Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-31-2006, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Focus, focus. I quote virtually all of the Pauline canon, all of which show references to the crucifixion. If you want to continue to speculate about the authoriship of one or more works, that doesn't change the outcome of the claim that Paul referenced the crucifixion.

I'm aware of the debate. I disagree with your conclusions, which are irrelevant to the evidence I cited in any case. So try to focus on one thing at a time.

This was all just irrelevant. Talking about focus...

spin

spin · 05-31-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Making your case even weaker. You're now trying to normalize "disturbances" Could you possibly get any more impressionistic?

Tell us, can you site any studies which discuss the frequency of "grammatical disturbances" in texts with known interpolations, or are you just freelancing?

Don't bother. We know the answer.

Uh-huh.

You simply don't know how to deal with the issue so you throw up your hands and talk nonsense. Oh well.

spin

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This was all just irrelevant. Talking about focus...

spin

The issue is Paul's references to the crucifixion. You went off on a tangent about authorship of Pauline texts that refer to the crucifixion, even those Pauline texts that are clearly authored by Paul refer to the crucifixion.

See your irrelevancy now?

spin · 05-31-2006, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I'm blithely aware of it: you claimed "grammatic disturbances" in the text entitled you to conclude that the disturbances mark an interpolation. You seem blithely unaware of the assumptions of this remarkable claim, the least of which assumes you studied "grammatic disturbances" in other texts and therefore have reason to conclude they are associated with interpolations.

But in fact there are no studies. Thus your claims are utterly unsupported.

But keep trying, keep trying, and maybe we won't notice your lack of any studies supporting your claims about "grammatical disturbances" and their assoications with interpolations.

Ignoring much of an argument and aiming at what you don't understand makes for a guy with his pants down.

spin

darstec · 05-31-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You've confused authenticity with inspiration in determining the canon. You understand the difference I hope. A work could be excluded from the canon because (a) it was pseudographia, or

What made it pseudepigrapha? Isn't that an after the fact determination because it wasn't "inspired"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

(b) even if not pseudographia, it was considered not inspired.

I don't believe authorship was at issue in either of the cases you cite. The issue we're discussing is authorship, not inspiration. The former is factual, the latter is not.

If authorship is the issue then clearly the only fact we have is we don't know who authored any text of the New Testament (nor problably any of the Old Testament either). Nor do we know when they were authored. All we know for certain is that they seem to suddenly appear around the fourth century containing text we now have. And yet preciously little of even that can be scientifically dated before the eleventh century.

If something were 'authentic' because it was inspired, how can we tell what was inspired and what not? How can we tell what the source of the inspiration was? Warm, fuzzy feelings are difficult to measure scientifically especially when we don't know who had those warm fuzzies.

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

but they don't purport to be writing the gospel.

Neither did the men who wrote the books that came to be called gospels some years after they were written.

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

nobody took it as inspired fiction

How do you know that?

Amaleq13 · 05-31-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You've confused authenticity with inspiration in determining the canon. You understand the difference I hope. A work could be excluded from the canon because (a) it was pseudographia, or (b) even if not pseudographia, it was considered not inspired.

I don't think I'm the one confused on the point but I would be interested in any examples, other than the alleged identification of the forger of Acts of Paul, where "the people closest in time" applied rational thought to a critical examination of the evidence rather than theological preferences in order to reach the conclusion of inauthenticity. IOW, please support your asserted confidence in their judgment with evidence.

Quote:

I don't believe authorship was at issue in either of the cases you cite.

Are you seriously suggesting that Serapion considered the Gospel of Peter both heretical and authentic?

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The issue is Paul's references to the crucifixion.

When and where did Paul believe the crucifixion happened? And how do you know?

Gamera · 06-05-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

When and where did Paul believe the crucifixion happened? And how do you know?

(a) He references the crucifixion in virtually all of his epistles.

(b) Cruxificion was a Roman practice, limiting it as to time.

(c) He references Christ's death as happening at a time when "we were yet sinners," strongly implying that Jesus died during his lifetime and that of his audience.

Roman 5:1 -

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. 6 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man--though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.