spin

Just because you weren't there and are therefore ignorant of the situation, what else makes you wax lyrical rather than support your grumblings?

This is a quotable quote for your lack of perception.

Dig this folks, Gamera thinks:

Comparing Paul to Tacitus or Josephus, one can only conclude he had a broader education and more subtle intellect.



You're confusing sheisterism with "subtle intellect". Understandable when you have to convince yourself to put tickets on your people, rather than have a more objective view of the world.

Let me suggest that you read a bit more. Your analysis is underwhelming and your self-irony is overwhelming.


spin

spin

Julian was working on the historical evidence he had available to him. Is yours any better? Plainly not. You need to deal with his analysis. Instead you evince the common anti-Julian approach.

Well, stop worrying about the axe and deal with what he has to say. This dishonest appraoch of yours is not at all becoming.

When you talk about facts as though you had some, one would like to see a few.

Why don't you at least read what he is able to talk about rather than keeping your head in the sand. What evidence do you have to contradict his claim that Jesus and Paul did not aim at the higher levels of society?

What evidence do you have that anyone with any learning before Justin showed interest in christianity?

Why must you project your desires onto the matter we are looking into?


spin

spin

spin

spin

Gosh if the religious literature is too tough for you there, Gamera my good man, perhaps you could take up knitting or origami.

Just think of others saying something like: "I only read John because the synoptic gospels are confusing and ultimately indecipherable."

What a shallow comment, Gamera.


spin

rlogan

I'm hoping I can get Paul's reading list from Gamera.

Josephus lists a few meager sources in his works. But I want something substantial like Paul's.

And anyways, Josephus was such a pussy with nothing but an army of Jews

Now Paul - there's a man of substance.

Ben C Smith

I think I would put that the other way round! The synoptics seem a cinch compared to John at times.

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, mankind would have been much better served if God had not inspired the Bible writers to write confusing and ultimately indecipherable writings. Now how difficult would it be for a God to insprire writers to clearly oppose slavery?

In the KJV, 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Now what do you think Timothy meant by "scripture"? The only scripture that was available when Timothy wrote that was the Old Testament. In the NIV, Acts 17:11 says "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." The only scripture that the Bereans had was the Old Testament.

In your opinion, how did God communicate with believers during Old Testament times? Do you believe that God personally gave Moses the Ten Commandments? Do you believe that God made a land promise to Abraham? Try as you might, you will not be able get away with trying to throw the Old Testament out of the window, but I do sympathize with you because I certainly would not want to have to defend the Old Testament.

Doug Shaver

What accounts would those be? Who wrote them?

You need not list them all. A small sample will suffice.