(August 1, 2017 at 11:51 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote: I don't think that basing an argument on the number of scrolls depicted in a 13th Century painting is a wise choice.
It's an example and obviously lost on someone like you. NOnetheless, the pastorals are universally considered forgeries except by fundie fuckups and I share Carrier's opinion of them. Of even more note is the far more recent determination by scholarship that even the so-called "authentic" epistles of nothing but mash-ups of multiple letters.
I must say, I always thought that "paul" was drivel. Now I know why. These were not coherent works but shit strung together by later editors. But let's get past the pastorals first. I've got time.
Ok... well please explain, what is lost in the number of scrolls in a painting many centuries later. Is there more to the story, and argument that you are not stating?
Ok.... as I said, there are number of scholars who disagree.... the question is why should I believe that they are or are not?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
