𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐦

2 Peter 📚 - Authenticity (Authorship)📜 - Dating 📜 - Content 📜 A Thread🧵

@MatthewHartke That’s exactly why Q makes sense: if Luke knew GMatthew, ignoring Magi, Herod, Egypt, the tomb guard, and the Great Omission is baffling. Independent use of GMark + Q better explains overlap in sayings and divergence in infancy/resurrection.

I’m not *convinced* Q existed but it is really hard for me to believe Luke knew Matt’s infancy and resurrection narratives and just completely ignored them.

Academics use big words when small words are fine.

This offers insight into how early christians reshaped Jesus‘ words— not by altering their core meaning, but through thoughtful re-expression rather than strict literal repetition.

An interesting detail: In 1 Apology 15.1 Justin paraphrases Matthew 5:28, shifting ‘in his heart‘ to ’in the heart before God‘ He intensifies the verb for looking (ἐμβλέψῃ Vs. βλέπων) and underscores divine judgement.

It’s amusing to see pseudo-academic ChatGPT users rely entirely on it for research, even though it often fails to accurately cite or render Greek verses. The irony lies in their blind trust, overlooking its limitations in precision, nuance, and proper scholarly referencing.

Did Mark Use Josephus? A Response to Bartosz Adamczewski Note: Not all references have been included.

@Gnosisinformant @cyrilmatthai @TheRiftTV @orthodoxluigi Christianity spread vigorously among Semitic and ”icon-poor“ communities (e.g syria, Egypt) before Hellenistic aesthetic preferences dominated. By the time of Justin Martyr (Mid-second century), Christians in Antioch already had murals and memorial tablets.

yeah thats silly. Just call it an "Ikon" rather than a "graven image" or "idol" and then its ok! God's commandments diverted! Even the Carpocrations were called heretics by Irenaeus & Hippolytus for having images. The closer to the first century you get, the less you see ikons or images being incorporated. The closer to the 4th century you get, the more thet are incorporated because the Romans would never adopt a religion without art. In reality the Romans/Greeks could not be Christians unless they had images. Christianity would of never taken off like it did without Hellenism & Platonism as the main ingredients to success. The ikonoclasts were right biblically, but couldn't win the debates because it was too costly to give up images.

Jay Dyer and Ben (@orthodoxluigi) break down why Orthodox Christians Pray to Saints

@Alfredovich65 Yeah, this is largely not new to me, these arguments have been raised in counter-apologetics for a long time, and most of them are seriously flawed.

Is bro using the Gospel of Barnabas as evidence that people in the first century didn't believe in the crucifixion? Seems so from a translation I'm looking at. 😭 (Also I think he means the gnostics, not the "ignatians"...) 90% of this thread is just misinformation

Someone asked me for my view on J. K. Elliott’s discussion of Mark 1:1–4 in his book New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles (2010) (Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation, pp. 236–237).

why do mid-second-century Valentinians possess the exact same attribution?

And, the notion that the titles of the Gospels were made-up out of thin air and published along with the texts by proto-orthodox circles is historically implausible. For instance, if the attribution of John to "disciple John" was a second-century proto-orthodox invention,

There is little to no evidence to suggest that the Gospels initially circulated anonymously and titles were appended only later. To the contrary, there is evidence from the solid uniformity of attestation that the titles are very early, if not part of the original codices.

His failures.

Hence we arrive at the conclusion that: The Apostle Peter functions as the ideal disciple, the model of discipleship - who is rebuked and recalled - within GMark. For the text's audience, he functions as the proto-disciple: therefore, it is not surprising that it records-

Throughout the Gospel, Peter‘s characteristic Greek vocabulary — πιστεύειν (to believe), ἀκολουθεῖν (to follow) —and his prominent placement at Key narrative junctures reinforce his prototypical status. For Mark‘s community grappling with hardship and self-doubt.

Together with the attestation of John the Elder / Disciple, these sources - among the earliest readers of GMark -constitute a solid witness in the late first century and early second century CE.

Once we contextualize Acts within its (Trajanic?) Anatolian milieu shared with Papias, it becomes evident that both Luke and Papias are explicitly associating (John) Mark and his Gospel with Apostle Peter himself.

@NexusHistory The Ephemeris Belli Troiani, attributed to Dicty‘s of crete, claims to be an eyewitness account of the Trojan war by a companion of Idomeneus. Though fictional, it presents itself as a firsthand narrative of events over 1.000 years earlier, (prior to its composition).

@Apostolic7262 Where did you get “Dictys of Crete presents himself as an eyewitness…more than thousand years ago?” He does not exist, a literary artist created him (presumably) in the first-century CE.

An obvious problem arises, when one compares Luke-Acts with the Diary of Trojan: in the latter, which was composed sometime around the first-century CE, Dictys of Crete presents himself as an eyewitness of events occurred more than thousand years ago.

Contrast this with the historiographical Acts, written within no more than two generations after Paul.