Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-23-2012, 04:49 PM

AA, it's not simply a question of make contradictory declarative statements but a pattern that suggests several hands at work which escaped concern presumably because the texts did not acquire the status of "The word of God" for a long time into the 5th century and were used as the basis for sermons that didn't require that degree of consistency and detail as talking points. The preacher could just fill in the rest, so to speak, since although they weren't holy script they were respectable documents written by respectable individuals who each interpreted the original story differently based on different "traditions."

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yet as I have pointed out before, even in Galatians 1 there is a contradiction whether the revelation came from God or from Jesus. Compare verses 12 and 16. Yet no internal correction, as you would call it, of the inconsistency. A sign of multiple hands involved in these as composites.The same kind of inconsistence in Acts where despite the statement in Acts 9 that he is supposed to proclaim to Jews and gentiles, unlike Galatians, yet when he is rejected by the Jews, the inconsistent answer is as if he is going to do something he did not originally plan to do, i.e. to go to the gentiles in Acts 18:6. Thus, contradictions all over the place with no "corrections,"

You very well know that a person can make contradictory statements so it is NOT at all logical that contradictions in the Pauline writings are likely from more than one author.

Have you ever been to a court trial??? Every day people make contradictory statements.

aa5874 · 05-23-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, it's not simply a question of make contradictory declarative statements but a pattern that suggests several hands at work which escaped concern presumably because the texts did not acquire the status of "The word of God" for a long time into the 5th century and were used as the basis for sermons that didn't require that degree of consistency and detail as talking points. The preacher could just fill in the rest, so to speak, since although they weren't holy script they were respectable documents written by respectable individuals who each interpreted the original story differently based on different "traditions."...

What pattern are you talking about??? Again, you present imaginary evidence as history.

Please show that the Pauline writings were used in sermons and did NOT acquire status as the Word of God for a long time???

Why do you constantly argue from your IMAGINATION??

We have the WRITTEN statements in the Pauline writings there is NO need to imagine anything.

Duvduv · 05-23-2012, 06:53 PM

The texts have a pattern of confusion and internal contradictions, and contradictions between them indicating more than one hand. Acts itself and the epistles. I suppose you believe that the gospels were all written by a single person or authority as well. And the emerging church was seeking to establish the texts as a canon of texts into the 5th century, starting from the earlier period which you would disagree with as being in the early 4th century as exhibite by the so-called first Nicene Creed and writings attributed to Justin, both of which did not know of the pauline writings or even the canonical gospels.

aa5874 · 05-23-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The texts have a pattern of confusion and internal contradictions, and contradictions between them indicating more than one hand. Acts itself and the epistles. I suppose you believe that the gospels were all written by a single person or authority as well. And the emerging church was seeking to establish the texts as a canon of texts into the 5th century, starting from the earlier period which you would disagree with as being in the early 4th century as exhibite by the so-called first Nicene Creed and writings attributed to Justin, both of which did not know of the pauline writings or even the canonical gospels.

Again, you have ZERO evidence that one person could NOT have written any Pauline letter.

You seem to believe without evidence. I do not accept belief as evidence. History is NOT re-constructed on mere belief.

Duvduv · 05-23-2012, 08:10 PM

The evidence is the confusion and contradictions, as well as flow of the text, and context.

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

05-23-2012, 06:53 PM	#33
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The texts have a pattern of confusion and internal contradictions, and contradictions between them indicating more than one hand. Acts itself and the epistles. I suppose you believe that the gospels were all written by a single person or authority as well. And the emerging church was seeking to establish the texts as a canon of texts into the 5th century, starting from the earlier period which you would disagree with as being in the early 4th century as exhibite by the so-called first Nicene Creed and writings attributed to Justin, both of which did not know of the pauline writings or even the canonical gospels.

05-23-2012, 08:10 PM	#35
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The evidence is the confusion and contradictions, as well as flow of the text, and context.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.