In article <131.01.12.05.442614000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com says...
>

[SNIP]

>> >I said "all" the old texts. Is Codex W and old text?
>>
>> Yes. That is why I mentioned it. It is an example of an old text,
>with _clearly_
>> Gnostic interpolations.
>
>Thank you I did not know that. Is that what the majority of the
>textural critics on the continent believe?

Depends which 'that' you are referring to. Are you referring to the belief taht
Codex W is old, or that its interpolation is Gnostic? But in either case, a
great many textual critics both in America and in Europe believe it is both old
and Gnostic.

In fact, you can look at the relevant passage yourself at:

http://www.beloit.edu/~classics/GospelOfMark/Gospel%20of%20Mark/Mark_16.12-17.jpg

Click on the image with the magnifying-glass cursor to blow it up so that you
can actually see the letters. The interpolation begins on line 9 and reads
something like this:

KAKEINOI APELOGOUNTELEGONTES [sic!] OTI O AIWNON TOYTON THS
ANOMIAS KAI THS APISTIAS YPO TON SATANAN [sic] ESTIN O MH EONTA
YPO TON PNA [abbrev. for PNEYMA] TWN AKAQARTA THN ALHQEIAN TOY
QEOU KATALABESQAI DYNAMIN TIA TOUTO APOKALYCON SOY THN
DIKAIOSYNHN HDH EKEINOI ELEGON TW XW [abbr. for XRISTW]

and it continues, with an equally suspicious sounding answer that Christ
supposedly gave.


Doesn't that sound Gnostic to you? It does to me.

[snip]


--
---------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

"basicallyblues" writes:


>
>>Ignatius of Antioch (c 107)
>
>First of all- as regards the trinity is is not "proof" one way or the
>other what any follower thought following the Apostle John's death but
>on the subject specifically about the trinity belief before 325....

Hang on there. You wrote, regarding the Trinity:

>It most certainly is pagan. It was unknown to Christians living before
>the 3rd Century.

And yet, you admit:

>If we accept the shorter version of his writings as genuine, it does
>eliminate some phrases (in the longer version) that show Christ as
>subordinate to God, but what is left in the shorter version still does
>not show a Trinity. And regardless of which of his writings are
>genuine, they show at best that Ignatius believed in a duality of God
>and his Son. This was certainly not a duality of equals, for the Son is
>always presented as lesser than God and subordinate to him. Thus,
>regard