FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2009, 01:09 AM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

You have any reference to Mark, (as we know it and not the bogus version via Eusebius' sock puppet, Papias ), prior to that time.

If so, please do tell.
Mt and Lk and possibly John.
That supposed to be a joke?

Reminds me of the minister in "Chuck and Larry"... "It's like a circle..."
dog-on is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 01:20 AM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post

Mt and Lk and possibly John.
That supposed to be a joke?

Reminds me of the minister in "Chuck and Larry"... "It's like a circle..."
Marcan priority is not a joke.
Vinnie is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 01:27 AM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

That supposed to be a joke?

Reminds me of the minister in "Chuck and Larry"... "It's like a circle..."
Marcan priority is not a joke.
...and what does that have to do with this???
dog-on is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 01:35 AM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post

Marcan priority is not a joke.
...and what does that have to do with this???
They are references to the existence of Mark that you asked for.
Vinnie is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 05:06 AM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

...and what does that have to do with this???
They are references to the existence of Mark that you asked for.


So when are your references referenced... :wave:
dog-on is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 07:53 AM   #56
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism.

Vinnie
If you believe that we should treat as authentic everything which has not been proven inauthentic, then I think our views of what is reasonable are so far apart that further discussion is futile.

Quote:
By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists,
The veracity of church tradition must be established before it becomes reasonable to use it in dating the texts. It has not been established, and in the cases where it is possible for us to independently test it, it is almost always grossly unreliable. It's just plain silly to pretend it's useful.
spamandham is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 11:02 AM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism. The Garraghan quote applies: "an an itch for novelties and an urge to upset (on no grounds of adequate evidence) established beliefs and traditions, especially those concerning the Church. This spurious criticism is the enemy of genuine science and serves only the cause of error.” By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists, just at the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It is not all or nothing. The real world has shades of grey unlike the deluded universes of apologists and hyper-skeptics.
Vinnie
This is interesting. Christians today are in the position of Jews in the 1st C, being challenged by "novelties" and the dismissal of the Torah.

We've already had close to two millenia to assess the the NT at face value. We're talking about religion, which is arguably the least rational of human pursuits. We're talking about clearly biased works promoting Catholic dogma. And the subject matter is primarily supernatural, so either the events reported are suspect, or the reporters are.

We know there were a lot of Christian apocrypha produced before Constantine. Writers weren't shy about creating stories from whole cloth in order to support their version of religion. "The means justifies the ends" seems to have been the guiding spirit rather than "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
bacht is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 11:13 AM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
That is not skepticism, its pedantic hyperskepticism.

Vinnie
If you believe that we should treat as authentic everything which has not been proven inauthentic, then I think our views of what is reasonable are so far apart that further discussion is futile.

Quote:
By dismissing all church tradition you are doing the same thing as the apologists,
The veracity of church tradition must be established before it becomes reasonable to use it in dating the texts. It has not been established, and in the cases where it is possible for us to independently test it, it is almost always grossly unreliable. It's just plain silly to pretend it's useful.
This is sophistry. I do not use "church tradition" in general. I use each work individually and compare it to others. No one is saying to merely accept church tradition (which church tradition?).
Vinnie is offline  
Old 08-25-2009, 11:44 AM   #59
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post

This is sophistry. I do not use "church tradition" in general. I use each work individually and compare it to others. No one is saying to merely accept church tradition (which church tradition?).
I think you may wish to look up the word "sophistry", if you plan on continuing to use it.

Regardless, we're done.
spamandham is offline  
 
Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 AM.

Top

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