sotto voce

Exactly. Liars. Crooks.

So let's cite Anglicans as examples of valid mainstream scholarship.

Won't that be novel, eh?

aa5874

This is most remarkable. I am VINDICATED.

Toto now admits that "there is almost NOTHING to ANCHOR Paul to any particular date.

This is PRECISELY what I have been saying for years.

Ehrman and Doherty and indeed a LARGE body of Scholarship are writing books based on the FALLACIOUS assumption that Acts is historically reliable.

But, even worse, the author of Acts did NOT claim Paul wrote any letters at all. The writer claimed Paul and his group DELIVERED a letter for the Jerusalem Church. See Acts 15.22-31

Fallacious assumptions about the historical reliability of Acts only result in Fallacious arguments.

The Large Body of Scholarship don't seem to know there is NOTHING to ANCHOR Paul.

I will ANCHOR PAUL with the DATED evidence.

I will ANCHOR PAUL OUTSIDE the 1st century based on the DATED Pauline writings.

Paul cannot be anchored by the fallacious assumptions of the Large Body of Scholarship.

spin

Evidence doesn't come from academics. Ideally they give their opinions based on evidence. Whatever the case it is the evidence that is important. Merely using those opinions is called argument from authority.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why does the author of the Pauline letters think that Jerusalem and the Temple are still intact?

James The Least

:realitycheck:


Thank you.

I asked for sources besides church doctrine.

aa5874

Why does Jesus in gMark 13 talk like Jerusalem and the Temple are still intact???

Why are the Pauline writings credible??? Please, we have been through this already. We cannot accept PRESUMPTIONS anymore.

If everybody PRESUME their OWN history then we will get nowhere on BC&H.

You must FIRST find corroborative credible sources for the Pauline writings.

Now, the Pauline writer did NOT really mention the Jewish Temple.

Examine the teachings of Paul. It was his converts who were the TEMPLE of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16 KJV
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are .

2 Corinthians 6:16 KJV
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Please, when did Paul write these things???

aa5874

But, Ehrman and Doherty and a 'large body of Scholarship' MUST depend upon Acts of the Apostles to claim the Pauline writings are early AND BEFORE C 70 CE

It is a most fallacious position since Acts of the Apostles itself is NOT dated by Paleography or scientific means to anytime before c 70 CE.

In fact, the earliest Papyrus of Acts is from sometime in the 3rd century.

Regardless of the statements in Acts of the Apostles SCHOLARS should know that it should NOT, should NOT be used to claim the Pauline writings are before c 70 CE.

Why is there a 'LARGE BODY of Scholars' employing Known Fallacious arguments??? Why is NOTHING being done to address this massive blatant error??

Something is wrong with Scholarship!!!! Books upon books are being produced day after day with Fallacious assumptions and nothing is being done.

Mankind deserve better from people who claim to be Scholars.

When we examine the Canonised short-ending gMark we can see that the author was NOT aware of the Canonised Pauline writings.

The short-ending gMark has ZERO theology--ZERO doctrine--Zero about Universal Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection--ZERO about a New religion.

The short-ending gMark was just a story about a character who was identified as the Son of God and was Betrayed, Abandoned, Denied and REJECTED by the Jews and was Caused to be crucified by his own people.

No human Jesus started any religion in Judea during the time of Pilate. The Jesus in the short-ending gMark was a fictitious character and all events surrounding him are either fiction or implausible and still did NOT commission the Jesus story.

Remarkably, even the FICTION CHARACTER called Jesus in the short-ending gMark did NOT authorise the preaching of the Gospel.

All Canonised stories about Post-resurrection visits are AFTER the short-ending gMark.

rlogan

Demanding "contrary views" to a view that does not exist is absurd. There is no Jesus in Christianity until sometime after 112 CE, when Pliny writes about them to Trajan. By the 130's you have Mark, who introduces the gospel with a Jesus. There is no Jesus to dispute until the myth is circulated a century after his alleged crucifixion.


This is a test to see how outrageously stupid the audience is. You take the thing Christians are most proud of - wow, how he fulfilled Isaiah right down to the letter in Prophecy, proved he was the messiah, then in the greatest comeback victory of all time he cheats death and lives forevermore!!

Yeah we're supposed to be so STUPID that we see Christians celebrating this, so much Joy over it - and believe they are embarassed by it? Hahahahaha. Yea.

You can't possibly be unawares of how closely the whole Passion sequence after the Last Supper follows Isaiah? I don't believe it.

"Pierced for our transgressions" is specifically Isaiah 53:5, from the Septuigint version. By his suffering we are saved. That is all non-Jewish hijacking of Jewish scriptures, but provides an ancient scriptural basis to Christianity that is urgent for defending against exactly what came: "You just invented a new religion."

Raising from the dead/cheating death? How about Psalm 16:10? here's someone who has organized it well, so many different books touch upon it in the Hebrew Bible:

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNs...surrection.htm

Five different sources so far, and we'll find more if we keep looking. Everlasting life - yeah there's a totally new idea. :grin:

aa5874

But, the short-ending gMark has nothing to do with religion or Christianity. gMark Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted and did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ before his trial.

There is really NO 'good news' about Jesus in the short-ending gMark. All the supposed Miracles served NO purpose because in the End he was Betrayed, Abandoned, Denied and Rejected.

The short-ending gMark is called a Gospel but it is NOT. It is just a STORY.

People of antiquity BELIEVED the story and then it was ALTERED for theological purposes to include Universal Salvation.

We can see the Changes in the Long ending gMark and gMatthew.

Sheshbazzar

The original 'Lardass' story of 'Stand by Me' fame. Everyone thought it was a terrific story....but 'then what did he do?'
And anonymous 'authors' took it upon themselves to make up 'better' endings to 'Mark's' tale.