FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-27-2013, 09:59 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The diddly details of Greek syntax and grammar are not going to remove the blatant contradictions and indications of tampering.
And just how do you determine what are indications of "tampering"? What are your criteria for seeing something as a "tampered" text?


Quote:
So Mr. Jeffrey, expert in Greek and NT texts. Do you find all of the alleged 'Pauline Epistles' to be the genuine writings of one 1st century 'Paul' ?
Do you know what the fallacy of bifurcation is?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:01 PM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So Mr. Jeffrey, expert in Greek and NT texts. Do you find all of the alleged 'Pauline Epistles' to be the genuine writings of one 1st century 'Paul' ?
Do you know what the fallacy of bifurcation is?
Can't answer the question eh?
And here you almost had us convinced that you were an expert on the Greek NT texts.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:09 PM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So Mr. Jeffrey, expert in Greek and NT texts. Do you find all of the alleged 'Pauline Epistles' to be the genuine writings of one 1st century 'Paul' ?
Do you know what the fallacy of bifurcation is?
Can't answer the question eh?
I can answer it well enough. But until I have an apology from you for your snotty tone, and a direct answer from you to my question about your competence in Greek, I see no reason why I should.

In any case, the issue is not what I believe about any, let alone all, of the "Pauline Epistles", but the validity of your claim that none of them are. Your claim is either true or it is not regardless of what I "believe".

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:24 PM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

I gave you a direct answer to your question of my competence in Greek. You may go back and read it again. Its not a long post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
In any case, the issue is not what I believe about any, let alone all, of the "Pauline Epistles", but the validity of your claim that none of them are
In for a dime in for a dollar. You bet on some, and I'll bet on all.

But in that, I am placing my bet on a past and a future. Calling my shots in advance, as to what will yet be found. That scholarship will come to concede that none of the 'Pauline Epistles' are authentic to the 1st century CE.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:28 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The diddly details of Greek syntax and grammar are not going to remove the blatant contradictions and indications of tampering.
One wonders how you know that the details of Greek syntax and grammar -- which you seem not to know are things that scholars look at and consider vital for determining forgeries and interpolations -- are "diddly".

Again, because you say so?

Perhaps you'd grace us not only with stating where exactly in, say, Philippians we find contradiction and indications of tampering --but also with giving us the particular criteria you have used to make your determinations.

If that's too much of an ordeal for you, use Philemon.

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:35 PM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I gave you a direct answer to your question of my competence in Greek. You may go back and read it again. Its not a long post.
No, you did not give me a direct answer. Nor have you given me an apology for your tone.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
In any case, the issue is not what I believe about any, let alone all, of the "Pauline Epistles", but the validity of your claim that none of them are
In for a dime in for a dollar. You bet on some, and I'll bet on all.

But in that, I am placing my bet on a past and a future. Calling my shots in advance, as to what will yet be found. That scholarship will come to concede that none of the 'Pauline Epistles' are authentic to the 1st century CE.
And just how will they do that? Why has scholarship not already done this? Why has it rejected the views of the small coterie of dutch radicals who already argued what you claim?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:37 PM   #87
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Again, where is the DATA that supports early Pailine letters?

Those who have claimed for years that the Pauline writings are early and composed before the Gospels cannot show their DATA.

There was never any data just mere presumptions and logical fallacies.

Well, it is now exposed that the argument for early Pauline writings cannot be maintained and never was.

The Pauline letters were composed to deceive and "historicise" the resurrection of Jesus and were really unknown in the 2nd century.

Quite remarkably, in the conversion of Justin Martyr in Dialague with Trypho and Caecilius in Minucius Felix "Octavius", there was not a mention of the conversion of Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:39 PM   #88
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
The diddly details of Greek syntax and grammar are not going to remove the blatant contradictions and indications of tampering.
One wonders how you know that the details of Greek syntax and grammar -- which you seem not to know are things that scholars look at and consider vital for determining forgeries and interpolations -- are "diddly".

Again, because you say so?

Perhaps you'd grace us not only with stating where exactly in, say, Philippians we find contradiction and indications of tampering --but also with giving us the particular criteria you have used to make your determinations.

If that's too much of an ordeal for you, use Philemon.

Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Jeffrey
No Jeffrey. I don't think you understand. I am not going to play your game by your rules.
And in respect and obedience to the 'New Forum Rules' I am certainly not going to go into any in-depth examination of Greek syntax and grammar in this thread, no matter how badly you want to induce others to play in your favorite playpen.



.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:52 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I gave you a direct answer to your question of my competence in Greek. You may go back and read it again. Its not a long post.
No, you did not give me a direct answer.
POST #70
Quote:
Nor have you given me an apology for your tone.
Don't hold your breath Jeffrey, you'll only turn purple.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
In any case, the issue is not what I believe about any, let alone all, of the "Pauline Epistles", but the validity of your claim that none of them are
In for a dime in for a dollar. You bet on some, and I'll bet on all.

But in that, I am placing my bet on a past and a future. Calling my shots in advance, as to what will yet be found. That scholarship will come to concede that none of the 'Pauline Epistles' are authentic to the 1st century CE.
And just how will they do that? Why has scholarship not already done this? Why has it rejected the views of the small coterie of dutch radicals who already argued what you claim?

Jeffrey
Do you suffer under some delusion that world history will end today?

The conclusion of the matter remains to be seen. The horse that in the lead is not always the one that takes the Sweepstakes.
The Dutch radicals placed their bets long ago, and the race is on.
Put your money on the leading horse (theory) if you will.
My bet is already on the one that is presently at the back of the pack.

.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:58 PM   #90
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Nothing in the forum rules would rule out Sheshbazzar's discussion of Greek syntax or grammar in support of his claims.

Let's review some forum rules:

1. EVIDENCE: a) Posters should attempt to conform to standard scholarly methodologies. This means not only that claims made should always be supported in some evidential fashion (i.e., argumentation by assertion and by appeal to authority are not acceptable), but that analysis of texts should always be grounded in the awareness of their historical and cultural contexts.

Some attention needs to be paid to this.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:07 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.