Forgeries in the NT

[Minimalist]

Yes.... much of the holy horseshit is simply bullshit written by insignificant churchie assholes who needed to dress up their ideas by attributing them to someone who they actually thought gave jesus a hand job. 

From Bart Ehrman's Forged:  Writing in the Name of God.

Is it possible, in light of this extensive use of Peter’s name to
authorize others’ views, that any forgeries in the name of Peter
made it into the New Testament? As it turns out, two books bear
Peter’s name there as well, the letters of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Both
claim to be written by Peter, but there are solid reasons for thinking
that Peter did not write either one.

Pg. 77

I suppose it sounds better than the Epistle of Shlomo but still, it is just bullshit being peddled to gullible fools.

[Amarok]

Cue Roads empty every going demands for proof . And then chanting denials when provided . Then expect Wooter to scream it's not mainstream yadda yadda. Or steve to blather the bible is evidence of the bible and if you don't agree your begging the question as if the burden is on us.

[Minimalist]

On the one hand you have a world renowned scholar such as Bart Ehrman and on the other a shithead with a bible like Roads...who is no scholar!

It's not much of a contest.

[Amarok]

On the one hand you have a world renowned scholar such as Bart Ehrman and on the other a shithead with a bible like Roads...who is no scholar!

It's not much of a contest.

Thou even Ehrman is not always 100% honest . His position on mythicism is arrogant and dismissive .

[Minimalist]

True, he relies on "evidence" which is not terribly convincing  - Josephus and the TF among others - but at least he does not sit on his fat ass and say "the buy-bull says."

[Minimalist]

So could "peter" have written much of anything?  If he existed?  No.

Was Peter among the very upper echelons of the educated elite of Palestine who could
compose letter-essays in Greek? Apart from the legendary accounts I have mentioned, all we know about Peter’s life comes to
us from the New Testament. What we principally learn about him is that before he was a follower of Jesus he was a fisherman
from Capernaum in Galilee.

In order to evaluate Peter’s linguistic abilities, the place to begin, then, is with Capernaum. A full summary of what we know
about Capernaum from Peter’s day is provided by an American archaeologist of Palestine, Jonathan Reed.28 On the basis of archaeological
digs and historical sources, it is clear that Capernaum was a historically insignificant village in rural Galilee. It is never mentioned in any ancient source prior to the Gospels. It is scarcely mentioned by any sources after that. It was discovered by archaeologists in the nineteenth century and has been excavated
since then. In the time of Jesus it may have had anywhere between six and fifteen hundred inhabitants, so say a thousand. The archaeological digs have revealed no evidence of any public buildings whatsoever, such as shops or storage facilities. The market for buying food and other necessities must have been
held in tents or booths in open unpaved public areas. The town is on none of the major international trade routes. The Roman roads in the area date from a hundred years after Peter’s life.

There is no trace of any pagan or Gentile population in the town. There are no inscriptions of any kind on any of the buildings.
Reed concludes that the inhabitants were almost certainly “predominantly illiterate.” Archaeologists have found no building
structures or materials associated with social elites from the first century (e.g., plaster surfaces, decorative frescoes, marble, mosaics,
red ceramic roof tiles). The houses were roughly constructed out of stone basalt, and mud or clay was used to fill in the gaps;
they probably had thatched roofs. In short, Peter’s town was a backwoods Jewish village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education.
Everyone spoke Aramaic. Nothing suggests that anyone could speak Greek. Nothing suggests that anyone in town could write. As a lower-class fisherman, Peter would have started work as a young boy and never attended school. There was, in fact, probably no school there; if there was a school, he probably didn’t attend; if he did attend, it would have been in order to receive rudimentary training in how to read Hebrew. But that almost certainly never happened. Peter was an illiterate peasant.

pgs 86-87

So the only way that this peter character could have written anything is if he did not exist.  That way, the authors who created him can make him do whatever the fuck they wanted him to do.

Xristards, decide how you want it.

[Godscreated]

Yes.... much of the holy horseshit is simply bullshit written by insignificant churchie assholes who needed to dress up their ideas by attributing them to someone who they actually thought gave jesus a hand job. 

From Bart Ehrman's Forged:  Writing in the Name of God.

Is it possible, in light of this extensive use of Peter’s name to
authorize others’ views, that any forgeries in the name of Peter
made it into the New Testament? As it turns out, two books bear
Peter’s name there as well, the letters of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Both
claim to be written by Peter, but there are solid reasons for thinking
that Peter did not write either one.

Pg. 77

I suppose it sounds better than the Epistle of Shlomo but still, it is just bullshit being peddled to gullible fools.

 Where is Ehrman's supporting evidence for saying Peter never wrote his two books. Ehrman's famous for claiming things without a bit of evidence, you gave me the book and I read it and saw how he hem haws around to fool people in believing what he says.

GC

---

So could "peter" have written much of anything?  If he existed?  No.

Was Peter among the very upper echelons of the educated elite of Palestine who could
compose letter-essays in Greek? Apart from the legendary accounts I have mentioned, all we know about Peter’s life comes to
us from the New Testament. What we principally learn about him is that before he was a follower of Jesus he was a fisherman
from Capernaum in Galilee.

In order to evaluate Peter’s linguistic abilities, the place to begin, then, is with Capernaum. A full summary of what we know
about Capernaum from Peter’s day is provided by an American archaeologist of Palestine, Jonathan Reed.28 On the basis of archaeological
digs and historical sources, it is clear that Capernaum was a historically insignificant village in rural Galilee. It is never mentioned in any ancient source prior to the Gospels. It is scarcely mentioned by any sources after that. It was discovered by archaeologists in the nineteenth century and has been excavated
since then. In the time of Jesus it may have had anywhere between six and fifteen hundred inhabitants, so say a thousand. The archaeological digs have revealed no evidence of any public buildings whatsoever, such as shops or storage facilities. The market for buying food and other necessities must have been
held in tents or booths in open unpaved public areas. The town is on none of the major international trade routes. The Roman roads in the area date from a hundred years after Peter’s life.

There is no trace of any pagan or Gentile population in the town. There are no inscriptions of any kind on any of the buildings.
Reed concludes that the inhabitants were almost certainly “predominantly illiterate.” Archaeologists have found no building
structures or materials associated with social elites from the first century (e.g., plaster surfaces, decorative frescoes, marble, mosaics,
red ceramic roof tiles). The houses were roughly constructed out of stone basalt, and mud or clay was used to fill in the gaps;
they probably had thatched roofs. In short, Peter’s town was a backwoods Jewish village made up of hand-to-mouth laborers who did not have an education.
Everyone spoke Aramaic. Nothing suggests that anyone could speak Greek. Nothing suggests that anyone in town could write. As a lower-class fisherman, Peter would have started work as a young boy and never attended school. There was, in fact, probably no school there; if there was a school, he probably didn’t attend; if he did attend, it would have been in order to receive rudimentary training in how to read Hebrew. But that almost certainly never happened. Peter was an illiterate peasant.

pgs 86-87

So the only way that this peter character could have written anything is if he did not exist.  That way, the authors who created him can make him do whatever the fuck they wanted him to do.

Xristards, decide how you want it.

 That bunch of speak has no evidence Peter was born there. Most of the town in Palestine were small and small in population no great surprise there, and just because it was a small town doesn't in any way mean they were not Greek speaking people there. Peter was a business man and had to know some math and writing to do his job. The book of Acts says that the people listening to Peter were surprised by the way he spoke because they knew him to be a fisherman. More assertions with no evidence to back it up.

GC

[Astonished]

A brain that automatically rejects solid evidence that disagrees with or disproves their strongly held beliefs is not a healthy one. No wonder you're hearing voices. Seek psychiatric help, immediately.

[Minimalist]

Your fucking gospels are letting you down again, G-C.

You see, "john" states:

Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.–John 1:44

whereas, Luke says:

He went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbath. They were astounded at his teaching … After leaving the synagogue he entered Simon’s house.–Luke 4:31-32a, 38a

They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching … As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.–Mark 1: 21-22a, 29

See this is easy for me.  There was no fucking jesus and so there were no fucking merry men for him to lead.  You of course now have to make excuses for the contradiction between your silly "scriptures."  Perhaps these illiterate fisherman were in the Upper Middle Class and had houses all over Galilee?  When it comes to apologetic bullshit nothing surprises me!

[RoadRunner79]

---

Your fucking gospels are letting you down again, G-C.

You see, "john" states:

Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.–John 1:44

whereas, Luke says:

He went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbath. They were astounded at his teaching … After leaving the synagogue he entered Simon’s house.–Luke 4:31-32a, 38a

They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching … As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.–Mark 1: 21-22a, 29

See this is easy for me.   You of course now have to make excuses for the contradiction between your silly "scriptures."  Perhaps these illiterate fisherman were in the Upper Middle Class and had houses all over Galilee?  When it comes to apologetic bullshit nothing surprises me!

---

I like those contradiction websites.  I like them, because most of try way too hard to make contradictions where there are not any (they seem to want to make a large impressive number, rather than a strong case).  

You see, I grew up in city X,  actually my home for 17 years was in the countryside, technically in a small township, but I refer to home, the place where I grew up as the nearest city anyone not familiar with the area might recognize.  I then moved to city Y, where I went to college.  This was home for a while.  After that I was recruited by a company, and they moved me to another state, another city Z where this was home for a few years.  Then wanting to move back closer to family I moved back, this time to a larger city about an hour's drive from where I grew up. I rented a duplex by myself, for a short time, my brother lived with me in this duplex, and a while later, I moved to a suburb of this city, and rented a house with some friends.  From there I was hired where I am now.  For a couple of months, I stayed at my parents home (although someone who mostly knew me, may have said they where going to my house when visiting; also note, that they had moved, and this is not the home where I grew up).  I rented a house for a few years, and this was home for that time. Finally I bought the house, that I am living in now.  I now have two places I refer to as home, near city X where I grew up (I may refer to the actual house, the nearby city, or the region and the larger city; which I had also lived in); and the house I eventually bought.  

So this is easy for me  I am by no means rich, yet I have had multiple homes throughout my life.  And someone would not be incorrect to refer to the place I was staying at any given time as my house, if they where coming to visit (even if it where technically someone else's house).  So I like those Bible contradiction websites; because they often rather than trying to make a strong case, try to make a large number of cases.  For a thinking person it is easy to see, how they are not contradictory or all that difficult at all.