@secondson saidYour post that Jesus was referring to his resurrection is really a coherent and rational discourse... lol.
Your ability to post a coherent and rational discourse is flawed.
Instead of addressing the points made you default to deflection and criticism.
@galveston75 saidRegarding the 144,000 in Revelation. You have removed the Jews, the 12 tribes listed by name, and crookedly inserted yourselves. That is both adding and subtracting. That's a double curse.
Rev 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll
19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city things that are written about in this scroll."
@dj2becker saidNo.
Didn’t know they were pastors. Could you provide the reference for your claim? I would like to read it for myself as I have an feeling that you are projecting.
@fmf saidBut it wasn't three hundred years between when the final account was decided.
If I sat down now and wrote a biography and religious manifesto based on folktales about the supposed events and statements during the life of some sort of mystic or holy man who'd lived in, say, Uzbekistan in the late 1970s, who'd not written a single word and about whom nothing was written while he was alive, and I'd never met him, and probably never met anyone who'd met him, a ...[text shortened]... , wouldn't all that have something to do with anything [as you put it]? Sorry for the long sentence.
Just like at very early saints like St. Ignatius and you'll see Orthodoxy right there.
You are acting like all of these accounts actually had real standing.
They didn't.
That's why the significant early controversies primarily dealt with Arianism and not anything significantly absurd.
@philokalia saidFrom when Paul and others did their stuff and the final decision was made about what was to be canonized by corporate Christianity, yes it was more or less 300 years. And no complete or intact manuscripts survive from when St. Ignatius was alive. It would seem you are going to use this relatively minor disagreement between us [about just one sub-strand of my post] to simply sidestep the main thrust and implication of what I wrote. That is your prerogative.
But it wasn't three hundred years between when the final account was decided.
@fmf saidEvery single source will tell you about how the Pauline Epistles and the Four Gospels we have today were being quoted from extensively from Avaricum to Abyssinia, and the charactierstics of the texts that were not accepted were that they were largely regional and widely recognized by centers of orthodoxy as erroneous.
From when Paul and others did their stuff and the final decision was made about what was to be canonized by corporate Christianity, yes it was more or less 300 years. And no complete or intact manuscripts survive from when St. Ignatius was alive. It would seem you are going to use this relatively minor disagreement between us [about just one sub-strand of my post] to simply sidestep the main thrust and implication of what I wrote. That is your prerogative.
But if you want to take your time to a deep dive on some heretical text and its large influence, I'll join you.
It'd be fascinating.
Let's get scholarly, m8.
@philokalia saidIt seems the point I was making in my post about 'a mystic in the late 1970s' went over your head.
Every single source will tell you about how the Pauline Epistles and the Four Gospels we have today were being quoted from extensively from Avaricum to Abyssinia, and the charactierstics of the texts that were not accepted were that they were largely regional and widely recognized by centers of orthodoxy as erroneous.
@fmf saidOh?
It seems the point I was making in my post about 'a mystic in the late 1970s' went over your head.