Vinnie

Debate on what?

avi

Jstor, or the man in the moon, how do you know who wrote what in the second century CE?

?Written by Christians???

Vinnie, who wrote the Quran? When was it written? Do you suppose it was written by Muslims? Were there Muslims in the 7th century CE? I know there were bandits raiding caravans back then, illiterate bandits, but were there also practicing Muslims?

?Written by Christians?

The greater component of the "christian" apparatus, to the best of my understanding, was created by Constantine, not by the Jewish apostles. Vinnie, did the pagan, Greek literate newcomers to this novel religion in the second century CE, import their pagan traditions, or did they simply adopt, unquestioningly, the Jewish rituals of the Aramaic wing of this new religious movement?

Can you not see a problem here with our lack of knowledge of when various documents were composed, by whom, for what purpose, and whether or not any particular document, still extant, reflects an accurate reproduction of the original author's intent?

Vinnie

That is why the texts are historically investigated. I don't buy into arguments from incredibility.

Vinnie

avi

Vinnie, you are not answering my question.
How do you know, who wrote what, in the 2nd century? How do you know, specifically, that these documents, whatever they may be, were written by "Christians"?

IamJoseph

Some aspects of being stiff necked are excellent.

IamJoseph

Its not about who wrote it as much as what is written. If it bears to historical truth and goodness it will have merit. Both these factors are wanting in the gospels and its subsequent history. Where one religious system assumes transcendency over another by its own declaration, with no history of its observances, and in total contradiction of the original - alarm bells must ring. The latter never occured.

sschlichter

Did alarms go off when Moses presented the law? What precedent existed then?

bacht

Yup. Not only do people want Jesus to be true, they deny their emotional agenda or can't see it in themselves.

There seems to be a chasm between the gullible and the skeptical, with a few people in-between who can understand both sides. Gulls don't like the clarity of questioning everything, and skeptics don't like the comfort of surrendering to unexamined authority.

sschlichter

I expect there is another chasm on the other side of true skeptics where emotional agendas are just as hard to self-examine.

bacht

No doubt there are contrarians who like to to difficult, just as there are diehard apologists who won't listen to reason. Neither attitude is conducive to the pursuit of truth, they're both irrational (really childish) sets of behaviours.