tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post8301574480074027721..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: The Heresy of OrthodoxyMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-69254825553154510932010-07-16T10:06:02.400-05:002010-07-16T10:06:02.400-05:00Thanks for this review. I concur with some of it,...Thanks for this review. I concur with some of it, and differ at other points.<br /><br />I've started a three-part review of this book on my blog: http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-70060793942334445362010-06-05T02:04:09.876-05:002010-06-05T02:04:09.876-05:00Revisionist history my butt. Paul contradicts Act...Revisionist history my butt. Paul contradicts Acts on the story of the Jerusalem council and with that all of 'orthodoxy' instantly falls and disintegrates. 'Heresy' clearly did precede 'orthodox' and 'heresy' is derived from Paul whereas 'orthodoxy' is held together by a fictional work called 'Acts of the apostles.'<br /><br />To explain further. <br /><br />Paul says he went to the Jersualem council "by revelation." Acts says he was sent by men as an underling of the Antioch church.<br /><br />That's just one of the many ways in which Paul contradicts the story of Acts.<br /><br />Aside from the Jerusalem council there are other contradictions. Paul teaches that we are by nature children of Wrath and must be adopted as children of God, in the epistles. In Acts he is represented as teaching (on Mars hill) that all men are by nature children of God (and he quotes a Pagan poet speaking of Zeus "in him we live and move and have our very being" as proof of this).<br /><br />So, we have two Paul's. The real 'heretical' Paul, and the fake 'orthodox' Paul. Therefore 'orthodoxy' is proven false and anyone who doesn't recognize the 'diversity' of early Christianity proves themselves to be blind and illiterate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-23910287746208174282010-06-04T10:34:45.810-05:002010-06-04T10:34:45.810-05:00Mike,
In light of your critique of the book I'...Mike,<br /><br />In light of your critique of the book I'm wondering what you would say about John Webster's dogmatic account of the process of canonization in which the church assumes a fundamentally passive role.<br /><br />SteveSteve Dubyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05828038560227615426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-42099974468219274532010-06-04T07:42:43.333-05:002010-06-04T07:42:43.333-05:00Thanks for sharing. Do they take up the question o...Thanks for sharing. Do they take up the question of manuscript distribution and the implications of this? Or at least take it beyond C.H. Roberts' <i>Manuscript Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt</i>?Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844298036103120083noreply@blogger.com