- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,864
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”
In other words, (loose) quotations.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 116), has no quotations from the PE, but there are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental” (so Bernard, xv, citing seven passages and also several “peculiar” words that occur in Ignatius and elsewhere only in the PE; also Kelly, 3; cf. Spicq, 1:163). Hanson ([1983] 12–13) rightly points out that the Roman persecution reflected in Ignatius’ writings does not correspond to the background of the PE."
Could you rewrite this so that it makes sense?
No, coincidences in wording are not quotations. I found another source that lists them. They seem to be individual words whose only NT use is the Pastorals.So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”
In other words, (loose) quotations.
It made perfect sense.
You have devalued the evidence of the early Church. That leaves you with zero evidence about the beliefs and governance of the early Church. Everything you say about the early Church is pure fiction.
We are discussing Theology, when has there ever been anything in this subject that is not disputed by someone?Not all scholars.
No, coincidences in wording are not quotations. I found another source that lists them. They seem to be individual words whose only NT use is the Pastorals.
I think that was kind of the point I was trying to make. The question should be where the consensus lies. Based on modern scholarship, I think the tide is turning with the late dating for the Pastorals coming from Higher Criticism and later dating for pretty much everything. Now that it has been established that other writings were much earlier than originally posed, there is little objection to putting the Pastorals back into the first century.We are discussing Theology, when has there ever been anything in this subject that is not disputed by someone?
I do know that the early church was synagogue based and that on top of that a hierarchal governance of elders, deacons and bishops gradually developed.
So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”
In other words, (loose) quotations.
I do know that the early church was synagogue based and that on top of that a hierarchal governance of elders, deacons and bishops gradually developed.
Could you rewrite this so that it makes sense?
What we do know is that Paul confirmed many teachings in his writings. The Eucharist for one. But we also know that Paul was taught in 3 days by Jesus, then he went into the desert on retreat to contemplate what he knew, and formulated his Christian beliefs, then went to the Apostles to make sure he had it right.Hello everyone,
It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.
The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.
All of the Apostles had their minds opened to understand the scriptures after Christ was resurrected.What we do know is that Paul confirmed many teachings in his writings. The Eucharist for one. But we also know that Paul was taught in 3 days by Jesus, then he went into the desert on retreat to contemplate what he knew, and formulated his Christian beliefs, then went to the Apostles to make sure he had it right.
Hello everyone,
It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.
The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?