Ubercat

One of God's greatest acts of mercy towards us all is to deny us proof of His Will.


It was pretty funny. A typical example of logic, on the rack, whimpering and begging for mercy, before a merciless christian.

-Ubercat

Steven Avery

Hi Gregor... this would be superimposing a liberal textual view over a conservative viewpoint in order to claim a contradiction. Although that is a standard motif here, it really is not scholastically or dialog honest.

The prets generally accept all of the New Testament as written pre-70 AD, including 2 Peter, the Pastorals and Revelation. In fact, there is a fair segment of conservative NT scholarship with similar views, even on Revelation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such thing as a "liberal textual view." There is good scholarship and bad scholarship. There is no good scholarship which argues for anything but the authentic Pauline corpus being pre-70 CE.

Steven Avery

Balderdash. I've been happy to debate on the forums such issues as the authorship and dating of 2 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles and seen and demonstrated how weak is so much of the liberal scholarship.

The liberal scholarship often places presumption upon presumption (exactly as was done on this thread) to demonstrate its points. As an example, Acts is put late, or not taken as a real historical document, so that what it clearly declares can be denied in evaluation of the Pastorals or 2 Peter. And the liberals (and the mythicists who piggy-back on the liberals) rarely can even see their abject circularity.

Of course there is one point that most conservative scholars can agree with the mythicist types. If the NT document really is a document of fraud and forgery (as the liberals proclaim) then there is no point in taking any of it seriously, on a spiritual level, and to most extent on a historical level. On that point the mythicists are more honest than the liberal scholarship.

The fact that the obvious circularity of the mythicist position (piggy-backing on one liberal position itself piggy-backing on another) is so hard for the folks on this forum to address honestly (most of them) is the most fundamental blinders in place. At least they should be honest enough to acknowledge that the truly conservative evangelical position is the one direct and subjstantial alternative to their view. Generally they are not.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic