Yeah the bible or Hebrew ot
-
-
No. But I could give a fuck. It's historically unreliable and I'd argue it's apart of that Lukan redaction community that messed with Marcion's gospel. There might be some true parts of it (I think the part where Christ quotes Dionysus is authentic) but it stems from prior trads
-
Nah, I trust more in the early church fathers than in modern criticism of "historical unreliability"
-
The same church fathers who initially suspected the Petrine epistles of being forgery? The same fathers who didn't mention the pastorals til something like the 3rd century? The same fathers who never had a consensus on the canon? Please, you're grasping here.
-
Source for those claims?
-
Yeah as a Catholic I used to study the formation of the Bible to combat Protestants. I know Origen first referenced 2 Peter and said it was alleged to be a forgery. Peshitta canon never included it either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.