1) REGARDING THE EARLY HEBREW BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE MESSIAH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD (I.E. A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS)
Clear said: "THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED
In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”
Thomas replied: Actually I think you'll find that scholars believe that the Book of Parables (Enoch chapters 37-71), are from the 1st century CE, not the 3rd BCE. Scholars point out that these chapters were not found among the Enoch materials at Qumran, and that the parables shows a development of ideas in the Book of The Watchers ... but all this is incidental.
You asked for data supporting my claim that the Hebrews believed in God, they believed in the Messiah and They believed in the Spirit of God. Obviously they did from their textual descriptions of their belief in God, in the Messiah, and in the Spirit of God.
Having said that, I agree your comments of dating are incidental to and do not affect actual Hebrew doctrines on the Father, the Messiah, and the Spirit of God.
Though scholars date the oldest portions of Hebrew 1 Enoch from 2-300 b.c., Extant Enoch is, (as I’ve mentioned), a syncretic document, and other parts come from other eras and other writers, this is true of modern bibles as well.
2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”
You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?
3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”
What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”
I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?
4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"
Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.
This can turn into a theological rabbit hole very quickly because such criteria has been equally applied to biblical texts as well since they are also pseudepigraphic.
For example, the specific criticism that scholars tend to view certain sacred, ancient text as uninspired because one cannot tell who wrote it applies to biblical literature.
If you simply google the sentence: “Do scholars believe the bible is pseudepigraphical” the following AI comments returns the following answer:
"Yes, many scholars consider some books within the Bible to be pseudepigrapha, particularly certain New Testament letters attributed to Paul, such as Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. While the gospels and other anonymous books are not considered pseudepigrapha, the letters of the New Testament that state an author but are widely believed to have been written by someone else are. Conservative scholars may not consider any biblical books pseudepigrapha, as they accept the traditional authorship.
New Testament examples
Letters attributed to Paul:
Many scholars consider Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus to be pseudepigraphal because they were likely written by a later author in Paul's name.
Anonymous books:
Books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not considered pseudepigrapha because they were written anonymously, and the attributions came later. Similarly, the Epistle of James and Hebrews are considered anonymous, not pseudepigraphal.
Old Testament examples
What this means for biblical interpretation
This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.
SO, while such phrases as "Scholars Say" or "Scholars believe", can be bantered about, the really important claim is: "What actual evidence do Scholars have for making a specific claim."
"Scholars say..." is not actual evidence, but merely the opinion of someone who feels they have evidence for their opinion.
I am asking for actual evidence for your claims.
What actual evidence do you have for your opinions that Coptic Abbaton was not taken from an earlier text as the authors claimed?
Clear said: "THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED
In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”
Thomas replied: Actually I think you'll find that scholars believe that the Book of Parables (Enoch chapters 37-71), are from the 1st century CE, not the 3rd BCE. Scholars point out that these chapters were not found among the Enoch materials at Qumran, and that the parables shows a development of ideas in the Book of The Watchers ... but all this is incidental.
You asked for data supporting my claim that the Hebrews believed in God, they believed in the Messiah and They believed in the Spirit of God. Obviously they did from their textual descriptions of their belief in God, in the Messiah, and in the Spirit of God.
Having said that, I agree your comments of dating are incidental to and do not affect actual Hebrew doctrines on the Father, the Messiah, and the Spirit of God.
Though scholars date the oldest portions of Hebrew 1 Enoch from 2-300 b.c., Extant Enoch is, (as I’ve mentioned), a syncretic document, and other parts come from other eras and other writers, this is true of modern bibles as well.
2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”
You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?
3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”
What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”
I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?
4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"
Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.
This can turn into a theological rabbit hole very quickly because such criteria has been equally applied to biblical texts as well since they are also pseudepigraphic.
For example, the specific criticism that scholars tend to view certain sacred, ancient text as uninspired because one cannot tell who wrote it applies to biblical literature.
If you simply google the sentence: “Do scholars believe the bible is pseudepigraphical” the following AI comments returns the following answer:
"Yes, many scholars consider some books within the Bible to be pseudepigrapha, particularly certain New Testament letters attributed to Paul, such as Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. While the gospels and other anonymous books are not considered pseudepigrapha, the letters of the New Testament that state an author but are widely believed to have been written by someone else are. Conservative scholars may not consider any biblical books pseudepigrapha, as they accept the traditional authorship.
New Testament examples
Letters attributed to Paul:
Many scholars consider Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus to be pseudepigraphal because they were likely written by a later author in Paul's name.
Anonymous books:
Books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not considered pseudepigrapha because they were written anonymously, and the attributions came later. Similarly, the Epistle of James and Hebrews are considered anonymous, not pseudepigraphal.
Old Testament examples
- Some books of the Old Testament, such as Daniel and parts of Isaiah, are considered by some scholars to have been written later than the purported authors, but not necessarily pseudepigraphal, according to Reddit users.
- Other Old Testament works like the Testament of Job, which is not included in the Bible, are considered pseudepigrapha, notes Text & Canon Institute.
What this means for biblical interpretation
- Whether or not a book is considered pseudepigraphal does not necessarily mean it contains false information, but that the authorship is different from the one traditionally associated with it.
- Some scholars differentiate between pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed) and anonymity (absence of author's name), says Faith Pulpit, notes Quora.
This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.
SO, while such phrases as "Scholars Say" or "Scholars believe", can be bantered about, the really important claim is: "What actual evidence do Scholars have for making a specific claim."
"Scholars say..." is not actual evidence, but merely the opinion of someone who feels they have evidence for their opinion.
I am asking for actual evidence for your claims.
What actual evidence do you have for your opinions that Coptic Abbaton was not taken from an earlier text as the authors claimed?
Attachments
Last edited:
