(September 13, 2017 at 11:45 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 11:41 am)Minimalist Wrote: Peter, the illiterate fisherman writing letters in Koine Greek, huh?  Moron.

I think Steve intended to say that Paul wrote the letters, not Peter. Peter wrote nothing. So how Peter established the Christian church is beyond me, or at the very least it is beyond me how one actually determines that.

There are 2 epistles by "peter" in the NT canon.  Both are forgeries.

(September 13, 2017 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 11:23 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: So if Paul had never existed, the Christian church would exist?

edit to add: I am asking the questions because it is clear you don't know the history of your religion and its books as well as you think you do. I would have thought it apparent that when the questions I was asking were to you because I want to see you try to answer them and not because I want to simply make statements. I like questions that allow someone to highlight their own ignorance instead of statements outlining it

That's kind of evident in the fact that Paul was writing to pre-existing churches. Here is a secret code to keep them straight...the name of the church is in the letter's title...Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.

LOL. You think I don't know the history of Christianity? You can't even get two sentences without messing them up! 

You're in over your head in both knowledge of the subject in and in critical thinking skills.

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around?

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?

---

(September 13, 2017 at 12:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 11:45 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I think Steve intended to say that Paul wrote the letters, not Peter. Peter wrote nothing. So how Peter established the Christian church is beyond me, or at the very least it is beyond me how one actually determines that.

There are 2 epistles by "peter" in the NT canon.  Both are forgeries.

But I don't think he was alluding to any writings by a "Peter." I think he was referencing the writings of Paul

He'll have to speak for himself on that.  BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

(September 13, 2017 at 10:19 am)SteveII Wrote: The quote you were referring to was about Paul. Even Bart Ehrman firmly believes Paul was real and wrote most of the epistles ascribed to him. He also believes the the NT is 99% today what it was when it was written.

Thank you for your response regarding that particular quote, though I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions I asked based on your statements: "I believe Paul was who he said he was", and, "I believe the epistles are what they appear to be."

My questions are: 

1. What evidence lead you to these two beliefs?

2. Why do you find this evidence persuasive?

Don't hold your breath, LfC.

(September 13, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

(September 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote: BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Personally, the fact that no two "divinely-inspired" texts agree with one another is a great example of how human these texts are and how lacking they are in divining inspiration. You'd think a god would ensure that the method that they chose to communicate with humans with was at least more reliable than a game of "telephone."

(September 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote: That's kind of evident in the fact that Paul was writing to pre-existing churches. Here is a secret code to keep them straight...the name of the church is in the letter's title...Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.

LOL. You think I don't know the history of Christianity? You can't even get two sentences without messing them up! 

You're in over your head in both knowledge of the subject in and in critical thinking skills.

Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around? [1]

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?  [2]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

(September 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 12:02 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Paul was writing to pre-existing "churches?" Is that so? So Paul has nothing to do with the foundation of Christianity? Without Paul, Christianity would still be around? [1]

Here, let's explore a second related piece. Which was more important to the Christian religion: Jesus or the Romans adopting Christianity?  [2]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

lol

Okay. So let me get this straight. You believe that neither the Romans nor Paul are responsible for the Christian Church being around? I think you might need to rethink what the important steps were for your religion to ever become anything more than a series of isolated cults wandering around the Middle East.