in 1972 can be dated
>to AD 68 and a papyrus fragment in a Paris Library can be dated Ad
>63-67.

The Qumran fragment you're thinking of is NOT New Testiment material.
It is a fragment of a Psalm, I think, but it is definitely OT
material.  It was by some mistaken for NT because Jesus quotes it in
one of the Gospels.  It is, incidentally, only a few words.

[Good info on dating of Gospels ca. AD 70 deleted]

>Seventhyly, I can see you probably won't trust the books I cite, but I
>can tell you that I, and other scholars, don't trust what Pagels
>writes. New research is coming out all the time about Nag Hamadi and
>the Gnostic Gospels. I or Bob Passantino can eventually get you some
>more information about it from our side of the issue.

Very true.  Pagels is highly questionable (heck, at least he's not
quoting Eisenmann or Beigent and Leigh...)

Blackjack
(posting from alt.satanism, BTW)

Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!interaccess!wingenfp
From: wingenfp@interaccess.com (Bill I @ Naperville)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,tx.religion.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.gnostic,soc.religion.gnostic,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.magick.order,alt.mythology,alt.culture.egyptian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: WFive: Gnosticism/Christianity (was Definition of "pagan" ...)
Date: 3 Jul 1996 20:00:45 GMT
Organization: InterAccess Co
Lines: 35
Message-ID: 
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: d40.w.interaccess.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:165137 tx.religion.pagan:2505 alt.satanism:46467 alt.magick.tyagi:9166 alt.religion.gnostic:3292 talk.religion.misc:227812 talk.religion.newage:53930 alt.magick.order:1550 alt.mythology:28234 alt.culture.egyptian:4726 soc.culture.egyptian:12086

In article , bg364@torfree.net (Yuri
Kuchinsky) wrote:

 
> Re: "Magdalen fragment". I've seen a discussion of this (I think in
> Biblical Archeology Review, and also on the Net.). It doesn't seem like it
> is taken seriously by any respectable scholars. There are only a few
> fragmentary words there.

Not only is there little material there, but his techniques and the
conclusions he draws from them are considered highly questionable.
 
> : Very true.  Pagels is highly questionable (heck, at least he's not
> : quoting Eisenmann or Beigent and Leigh...)
> 
> Highly questionable by who?
> 
> Perhaps only by a few fundie yahoos?
> 
> Please provide some references for your allegations.

Pagels' scholarship is widely recognized and accepted: it's hardly "highly
questionable." The conclusions she draws from her research are a different
matter. Statements like "...To the impoverishment of Christian tradition,
gnosticism, which offered alternatives to what became the main thrust of
Christian orthodoxy, was forced aside..." (Pagels, _The Gnostic Gospels_,
Conclusion) are politically loaded statements of opinion, not objective
statements of fact. One person's impoverishment is the next's fortunate
fact of history! Elaine Pagels may see this as a history of impoverishment
... not everyone necessarily agrees with her.

-- 
Bill I.                      | What makes the engine go?
Naperville, IL               | Desire, desire, desire.
wingenfp@interaccess.com     |                -- Stanley Kunitz