aa5874

Spin may NOT know if he has been taken for a ride or may not know he was not ever on a ride.

One should NOT start a ride having NO KNOWLEDGE of the END.

spin

Yup.

The sources are sources however you want to brand them.

How long has any coherent non-religious chain of scholarly analysis gone on?? You're too eager to shuffle the cards and start a round of euchre.

Remove the faith impediment and see how analysis goes.

You're in no position to make such statements. (And how many times are you going to chant this "storyline" mantra?)


spin

angelo

You seem to be of the opinion that Paul's authentic writings are after the fall of the temple. You are just about alone in that thinking. Most credible scholars place Paul's writings at no later then around 55 CE. Certainly before any gospels started floating around. There is no sign of any turmoil as the war that broke out around 66 CE in any of his authentic letters.

maryhelena

"Remove the faith impediment" - you must be kidding - your outnumbered big time here. Pure wishful thinking that such a thing can be achieved by argument and linguistics ....

"...how many times are you going to chant this 'storyline' mantra? - spin, until such time as the storyline has been historically verified...

spin

I'm sorry. You have nothing to offer, given that you've abandoned the source materials, and no precedent for giving up on a non-religious scholarly approach to analysing the texts.

So, you've given up on the text. You have no approach to it and you'll continue to maintain an attitude that won't help you change that situation. Ever thought you'd get more out of golf?


spin

maryhelena

Hardly, re the golf

I've not given up on the text - after all it's the NT text that contains the NT storyline; a storyline that reflects theological developments and interpretations of historical realities. All textual analysis can deliver is a developmental chronology not historical realities. More textual analysis produces yet more NT interpretations - interpretations of interpretations - round and around on that merry-go-around...NT scholars will be debating the NT text until the cows come home...

Breakthroughs into the historical origins of christianity cannot come by analyzing the text of the NT storyline; analyzing an interpretation may be a fascinating pursuit, in and of itself, but it won't be producing anything meaningful as regards the history behind that NT storyline; the real history behind the NT pseudo-history of early christian origins. That's a mirage, an illusion, that needs to be put aside if it's the actual, the real history of early christian origins that one seeks.

Words, spin, words - the written stuff of texts - written words that are so very often unable to deliver the message one would like to send. Why this word and not that word - why a writer choses one word over another - and then motive comes into play and we are left to speculate - and speculate...

Far better to enjoy the NT text as it is - a theological and prophetic take on a certain historical time period. Great, amazing stuff - a literary monument to man's imagination. Worth a movie or two.

spin

Sleight of hand.


spin

maryhelena

Come off it spin - play nice - otherwise I'll be thinking you have a hot line to one who shall be nameless...:wave:

avi

1. I have no idea, absolutely none, how one would go about identifying the existence of a "credible scholar".
2. aa5874's analysis strikes me as both competent, and believable.
3. How, I mean, EXACTLY how, do these so-called "credible" scholars establish a date of 55CE?

What nonsense.

SHOW ME THE DATA.

avi

bacht

Thanks for bringing this up. I thought the only hard dating for Paul came from the book of Acts? Isn't it just as possible for him to have been traipsing around Asia Minor after 70?