----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lupia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jack Kilmon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [PAPY]
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Jack Kilmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Jack Kilmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Re: [PAPY]
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 4:22 PM
>> First of all, John, I expect you to call me Jack. I'm
>> sorry but "scripture"
>> is not evidence.
>
> Jack
>
> Original primary sources are not ever to be used as evidence?
Of course, John. The primary evidence of Luke is only that his addressee was
someone named Theophilos. Since there can be NO evidence of Luke having
written his gospel in 37 CE, that Theophilos could NOT have been the HP,
Theophilos Ben Ananos.
>
>
> Luke was not written in 37 CE (there is
>> no evidence for
>> that) and QEOFILOS was a common Greek name and the HP was
>> not the recipient
>> of Luke.
>
> Although they are papyrus books, I do not think that this forum is intended
> to debate scripture. I do not want to irritate the illustrious and highly
> esteemed members of list and our very gracious administrator, Adam. But,
> simply to dismiss out of hand an interpretation is no argument at all. I do
> understand how such an early date for Luke annoys the Markan primacy
> theorists.
Well, John, far be it for me to ittitate "illustrious and highly esteemed"
folks and "gracious" administrators but you just cannot pose a position I find
somewhat ludicrous (37-40 CE dating for Luke) and then say I cannot dispute it
because it will irritate someone.
This may be off-topic and that is a good reason but we were discussing this
goblet found in Alexandria which I claim cannot be Christian.
>
>>So you have sort of exemplified my point.
>
> No.
>
>
>>There
>> is no valid
>> evidence for a Christian community in Alexandria before the
>> 6th decade of
>> the 1st century nor an active community prior to the 2nd
>> century.
>
> The claim that no one brought Christianity to Egypt before AD 50, is a
> Euclidean pons asinorum, which denies the truth and veracity of the claim
> that the Apostles immediately began to proactively engage in preaching and
> teaching throughout the Mediterranean basin, and beyond, to establish the
> Church globally.
Although deeply entrenched in legends promulgated by 2nd century Christian
communities wanting to establish "apostolic authority," perhaps Mark did visit
Alexandria in 44 CE or so but I doubt it. There was no "church" in Alexandria
and Mark had yet to be introduced to evangelism by his cousin Barnabas (along
with Paul) in Barnabas' missionary journey in 48 CE.
>
> Moreover, see Acts 2:10 "Egypt and parts of Libya round Cyrene" But, as you
> assert : " I'm sorry but "scripture" is not evidence. " Maybe Acts 2:10 is
> why you make this assertion? This passage must be an interpolation (i.e., a
> change intended to falsify a text by introducing new or incorrect material)
> corrupted by a later hand.
>
> But, the again, there is that fragment of the Gospel of John, written in
> Coptic, found in Upper Egypt dated to the first half of the second century;
> also, the Oxyrhynchus MSS; Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccl. II,15,1-2;
> III,39,15, and Jerome PL XXII, 1002 ; VI,14,6 also refer to the Apostle Mark
> in Egypt sent by St. Peter. My research shows the legend of St. Peter's
> martyrdom in AD 67 is nothing but a legend with no evidence. Whereas, AD
> 49-50 seems more likely. If the account in the Fathers is accurate and if my
> interpretations are correct then, ergo, Mark was in Egypt no later than AD
> 49-50.
Mark was in Antioch in 49-50 CE.
Regardless, Eusebius asserts that Saint Mark first came to Egypt between the
first and third year of the reign of Emperor Claudius, i.e., sometime between
AD 41-44.
Eusebius is merely parroting Papias whom he quoted only when it suited his own
purpose.
> So you must necessarily discredit all of these writings especially those of
> the Fathers and prove them wrong, inaccurate, and corrupted in transmission
> by later hands. Consequently, the historical
> credulity of Mark's first convert in Alexandria being Anianus, the shoemaker,
> later bishop and Patriarch of Alexandria must also be a false claim.
If we want to "get real" about this, there is no reliable evidence at all for a
Markan mission to Alexandria nor of whom any of the three "Marks" were (Marcus
was the single most common Roman Praenomen) and whether or not any of these
"Marks" wrote the first Gospel.
We do have to rely on 2nd and third century sources like Papias and Hegesippus
to 4th century sources like Eusebius and all of these guys were interested in
feathering their own apostolic nests.
There is no evidence of a Christian "church" in Alexandria prior to the very
late 1st through the 2nd century regardless of the blatherings of patristic
sources. the very nomenclature used for "St. Mark" as "bishop" and "pope" of
Alexandris should be a clue to the anachronism.
>
> DIAXRHSTOU
>> is ONE word, not two.
>
> I have already apodictically explained why this is a good possibility for an
> unguentarium, not a kylix or wine cup.
>
>>The only common sense evaluation is
>> that this goblet
>> is not about Jesus.
>>
>
> You continually refer to this kylix, a two-handled wine drinking cup as a
> goblet. Goblets do not have handles and are made of metal or glass by
> definition.
>
> I do not see how you have established your view as common sense. However, you
> have now boldly asserted by implication that André Bernand and myself are not
> only absolutely wrong but far off base.
>
> Thank you Jack for your opinions.
The common sense lies in there NOT being a significant, if any, Christian
presence ("Christians being a product of the SECOND half of the first century)
in Alexandria at the time of this artifact and certainly not an established
christology of any sort, whether magical, soteriological, etc.
Jack
>
>
> John N. Lupia III
> New Jersey, USA; Beirut, Lebanon
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/
> God Bless Everyone
>
>
>
>
>
