Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 08-01-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

There is a document by catholic source, estimated written in the second century by the experts of textual criticism, which clearly let it guess that none of the so-called 'Pauline Epistles' may have been written by the character who is still today known incorrectly as 'Paul of Tarsus'. However, incredibly, nobody scholar that disputes the authenticity of the Pauline letters has ever mentioned it! ... And yet this document is considered genuine by the same catholic exegetes ...
.

Sounds interesting. Which document is that?
.

I think to speak about it when I will open the discussion about Paul of Tarsus.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn · 08-01-2010, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes, this I have to hear. Sounds like something from a DaVinci Code sequel. I am always interested in new material but wouldn't other scholars with this same slant (Ehrman, Avalos, Price) have already mentioned this text? Who knows. Crazier things have happened but ... still sounds like a Simcha Jacobovici project.
.

".. other scholars with this same slant (Ehrman, Avalos, Price) have already mentioned this text?.."

I think not, otherwise it would be known in this forum also.. However, not even here one has never spoken about it, I seem ....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Transient · 08-01-2010, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes, this I have to hear. Sounds like something from a DaVinci Code sequel. I am always interested in new material but wouldn't other scholars with this same slant (Ehrman, Avalos, Price) have already mentioned this text? Who knows. Crazier things have happened but ... still sounds like a Simcha Jacobovici project.
.

".. other scholars with this same slant (Ehrman, Avalos, Price) have already mentioned this text?.."

I think not, otherwise it would be known in this forum also.. However, not even here one has never spoken about it, I seem ....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

as they say "name the document or it didn't happen".

Littlejohn · 08-01-2010, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient:

as they say "name the document or it didn't happen".
.

Everyone is free to believe what they want .....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Splarnst · 08-01-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Everyone is free to believe what they want .....

Only in a limited sense. I'm not free to believe a rock falls up when you drop it.

my name which is already listed on the left

random punctuation at the bottom of this post

Solo · 08-01-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes, this I have to hear. Sounds like something from a DaVinci Code sequel.

Just out of curiosity, Stephan, what modern classic do you think would absorb your Secret Mark Jesus castrating his novices ?

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller · 08-01-2010, 02:33 PM

Well one could argue that the evidence for cockless Christians in the earliest period is so overwhelming it doesn't require invented fiction to support it. No one wanted to look under the robes of the Church Fathers. The pious don't want to see their father's nakedness. The mythicists aren't familiar enough with the original sources so they dwell instead on the idea of Christianity as a fiction.

Sometimes fact is more embarrassing than fiction.

ApostateAbe · 08-01-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

How often have we heard, "No modern scholar with relevant credentials doubts Jesus' historicity"? This ought to blow that argument out of the water.

Of course it won't. But it ought to.

If you change "No modern scholar with relevant credentials doubts Jesus' historicity" to "One modern scholar with relevant credentials doubts Jesus' historicity," I don't know what you would call it, but I wouldn't say that is blowing the claim out of the water. There are already several authors with Ph.D.s in New Testament studies who doubt Jesus' historicity, so I don't think the statement would be blown out of the water much farther than before. Taken as a percentage of the total (thousands of scholars), it really isn't anything unusual as far as unlikely theories or unlikely positions. It is only the complete nutso propositions that have zero percent support (like geologists who think the Earth is flat).

Littlejohn · 08-02-2010, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revolutionary:

Only in a limited sense. I'm not free to believe a rock falls up when you drop it.
.

Why? ... Who prevents you to make it? ...

Quote:

my name which is already listed on the left
random punctuation at the bottom of this post
.

All this means something? ...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Splarnst · 08-02-2010, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Why? ... Who prevents you to make it? ...

Prevents me to make what? Logic and evidence compel me. I can't ignore them without going insane or dying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

All this means something? ...

If I have to explain it, then not to you, apparently.

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

08-01-2010, 02:33 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well one could argue that the evidence for cockless Christians in the earliest period is so overwhelming it doesn't require invented fiction to support it. No one wanted to look under the robes of the Church Fathers. The pious don't want to see their father's nakedness. The mythicists aren't familiar enough with the original sources so they dwell instead on the idea of Christianity as a fiction. Sometimes fact is more embarrassing than fiction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.