The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Aractus]

Well Rhythm, there's about as much doubt as there is that the holocaust is a historical event.

And your opinion isn't valid as it's not an expert opinion.

And just as an aside- do you think I should form my opinion on Evolution based on biological scientists who specialise in the field; or by the sceptic group that claims that none of their literature is valid?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah yes, the old "expert opinion" canard.  I remain unimpressed. I think that you should form your opinion based upon the evidence -presented by- those with "expert opinions". Simply saying "expert opinion" is worthless, to me. If that's all you've got......meh. If all you had to go by with regards to evolution was the opinions of people you felt were experts.....evolution would be in a pretty sorry state - as sorry a state as your own claim in this thread, regarding the authorship of the NT - and the reason that it is in greek, currently is, in fact.

[Aractus]

Oh really?
I didn't claim that Paul wrote no letters. I take what historians say seriously, and when most of them believe that Paul wrote 7 letters I listen and form my opinion based on the evidence I'm presented with.
On the other hand you claim "nu-uh". You provide no evidence, you couldn't even produce a single NT scholar that agrees with your POV. You may be right, it's possible. But it's far less likely than the alternative.
You don't even understand what the content of the Bible is, do you Rhythm?

[The Grand Nudger]

The burden of proof is not on me, you made the claim - I did not.  Accept that burden..and provide a convincing demonstration.......or, piss and moan. Up to you. My level of knowledge, and attempting to paint me as ignorant of the field will advance your own claim not one..single..inch. Continuing to claim "expert opinion" will advance your own claim not one...single.....inch.

[Aractus]

The burden of proof is on YOU. You are the one disagreeing with the expert opinion. If this was a court of law I could pick out half a dozen scholars - some of which I actually know personally - and invite them to testify. You have no one to testify. You don't even have a valid reason to disagree that Paul wrote Galatians, you just do it because you want to. You didn't read anything by a critically thinking scholar that made you think that Paul didn't write Galatians, you think that of your own accord.

Anyway, as you're the one disagreeing with the bulk of historians the onus of proof is on you.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid that you simply don't understand the burden of proof Aractus.  Would you like me to google it for you...I think you'll find that description conspicuously absent of any comment in the vein of "whosoever doesn't agree with the experts must show that that those experts are wrong".  

That's probably where you're stuck, eh? The burden of proof is not assigned by mob loyalty.

[Aractus]

You're an idiot. I've tried to tell you that some of the structure of the NT is quite well established (and some of it isn't), and you have an opinion that you cannot back up with any evidence.

There isn't even any reason for it. I'm not trying to push any beliefs upon you, and accepting that Paul wrote Galatians doesn't compel you to get baptised and start worshipping Jesus every Sunday. Yet despite this, and despite the fact that I'm talking within general scholarly thought and you aren't, you keep claiming that the burden of proof is on me and not you.

Oh look, even Ehrman says that Paul wrote Galatians:

http://youtu.be/u9CC7qNZkOE

Waiting for your counter-"evidence".

[The Grand Nudger]

My opinion is that you have not made a convincing argument..to which I -have- provided evidence...which I'll summarize for you again...and could quote from the thread if you persist in this ridiculous asshattery...lol.
1.) "The experts say that"
-this is, categorically...not evidence.
2.) In the narrative....a claim of identity is made
-a claim of identity is made in the Havamal (odin) and Necronomicon (the "mad arab").  Both of which are writing in the first person and both of which are simply false.  You could contest this if you wish, and we can have that discussion......but I;m fairly certain that elaboration isn't required.   -This-...Aractus...is why the identity claims contained within a narrative are not evidence of the accuracy of those claims contained within the narrative.
3.) There are undisputed works.
-there are not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...e_epistles
Notice the use of emphasis marks around the word "undisputed"....notice that the very next statement shows that they are, in fact..disputed...and if you wish, check the footnotes to which this relates.  

I offered a simpler and far better attested explanation for why the "original NT" was written in greek.  That it was the lingua franca of the time period.  If you would like to dispute this..or if you feel that I should better demonstrate that this is so....we can have that discussion.

-You need to stop responding with "somebody totally said" as though it made your case any more competently in repetition than it did the very first go round.  thx. I have a favorite quote..from Ehrman, btw....in which he opines upon why no "serious scholar" doubts the historicity of this or that.......I'll try to dig it up for you, for your viewing pleasure. There will never be a point in discussion with me where you can wow or silence me by reference to the opinions of a person whom you think I might be amenable to. I am amenable to evidence. Provide it, don't puss out and link bomb me..you're a smart guy..I'm sure you can make the case with your own words.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here ya go..since the opinions of experts are clearly enough to make an argument..in your opinion.  From the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...49544.html

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Ehrman makes these remarks in reference to the mythicist position on jesus, but they apply equally well to any discussion of Paul (an equally mythicized/legendary figure -even if he were a real person).   Now, it's possible that Mr. Ehrman didn;t realize the irony contained herein...but..perhaps, representation of any given position within the ranks of "the experts" has something to do with needing a paycheck........

Now, obviously, little to do with the immediate discussion of the thread (only a glancing bit of relevancy)...but I figured I;d mention it..since you seem to think that mere mention of his name will make me snap to fucking attention and salute..as though he were the patron saint of biblical opinions to me and mine. I'm no more impressed with Ehrmans opinions than anyone elses...and though I am impressed with the evidence he presents...he doesn't seem to be as impressed with it as I am, since he loses his shit at some point..and after describing all of the problems with the narrative...concludes that there must've been a "jesus". I think you're far too used to appealing to credibility and personal witness/testimony...arguably due to your past - than you should be..if you hope to engage in a discussion with a person for whom that has absolutely zero value...such as myself. If my very own mother insisted that she took a shit of a specific hue of brown..and demanded that I must accept the accuracy of her claim -what with being an "expert" on her own bowel movements-...I'd ask to see the turd.

[Mr.wizard]

I have to agree with Rhythm on this, I watched the video and didn't hear any evidence being presented. Historians agreeing that something happened is not evidence that something happened.