Steven Avery

Hi folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv Yes, that is the overarching theme of this thread

I haven't read the thread, just skimmed a section and saw the quote 1 Thessalonians mis-reference so looked at that issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv I gather you consider every word of Pauline epistle as authentic, incuding the Pastorals?

Most assuredly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv There is no bright dividing line between the inauthentic epistes and the allegedly geniuine epistles.

I agree.
If one epistle is a forgery, the slope has been slipped and you might as well continue the slide.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spamandham

If you have a predetermined position, you can not participate in any meaningful way in a discussion that demands an open mind.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham The fact that ~1/2 the epistles have been proven to be fraud....

"If you have a predetermined position, you can not participate in any meaningful way in a discussion that demands an open mind."

(There is of course no such "fact", not even remotely with the most spin and the greatest flying and gliding leap-of-doubt.)

Shalom,
Steven

spamandham

If you want to be taken seriously, you can not simply dismiss the scholarly consensus out of hand. You have to support such dismissals, or you will quickly be relegated to the 'crank' category.

Maybe that doesn't bother you. :huh:

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham Quote: Originally Posted by Steven Avery (There is of course no such "fact", not even remotely with the most spin and the greatest flying and gliding leap-of-doubt.) If you want to be taken seriously, you can not simply dismiss the scholarly consensus out of hand. You have to support such dismissals, or you will quickly be relegated to the 'crank' category. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

spam ..it bothers me not at all that when I speak truthfully and consistently on a topic, as here, folks may try an ad hom response instead of seeking themselves to be consistent. They might find it to painful to speak accurately. The simple fact is you know that your factoids are hotly contested so you try to marginalize the messenger rather than commit yourself to dialog properly. A bit transparent.

If some non-existent "scholarly consensus" is the vaunted norm, y'all should just close up the forum, or at least ignore mythicist bunkum, rather than be concerned when a simple, truthful statement is made that many excellent scholars and thinkers and ploughmen all accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals as well as the other epistles. A contrary supposed factoid is an attempt to pre-sup a conceptual base favorable to your view that is not at all demonstrable; one that many folks counter very powerfully and strongly.

The simple solution is to say "with the theory ..." , "building on our acceptance of forgery a/b/c" rather than look a smidgen foolish claiming a non-existent factoid and then attacking the messenger who speaks truthfully to you about your comments.

Now it is true that there normally is a vacuum on this forum. Folks who will simply say "the New Testament writings are truthful documents" are not attracted here, they are not received particularly warmly if they express that view directly in contrary fashion to the normal dialog, and they can have a rough ride through the tulips.

Nonetheless, it is precisely the view that the Bible is fully reliable, that Paul is Paul and that Peter is Peter and Luke is Luke and Jude is Jude, that is the direct antithesis of the whole mythicist mishegas. If 'half' the NT writings are sensible and the other half are forgery and untruthful, really that is acceptable to the mythicist as well, as his main concern is to find a wedge and position to label the New Testament as anything other than 'the Scriptures'. The mythicist thing is largely a frill, an attempt to come up with a cutesy 'whole picture' approach, by ignoring lots of difficulties and embracing the wildest theories. And then claim the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.

However the "NT is accurate" position they will want to label as 'crank' so as not to have to deal with the issues consistently and logically.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Everything in this area is "hotly" contested because inerrantists will never say never, never give up hope.

You can recognize that you are in a distinct minority even among believers, or you can waste a lot of time.

"Dialoging properly" does not mean accepting your framework.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Everything in this area is "hotly" contested because inerrantists will never say never, never give up hope.

Wow.. true faith from Toto. Oh, I thought he said errantists !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto You can recognize that you are in a distinct minority even among believers, or you can waste a lot of time.

Does this have a point ? Do you define "believers" for me ? Are those who believe the New Testament is largely forgery "Bible believers" ? Why ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto "Dialoging properly" does not mean accepting your framework.

Not at all, it does mean not imposing falsely your framework in the middle of the argument as a sleight-of-type. That is what happens when someone talks to me and says "these epistles are proven forgery". After I stop laughing, I respond - "balderdash".

Now, as I pointed out above, mythicists may want to only operate in their own ghetto, where they expunge challenges by insisting a priori on what they are seeking to prove, the unreliability of the New Testament doctrines.

If that insistence is in the forum specs, it should be public. If it is not, I have every intellectual and logical right to point out 'factoids of convenience'. Even if I get shouted down 10 to 1, or told not to be in such-and-such a discussion by mod fiat, anybody can see that my position is sound from both an integrity and logical dialog-and-debate perspective. A person should be able to object to a non-fact without ad homs being the response, even if nothing else changes in the dialog.

================================================== ==========

Anyway, that being said, and being a new returnee to the forum, I will consider the point made and accomplished and let it be, if the responses are anywhere in the ballpark. And return to topics with less acrimony potential, such as JW and James Snapp on the Markan resurrection account of Jesus Christ. Or my unanswered question about how redaction theories try to get around the early languages and distribution of the NT. (As long as that can stay unacrimonized.) Or the fascinating case of Greek OT (LXX) tampering from Romans 3 into Psalm 14 !

Due to forum decorum concerns .. adieu for now, spam and spin .. have the last words.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spamandham

a. 80% of scholars support the conclusion that Ephesians and the Pastorals are pseudepigrapha. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm This certainly counts as a scholarly consensus.

b. The point is not that we shouldn't question the consensus, the point is that we can not simply hand wave it away if we disagree with it. Those promoting a minority position are under greater obligation to support their positions than those who do not.

This is a common sense expectation.

If the mythicists simply came here, declared the historicity of Jesus to be 'hotly contested', and walked away as if we should take them seriously, then they would certainly deserve to be ignored. But if they present an argument for why they support mythicism, then they deserve to be engaged.

I'm not sure why you're ranting about mythicism. It has nothing to do with the authenticity of the Epistles.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham Quote: Originally Posted by Steven Avery If some non-existent "scholarly consensus" is the vaunted norm, y'all should just close up the forum a. 80% of scholars support the conclusion that Ephesians and the Pastorals are pseudepigrapha. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm This certainly counts as a scholarly consensus.

Hmmm... so any belief where "the scholars" go 80/20 can be represented as a fact in dialog ?

What is your cutoff percent where you are not absolutely sure that the majority of "the scholars" are definitely giving you the truth. 65% 70% 51% ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the point?

Scholarship moves by consensus. When you go against the consensus, you have an extra burden of explaining and justifying your position.

While most people here are seeking some sort of truth, no one here should claim to have the Truth.