(March 4, 2019 at 11:34 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 4, 2019 at 2:39 am)Godscreated Wrote:  The scholars you listen to are not believers, you believe what Ehrman has to say now don't you. We have copies of the gospels from the second century so when where the originals written, the first century. That would be the time of the disciples. Like you said those people have opinions and opinions are not facts and many opinions are not worth the paper they were written on. Most people in this world that know of Shakespeare believe that the writings we have are originals, nope they are not, not only that there is great doubt that the man that wrote those plays is of the name Shakespeare.

GC

---

Here's a list of New Testament fragments:

Wikipedia -- New Testament papyri

GC, this is a major, major problem for you, your lacking of fundamental understanding of the subject matter that you are espousing on.  Scholars possess fragments of the Gospels from the 2nd century.

 Regardless they are 2nd century and they are copies so the originals must be from the first century, the time of the disciples, Few people will argue that Paul's letters were written in the first century why would you doubt the gospels were written then.

GC

(March 5, 2019 at 2:16 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(March 4, 2019 at 11:34 am)Jehanne Wrote: Here's a list of New Testament fragments:

Wikipedia -- New Testament papyri

GC, this is a major, major problem for you, your lacking of fundamental understanding of the subject matter that you are espousing on.  Scholars possess fragments of the Gospels from the 2nd century.

 Regardless they are 2nd century and they are copies so the originals must be from the first century, the time of the disciples, Few people will argue that Paul's letters were written in the first century why would you doubt the gospels were written then.

GC

I don't; however, it is clear to me that they were not written by eyewitnesses, and it is equally clear that a simple majority of Paul's letters were forgeries.

(March 5, 2019 at 9:21 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 2:16 am)Godscreated Wrote:  Regardless they are 2nd century and they are copies so the originals must be from the first century, the time of the disciples, Few people will argue that Paul's letters were written in the first century why would you doubt the gospels were written then.

GC

I don't; however, it is clear to me that they were not written by eyewitnesses, and it is equally clear that a simple majority of Paul's letters were forgeries.

 You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

(March 7, 2019 at 1:42 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 9:21 am)Jehanne Wrote: I don't; however, it is clear to me that they were not written by eyewitnesses, and it is equally clear that a simple majority of Paul's letters were forgeries.

 You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

I cannot disprove that the angel Gabriel did not appear corporeally to Muhammad nor that the angel Moroni did not appear to Joseph Smith, and yet, both of their "revelations" appear to be contrary to each others.  By the way, do you accept the so-called Miracle of the Sun that was witnessed by 50K individuals?

(March 7, 2019 at 1:42 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 9:21 am)Jehanne Wrote: I don't; however, it is clear to me that they were not written by eyewitnesses, and it is equally clear that a simple majority of Paul's letters were forgeries.

 You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

Let's take thessalonians as an example.  Both were traditionally attributed to Paul.  1st thessalonians is considered to be authentic whereas 2nd thessalonians is not.  

Well, we assume there was Paul, and he wrote things, for starters.  He's believed to have died sometime between the great fire and nero being deposed.  A short window.  So, assuming those things, what can we posit?  We can posit that 2nd thessolonians was not written by paul, who died before the temple was destroyed - an event absent from 1st thessalonians but present in 2nd. 

We can also posit that the author of 2nd thessalonians had a copy of 1st thessalonians.  These are alleged to have been letters sent to churches, mind you, not historical documents written in triplicate, with one sent, one archived, and one kept in the possession of the author - but if we assume that some disciple or associate of paul wrote 2nd thessolonians then they would be more of the latter than the former. 

So, what depends on the above?  Well, perhaps the most direct reason to suppose an early date for authentic paul is the presence of the forgery in the deutero-pauline epistle itself.  We can date the destruction of the temple, so even though it doesn't give us much, it gives us a dividing line in time.  Authentic paul lived and died before the event, but the duetero-pauline authors (who may have been contemporaries of authentic paul) lived at least long enough to write about it.  Not only were they aware of that event, they were clearly aware of pauls "letter" - so that authentic letter must predate it.  

Taken the other way, if we insist that the deutero-pauline work is actually authentic..then this would prove that our early dates for authentic paul - as well as the timeframe he's believed to have lived and died, are wrong.   The icing on the cake is that the author of the deutero-pauline work is so craven that he closes out his fan fiction with a campaign style affirmation of identity and approval of the message.

So...before you rail against biblical scholarship as though it were nothing but assumption and no one could prove anything, understand that the early dating of both paul the man and his authentic work positively depend on accepting a deutero-pauline forgery.  If we reject that, we shift the calendar by at least two decades but as much as 65 years.  Instead of writing in the 50's and dying in the 60's.  Paul writes in the 70's or later and dies.....who knows when.  The deutero-pauline work, itself, is dated to between 80 and 115.

Somehow, I doubt that you want to argue that authentic paul, who received his gospel from no man, was writing as late as the second century but could not possibly have been writing before 70 ad.

(March 7, 2019 at 10:24 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 7, 2019 at 1:42 am)Godscreated Wrote:  You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

I cannot disprove that the angel Gabriel did not appear corporeally to Muhammad nor that the angel Moroni did not appear to Joseph Smith, and yet, both of their "revelations" appear to be contrary to each others.  By the way, do you accept the so-called Miracle of the Sun that was witnessed by 50K individuals?

 God does not work in contrary ways, so at least one of those can be dismissed between the two, now lets put the one that's left against Christianity and you can dismiss it, Christianity was here before the one left no matter which one you would dismiss originally. Why do you keep asking if I believe in certain miracles, I do believe that God provides miracles today, yesterday and from the beginning of time. Personally I do not believe it, to many inconsistent reports, it was only observed in one place and should have been seen everywhere the sun was shining at that time. It was slight cloudy, broken clouds and that is significant, the colors were filtered through the clouds and the suns perceived movement could have been from the clouds moving across the sun, I've seen stars that seemed to dance in the night sky because of thin clouds moving past the star. My greatest doubt comes from Mary supposedly doing this miracle, God is the miracle worker, He alone has the power to manipulate His creation. Science and observation along with knowing how God says He works is reasonable evidence to not believe this happened.

GC

---

(March 7, 2019 at 1:44 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(March 7, 2019 at 1:42 am)Godscreated Wrote:  You nor anyone else can prove your assumptions and that is all you have, assumptions.

GC

Let's take thessalonians as an example.  Both were traditionally attributed to Paul.  1st thessalonians is considered to be authentic whereas 2nd thessalonians is not.  

Well, we assume there was Paul, and he wrote things, for starters.  He's believed to have died sometime between the great fire and nero being deposed.  A short window.  So, assuming those things, what can we posit?  We can posit that 2nd thessolonians was not written by paul, who died before the temple was destroyed - an event absent from 1st thessalonians but present in 2nd. 

We can also posit that the author of 2nd thessalonians had a copy of 1st thessalonians.  These are alleged to have been letters sent to churches, mind you, not historical documents written in triplicate, with one sent, one archived, and one kept in the possession of the author - but if we assume that some disciple or associate of paul wrote 2nd thessolonians then they would be more of the latter than the former. 

So, what depends on the above?  Well, perhaps the most direct reason to suppose an early date for authentic paul is the presence of the forgery in the deutero-pauline epistle itself.  We can date the destruction of the temple, so even though it doesn't give us much, it gives us a dividing line in time.  Authentic paul lived and died before the event, but the duetero-pauline authors (who may have been contemporaries of authentic paul) lived at least long enough to write about it.  Not only were they aware of that event, they were clearly aware of pauls "letter" - so that authentic letter must predate it.  

Taken the other way, if we insist that the deutero-pauline work is actually authentic..then this would prove that our early dates for authentic paul - as well as the timeframe he's believed to have lived and died, are wrong.   The icing on the cake is that the author of the deutero-pauline work is so craven that he closes out his fan fiction with a campaign style affirmation of identity and approval of the message.  

So...before you rail against biblical scholarship as though it were nothing but assumption and no one could prove anything, understand that the early dating of both paul the man and his authentic work positively depend on accepting a deutero-pauline forgery.  If we reject that, we shift the calendar by at least two decades but as much as 65 years.  Instead of writing in the 50's and dying in the 60's.  Paul writes in the 70's or later and dies.....who knows when.  The deutero-pauline work, itself, is dated to between 80 and 115.

Somehow, I doubt that you want to argue that authentic paul, who received his gospel from no man, was writing as late as the second century but could not possibly have been writing before 70 ad.

 Nice try in twisting logic around until it seems reasonable, did not work my friend. Your whole bases for the forgery lies with dates, those dates are not a sure thing, yes we know when the temple was destroyed but what we do not know is when Paul died and we do not have the original of 2nd Thessalonians so we can't date it's writing either. You act like you are trying to school me on how Paul's letters were distributed, you can't I've known this for many years. I'm not the illiterate dummy you believe me to be, I understand you are not, but you have been deceived or chose to be, which really doesn't matter, what matters is you are deceived and you are trying to deceive others and you may just do that to some, but not God.

GC

It's not my basis, lol?.....though obviously differences in the style composition and theology of 2nd thess are also referred to, but the date is the thing that we know for certain.  One of them was written before the destruction of the temple, one after.  The destruction of the temple happens after paul is believed to have died.  Would there -need- to be any other basis? Do dead men write? We don't know when paul died, but -if- he wrote 2nd thess it must have been after 70ad, therefore the traditional beliefs about his life are wrong. OFC we can date 2nd thess........to after 70 ad. -If- we posit that this work is authentic, then the eyewitness testimony™ of your favorite magic book was being written after 70ad.

I don't think that you're illiterate.  I know that you're ignorant. It;s not like this is a theological issue that you have to deny to make cuntgod happy. As far as anyone can tell, some person who knew and likely worked for the author of authentic paul engaged in earnest imitation - writing what they believed would have been the authentic authors message if they were alive to witness current events. We can even posit on the deutero-pauline authors favorite passage in the authentic work....he reused it in his own, lol.

(March 8, 2019 at 3:54 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(March 7, 2019 at 10:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: I cannot disprove that the angel Gabriel did not appear corporeally to Muhammad nor that the angel Moroni did not appear to Joseph Smith, and yet, both of their "revelations" appear to be contrary to each others.  By the way, do you accept the so-called Miracle of the Sun that was witnessed by 50K individuals?

 God does not work in contrary ways, so at least one of those can be dismissed between the two, now lets put the one that's left against Christianity and you can dismiss it, Christianity was here before the one left no matter which one you would dismiss originally. Why do you keep asking if I believe in certain miracles, I do believe that God provides miracles today, yesterday and from the beginning of time. Personally I do not believe it, to many inconsistent reports, it was only observed in one place and should have been seen everywhere the sun was shining at that time. It was slight cloudy, broken clouds and that is significant, the colors were filtered through the clouds and the suns perceived movement could have been from the clouds moving across the sun, I've seen stars that seemed to dance in the night sky because of thin clouds moving past the star. My greatest doubt comes from Mary supposedly doing this miracle, God is the miracle worker, He alone has the power to manipulate His creation. Science and observation along with knowing how God says He works is reasonable evidence to not believe this happened.

GC

---

Okay, you choose to believe in some miracle accounts while finding rational reasons to disbelieve in other accounts.  I find your "reasoning" to be circular -- "Well, Christianity is true, because Christianity is true," a type of question-begging, or, assuming the conclusion.  You have yet to provide me with a single reason why I should take any Christian belief seriously, and so, at this point, I am going to stop asking.

You don't twist logic to make it more reasonable, you untwist it.

(March 8, 2019 at 12:05 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You don't twist logic to make it more reasonable, you untwist it.

Yup,

I don't know why I still bother to read our resident apologists, I've said before a few times, they are impervious to reason or fact. If presented with either, conflicting with dogma,  nonsensical claims  are made, such as  'there is more than one kind of knowledge' . That statement inferring that their special  book contains knowledge  equal to that of any philosopher or scientist.

Why allow theist  apologists on an atheist forum? We're not allowed on theirs. I've been on a few Christian forums, no real challenge  of their belief is tolerated. I seldom last more than 2 posts. 

To be fair. I  once stumbled across an Egyptology forum based in Cairo. I made the mistake of challenging  a guy who declared the Quran is a history book.. Those bastards are nuts; they made fucking death threats! At least our pet Christians are harmless. I'm actually a bit intimidated by a couple of our 'normal' members.   

So, in comparison , the Christians here are mainly for comic relief and as a negative example of presenting opinions and arguments .(?) Be most interested to learn of any other reasons.---