shalak

By both sides I meant those who support scripture as being historically valid and those who do not. I do not believe scripture is valid but to limit myself only to those who are against leaves me feeling biased.

mountainman

Now in 2012 or in the ancient history of antiquity? If you are examining the sources of texts in antiquity there are two publishing parties.

(1) The orthodox christian heresiologists, and
(2) The gnostic heretics

The material of (1) has been preserved. The material of (2) has been reconstructed by manuscript and codex discoveries in recent times (eg: see gJudas and the Nag Hammadi Codices etc).

Hope that helps to answer your question.

sotto voce

Because?

mountainman

Pious forgery. e.g. see Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Toto

Hello sotto voce: In this forum no one needs to provide any reasons for not believing that scripture is valid.

sotto voce

Of course not.

mountainman

And yet developing from the actual available evidence a series of reasons for not believing that scripture is valid, on the basis that the scripture is a late pious forgery, is frowned upon.

Those of the hegemony who frown at pious forgery may claim to have some inside evidential information, unambiguous and certain information, from the paleographers, the Dura-Europos-Yale exibit, the Vatican catacombs, from the source known as "Eusebius" and/or the New and Strange Testament.

Toto

Pete: if you were to actually develop this argument, it would be welcome. It just gets tiresome when you repeat the claim without advancing any real argument. "Constantine was an imperial thug" is not a good reason for believing that the gospels were forged in the 4th century.

aa5874

Toto, don't you see the BEAM in your own eye??? You claim there is NO hard evidence to support early Pauline writings yet continue to support those who make such a claim but become disgusted by others whom you think have No evidence for their position.

"Somebody wrote the Pauline writings so it is most likely Paul" is NOT a good reason for believing the Pauline writings were early.

"Or Jesus was crucified in the Sub-lunar because it is BELIEVED Paul was early" is NOT a good reason for a Sub-lunar crucifixion of Jesus.

It is time people here DESIST from making arguments or support arguments while PUBLICLY admitting there is NO hard evidence.

mountainman

I am continually seeking new evidence and re-examining the old evidence not just textual, but epigraphic, monumental, numismatic, archaeological, etc.

According to the sticky:


The issue of the identity of Leucius Charinus has not been discussed to any great extent - for example.