Kapyong

Gday,

Seriously ?

Since we cannot prove that there are no leprechauns, it is best to keep it in there as a possibility.

Since we cannot prove that there are no faeries, it is best to keep it in there as a possibility.

Since we cannot prove that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn, it is best to keep it in there as a possibility.

K.

Jaybees

Ah yes! Dating things. An especially difficult task when the evidence is:
1. So fragmentary.
2. So dubious.
3. So biased

Fragmentary because we don't have any of the original writings about Jesus or his early followers. What we do have are oral legends, and perhaps some earlier writings, pieced together to become the canon of Chistianity. And those fragments seem to vary from one Christian cult to another.

Dubious because the first extant writings on the subject are mostly in Greek, not in the original language of the first Christians--Jews who spoke Aramaic.

Biased, because it wasn't until a hundred or so years after the death of Jesus that we have a non-Christian reference to either him or his followers.

spin

So we're not getting any dating indications from you, I must assume.


spin

avi

What about the possibility that the first Christians were Jews who spoke Greek? (or non-Jews who spoke Greek?)

avi

WilliamRS

Really a good demonstration of someone who has no idea of logic or of facts. First of all, the NT is a collection of 27 different writings by different authors, that much is clear. It is not an integral document and therefore, your conclusion is erroneous on that basis alone. If you can't see that then you shouldn't even be discussing this but that isn't your purpose anyway.

Let me suggest this to you, the scholars don't have to be right, all they have to do is cast reasonable doubt on the nonsense you are told in church and raise questions which are begging to be asked but are never touched upon in church. You only hear sermons on the topics that will keep you away from the tough questions that apologists must try to deal with and which they never successfully do.

Fundy theology is so riddled with circular logic and contradictions it's pathetic. The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God when it was written by men is entirely devoid of any kind of reason or logic whatsoever. Then you have 2Tim 3:16 used to justify the bible as the word of God but there was no bible at the time. So to what writing was Paul referring? Not the Jewish Law because he rejected it and whenever he did refer to it he used an article to precede it which was not used in this passage.

Then you have the whole issue that there were many other writings that have sayings of Jesus which are very much opposed to fundy and catholic theology and which were at the time they were written considered scripture. The NT was chosen by men and not by God so how is it possible that it is inerrant if all men are sinners?

Steve Weiss

You blaspheme and must surely be going to hell for speaking the truth.

Steve Weiss

If a believer does not make a rational case for a claim, the claim fails and requires no rebuttal. To assert that something is even possible requires non-contradictory, in context evidence. That for which there is no evidence can just be ignored. In addition, there is no comprehensible definition of an entity referred to as a god, so the assertion is about nothing and presents nothing in its defense.

sugarhitman

Thanks newcomer, but yes the NT was written by different authors. Thanks for telling me what I already know. The question is, if these authors were from the Greek Church, which adopted Replacement Theology quite early...then how can you explain the pro-Israel statements in the texts?...all way up to the book of Revelations? for instance:


Romans 11:25


That shows that Israel remains the Chosen nation destined for salvation...which undermines Replacement Theology adopted by the early Church. We find this theme even in Revelation....therefore the Texts had to be written before the Church adopted Replacement Theology...because this teaching is not in the Texts.

WilliamRS

Big if, there was also a very sizable community in Egypt who wrote in Greek and they were generally gnostic. Revelation is considered by some to be an adaptation of Egyptian Mystery writings to early Christianity while others see it as more akin to Judaism. The authorship of all the books of the NT is uncertain and so your contention is baseless.

sugarhitman

OOOO the irony. :funny: