Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

Tell you what old boy, When you stop evading ninety percent of what I have written, I'll show you mine, when you show me yours.

I never made such claims. You are imagining things. Those are strawmen.

You are the one who have discredited the contents of the anonymous letter and have proceeded to say what you imagined happened.

YOUR POST #139 above, AA;

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...It has been pointed out on multiple occasions and by many scholars that 'the church', (if it could even accurately described as such) was small, very disorganized, and composed of multiple sectarian groups all in opposition, and competition with to one another.

I no longer accept imaginary evidence. If people want to argue history then they MUST, MUST, MUST provide their sources.

When I make statements I must get my sources but other people here just BLURT out what they imagine is true. I am done with that. If you have NO sources then please move on.

You challenge my statement that;

Quote:

"It has been pointed out on multiple occasions and by many scholars that 'the church', (if it could even accurately described as such) was small, very disorganized, and composed of multiple sectarian groups all in opposition, and competition with to one another.

Alleging by your words that my evidence of this is "imaginary" and that I either have not or am unable to provide 'evidence' that the Church of the 1st century CE WAS [B]small, disorganized, and comprised of multiple sectarian groups at odds with each other.'[b]

Then you follow that up with the implied insult that I just BLURT out what I imagine is true.

Why in the HELL should I not be calling you out on this kind of HORSE-SHIT???

You want to MAKE a FU#KING ARGUMENT? Well then you damn well got one!

Now provide your god-damned 'non-imaginary' EVIDENCE that proves contrary to my statements that the

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

Damn right it is a strawman argument. And YOU are the one that started it.

Now you can either admit that you were being a total jackass in suggesting that I should move on and leave you to make more your ass-hat statements.

OR PUT UP.

You say you have these 'non-imaginary' credible 'sources' and EVIDENCE that refute that simple statement I made about the conditions of the church
of the 1st century CE ???

Then I am asking you to provide me this amazingly 'credible' EVIDENCE and information.
Or to retract your statement.

Then we can get back to discussing When The Epistle of First Clement was written.

Your post is all STRAWMAN. You are just making all sorts of wild accusations instead of providing the sources for your stories about the anonymous letter.

Sheshbazzar · 04-26-2012, 01:02 AM

Its not a wild accusation. You wrote what you wrote. Now BACK IT UP.

And I will provide the sources for my stories about the anonymous letter, and there are many.

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Its not a wild accusation. You wrote what you wrote. Now BACK IT UP.

And I will provide the sources for my stories about the anonymous letter, and there are many.

ALL Strawman. I do not need any thing from you.

Sheshbazzar · 04-26-2012, 07:26 AM

One thing you ought to do though. Is take time to carefully read, and make sure you understand what others are saying, BEFORE firing of a lot of mistaken and insulting verbiage.

I know it is 'against your religion' for you to ever admit to making any errors.
But some of them in this thread have been downright senseless and totally unnecessary.

Such as this senseless and totally unnecessary fiasco in POST #142;

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....
These were just the anonymous writers metaphors and exemplars for the 'Church' -as a whole- (and of all ages) to stop their infighting, and accept the order, and authority of the established leaders, and of that organization already established, and to mutually support one another.

Come on, let us get those sources for when the the squabble occurred. You have altered the story in the letter it is addressed to the Corinthians from the Romans. ...

You mean the Church wrote a letter to itself??

1. I did NOT in any way alter the story

2. What I actually wrote, in no suggested that 'the Church wrote a letter to itself.'

Talk about a 'strawman' argument.

And then when your mistaken understanding is pointed out to you, you cannot even be polite enough to even say 'Oops!' ???
But just continue to soldier merrily on your way, pretending that you didn't put your foot in the shit. ?

If you can't 'fess up' to your mistakes, you can expect the stink to be hanging around you for a long time, 'cause the shit is still on your shoe.

Not that I myself never make any such mistakes, but when I do I correct them, and when I don't catch them in time, and they are pointed out to me by others, I apologies and admit to the error.

Quote:

I do not need any thing from you.

You mean that you do not want to have to answer all of those questions that are now going to asked of you regarding the period from 70CE through 325 CE?
And all of those writers and their many works, that make innumerable references to 'Clement', long before... 'after the 5th century' ?

.
.

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

One thing you ought to do though. Is take time to carefully read, and make sure you understand what others are saying, BEFORE firing of a lot of mistaken and insulting verbiage.

I know it is 'against your religion' for you to ever admit to making any errors.
But some of them in this thread have been downright senseless and totally unnecessary.

Such as this senseless and totally unnecessary fiasco in POST #142;

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....
These were just the anonymous writers metaphors and exemplars for the 'Church' -as a whole- (and of all ages) to stop their infighting, and accept the order, and authority of the established leaders, and of that organization already established, and to mutually support one another.

Come on, let us get those sources for when the the squabble occurred. You have altered the story in the letter it is addressed to the Corinthians from the Romans. ...

You mean the Church wrote a letter to itself??

1. I did NOT in any way alter the story

2. What I actually wrote, in no suggested that 'the Church wrote a letter to itself.'

Talk about a 'strawman' argument.

And then when your mistaken understanding is pointed out to you, you cannot even be polite enough to even say 'Oops!' ???
But just continue to soldier merrily on your way, pretending that you didn't put your foot in the shit. ?

If you can't 'fess up' to your mistakes, you can expect the stink to be hanging around you for a long time, 'cause the shit is still on your shoe.

Not that I myself never make any such mistakes, but when I do I correct them, and when I don't catch them in time, and they are pointed out to me by others, I apologies and admit to the error.

Quote:

I do not need any thing from you.

You mean that you do not want to have to answer all of those questions that are now going to asked of you regarding the period from 70CE through 325 CE?
And all of those writers and their many works, that make innumerable references to 'Clement', long before... 'after the 5th century' ?

.
.

You are merely producing ALL STRAW!!! Your response has deteriorated simply because you have NO sources for your stories about the anonymous letter.

Sheshbazzar · 04-26-2012, 08:34 PM

When do you believe 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was written?

When do you believe 'The Muratorian Canon' was written?

Sheshbazzar · 04-28-2012, 07:28 AM

When do you believe 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was written?

When do you believe 'The Muratorian Canon' was written?

ring....ring....ring;

Hello? aa5874? anybody there??

Leave Message to aa5874;

Sheshbazzar here,

I have missed your non-imaginary and credible replies to these two questions.

You know how it is; If people want to argue history then they MUST, MUST, MUST provide their sources.

Catch ya latter.

-click-

.

aa5874 · 04-28-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

When do you believe 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was written?

When do you believe 'The Muratorian Canon' was written?

ring....ring....ring;

Hello? aa5874? anybody there??

Leave Message to aa5874;

Sheshbazzar here,...

You "DIALED" the wrong number. You are on the wrong thread.

To get a live response from aa5874 you have to DEAL with the OP.

Now, this is a recording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In order to do a SERIOUS inquiry into the Anonymous letter attributed to some Clement of Rome we cannot PRESUME anything first.

The mere fact that the letter is anonymous means that dating the letter by its author is virtually impossible.

However, apologetic sources have attributed the anonymous letter to some Clement who was Bishop of Rome.

It has been found that the time when Clement was Bishop is completely uncertain and this uncertainty also means that the chronology of Bishops before and After Clement is in chaos.

Next, the anonymous letter mentioned certain characters like PAUL whom it is claimed wrote an epistle to the Church but as usual, there is NO credible evidence that Paul wrote any letters in the 1st century.

The earliest dating of the Pauline letters [P 46] by Paleography is the mid 2nd-3rd century

1. The letter is anonymous.

2. The time when Clement was Bishop is NOT certain.

3. The Pauline letters [P 46] are dated mid 2nd-3rd century.

4. "Against Heresies" first mentions Clement and the anonymous letter but is a source that is NOT credible or is Contradicted by other apologetic sources--most people of Rome claimed Clement was the second Bishop NOT the fourth.

So, based on the Present available evidence, P 46, the anonymous letter which mentions a Pauline Epistle can only be dated to some after or around the mid 2nd-3rd century.

There is insufficient credible evidence for any earlier date.

If you want to see this message again select this number #7152951/#158 in this thread.

jdl · 04-28-2012, 08:41 AM

Hahaha.

Sheshbazzar · 04-28-2012, 09:20 AM

Oh well, as we are not going to get a live connection to aa5874.

Guess I'll just have to talk about 'THE MURATORIAN CANON' and 'The Shepherd of Hermas' with others here who might be interested in what these questions have to do with aa5874's arguments in this thread, and what they have to do with his 'non-imaginary' 'credible' 'sources' and their usage.

A little search (anyone can do it) shows that aa5874 has employed 'THE MURATORIAN CANON' to support his arguments and positions -47 times- in the last couple of months.

In fact aa5874's references outweigh by a huge margin, all other references to 'THE MURATORIAN CANON' that have been made in BC&H.

With such choice tidbits as;

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The MURATORIAN CANON has EXPOSED that the Pauline writings are FORGERIES and FRAUDULENT.

The MURATORIAN CANON has DESTROYED the Credibility of the PAULINE letters and the History of the Church.
here

and;

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I can't deal with your unsubstantiated PRESUMPTIONS and IGNORE the written statement found in the MURATORIAN CANON. here

And many other such citations.

Thus asking aa5874 when he thinks The MURATORIAN CANON was written, and whether he considers the information contained therein as credible, and authentic, is quite germane to the course of this thread, and to the establishing of the sources for our various arguments.

THE MURATORIAN CANON mentions both 'The Shepherd of Hermas' and 1 Clement.
And The Shepherd of Hermas, (generally dated not latter than 156 CE) also mentions the sending of an epistle to Clement for distribution to the Churches abroad by Clement.

If aa5874 disputes the credibility of information found in THE MURATORIAN CANON, one might wonder why he has repeatedly employed its contents to shore up many of his arguments?

If THE MURATORIAN CANON is a late forgery created after the publication of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, it is of no value at all in validating or disproving anything at all concerning them.

If The Gospels and Epistles existed before THE MURATORIAN CANON, then the MURATORIAN CANON confirms their prior existence and acceptance.
If you date the Gospels and Pauline Epistles as late, it follows that THE MURATORIAN CANON must be even latter.

So aa5874, in your opinion, was THE MURATORIAN CANON, which you have been employing in your arguments, also composed after the 5th century?

You ignore the question at the risk of disqualifying your own arguments -based upon THE MURATORIAN CANON-, that you have made in several recent threads.

Care to explain for everyone?

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

04-26-2012, 01:02 AM	#152
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Its not a wild accusation. You wrote what you wrote. Now BACK IT UP. And I will provide the sources for my stories about the anonymous letter, and there are many.

04-26-2012, 08:34 PM	#156
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	When do you believe 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was written? When do you believe 'The Muratorian Canon' was written?

04-28-2012, 07:28 AM	#157
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	When do you believe 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was written? When do you believe 'The Muratorian Canon' was written? ring....ring....ring; Hello? aa5874? anybody there?? Leave Message to aa5874; Sheshbazzar here, I have missed your non-imaginary and credible replies to these two questions. You know how it is; If people want to argue history then they MUST, MUST, MUST provide their sources. Catch ya latter. -click- .

04-28-2012, 08:41 AM	#159
jdl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auckland Posts: 85	Hahaha.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.